Not to mention, the largest difference is that during the BLM protests you saw daily police brutality against the protesters from day one, with tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. You did NOT see police taking selfies on the steps of the buildings they were supposed to keep the protesters out of.
Even if the people defending the Red House did call it an autonomous zone, their only real demands were to protect the livelihood of one family. They did not seek to expand, they did not try to gain political power from it,they did nothing that I would actually view as a significant attempt to challenge the authority of the state beyond a very specific case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone
I fail to see how this can be presented as comparable in gravity with people attacking the Capitol building with the intent of overturning the result of the federal election.
But there is a difference between demanding social change and demanding to take down a politician or to overturn an election.
>(except for police),
I rest my case.
I think if you compare a single event with a large number of different events, you’ll find examples where one is worse by some measure and others where one is better. I don’t really want to comment on the recent events or the validity of the argument (or it’s spirit), but I think it probably isn’t reasonable to compare a single event with the aggregate of many different events.
And it's not just the fact that the police allowed it to happen or that the military was not asked to intervene until way too late.
It's also the alarmingly not-alarmed media response. What happened to "thugs" or "rioters" or "enemy combatants"?