Now you're making shit up about "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" to shore up your ridiculous dichotomy that even you don't actually believe.
Right but even that's absurd. You're basically saying "people shouldn't be able to use protests to veto whatever they want, unless it's A Good Reason™". For one, what is "A Good Reason"? How would the judicial or executive branch decide? Or is it up to the court of public opinion? Shouldn't that be left up to the legislature than whoever is terminally online on twitter or whatever? What happens if I think it's A Good Reason but you don't?
>Now you're making shit up about "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" to shore up your ridiculous dichotomy that even you don't actually believe.
I'm not sure how "they believe the protestors can do no wrong" is an incorrect depiction unless you interpret "can do no wrong" literally, to mean that even if they committed war crimes or whatever they'd be still left off the hook. It's pretty clear what's happening is that the protesters in question are fighting for a cause that some commenters support, and as a result they're given extra leeway to conduct activities that would otherwise be considered illegal. For instance if a bunch of farmers[1] decided to protest in a major capital by setting up encampments and blocking traffic for weeks, I doubt they'd be left off the hook.
[1] feel free to replace with other groups if you happen to sympathize with them, eg. NIMBYs, white nationalists, etc.