This is like hearing someone at a bank saying they were scared a masked robber was going to murder them, and responding “were you scared of the customer who came in before them murdering you too?”
The terrorists who stormed the capital on Wednesday have a history of violence and connections to various far right extremist and terrorist groups. They came carrying weapons, zip ties and bombs. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between the two groups.
And the last 6 months of race riots? I'll take a few smashed windows and pictures taken in congress over tens of millions in burned and stolen property, assaults and murders in basically every city in the country. "Only my side's political violence is acceptable." That's what I get from facebook.
The BLM protests — the overwhelming majority of which were peaceful [1] — stretched over 6 months and involved thousands of events and millions of people. After all that… 19 people died [1].
The terrorist attack yesterday exceeded a quarter of that death toll in a matter of hours.
I don't know how to explain that invading our nation's capitol with the intent of capturing and murdering politicians is different than breaking into a Target.
I appreciate you taking the time to tell me how to think. I know what I saw both locally and on TV. You can give me as many bubble-filtered thoughts as you like, but you're trying to convince me that I saw and experienced something that I didn't see and experience.
Let me know when I can't get my wife's medication again because right wing ""terrorists"" smashed up my pharmacy, or when parts of my city are completely off limits for violence, or when one the teachers in my school district gets arrested for assaulting somebody filming them burning a car. I'm not losing sleep over congress getting delayed for a couple of hours. I'll keep my perspective that all political violence is bad, and that I want little to do with politics in general, but one side of extremists in particular has caused more problems for me than another.
"Your argument amounts to, 'when a customer enters the bank, it's okay.'"
Just because two groups have opposing political aims doesn't mean they're equivalent. One attempted to take our nation's capital by force, the other attempted a sit in.
Show me literally one single source that indicates the Women's March people were out for blood. Were there any casualties? Injuries? Was there even any fighting?
Show me one source that proves that the trump supporters were “out for blood.”
The point of the protest was not to “take the capital by force.” That’s cartoonish and unrealistic. The point was to express disapproval of the election results. Where do you get your information from?
Sicknick died as a result of a blood clot in his brain. His death was not the direct result of any protestors actions.
Show you a source that says the people who murdered someone were out for blood? You say he died due to a blood clot in his brain, but the police statement says that he died due to injuries sustained while physically engaging with protestors, and a homicide investigation is open.
Not literally everyone was there to take the capitol, obviously. But that was the point for many people. This was entirely predictable. See [1] [2] or especially [3], wherein someone back in December describes exactly what ended up happening.
Why bring guns and zip ties if you're not there for violence?
> Why bring guns and zip ties if you're not there for violence?
Got it, so you have no evidence they were out for blood. It’s just a bad faith assumption on your part, ignoring that people often carry weapons for good faith reasons. Ignoring that no one was attacked with said guns except for the protestors.
It has not been proven that Sicknick was murdered. He died due to a blood clot that happened while he was on duty.
I never claimed the women’s March storming of the capital were out for blood.
Ashli Babbitt was killed by law enforcement. If law enforcement was not deployed it’s not clear there would have been any deaths. If law enforcement were deployed on the women’s March Storming of the capital, maybe they would have injured or killed protestors as well.
But regardless, the actions of the maga protestors did not directly cause the death of anyone. Doesn’t matter what you want to assume about their guns, you can’t deny that.
Your original question was whether OP was scared of the Women’s March murdering them. The implication is that by some important metric, the sit in was indistinguishable from the terrorist attack on Wednesday. You haven’t provided any evidence for that, other than telling me that it’s bad faith to presume violent intent behind the armed people scaling walls and breaking down doors.
We haven’t even mentioned that many of the invaders came bearing Nazi symbols and/or were members of known violent groups like the Proud Boys. I suppose that it’s unfair to presume that someone wearing a 6MWE shirt isn’t coming to be peaceful?
Obviously it’s impossible to prove conclusively whether or not there would have been deaths without law enforcement. But there are multiple accounts of them assaulting journalists. What do you think they would have done had they made it to the floor of the Senate without police there?
What, exactly, do you think the zip ties were for?
I will concede that a medical examiner has not confirmed the officer’s cause of death. But signs point to him being killed by one of the terrorists, so I’ll continue to describe it as murder until evidence arises to the contrary.
> Your original question was whether OP was scared of the Women’s March murdering them.
Yes the point of the question was to tease out what concrete differences there were between the two to justify fear of murder in the second case. It seems like his fear is more based on narrative and assumption of bad faith than any direct evidence of intent to “take the capital” violently. The violence was perpetrated against the protestors, not by them.
> But signs point to him being killed by one of the terrorists, so I’ll continue to describe it as murder until evidence arises to the contrary.
You should assume innocence until proof of wrongdoing. Anything else is illiberal.
Except what you’re saying is false. Democrats overwhelmingly condemned the riots and violence during the BLM protests. But most protests and protestors were peaceful and they supported those ones.
If everyone is going to knowingly twist facts like your post does, there is no point in even trying to debate.
Snopes: Campaign staffers for U.S. Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden contributed to a bailout fund for protesters arrested after the police in-custody death of George Floyd.
Can you talk about rioting as a tactic? What are the reasons people deploy it as a strategy?
It does a number of important things. It gets people what they need for free immediately, which means that they are capable of living and reproducing their lives without having to rely on jobs or a wage — which, during COVID times, is widely unreliable or, particularly in these communities is often not available, or it comes at great risk. That's looting's most basic tactical power as a political mode of action.
> Biden has publicly stated his opposition to the cash-bail system, referring to the practice as a “modern-day debtors’ prison.” However, no evidence exists to suggest that donated funds came directly from the campaign.
You do realize posting bail isn’t excusing the punishment?
And Biden repeatedly condemned violence and the rioters. He and the other prominent dems did not spend months encouraging them.
And that NPR article is some rando, not a Congress person or anyone else important. Why did you even bring up some rando? If that’s the most relevant person you can find then you’re providing strong evidence against your case.
>You do realize posting bail isn’t excusing the punishment?
There is no need to excuse or not excuse. People’s words are rarely as enlightening about their value system as their actions. By promoting the posting of bail for those arrested during protests in which much harm was caused those that promoted that bailout show that they are interested in continuing those actions. If Democrats such as Sen Harris held as a value the true problem of process as punishment and the unfair cash bail, there was plenty of time before and after that point in history to promote it. By choosing that point in time they actions spoke louder than words as to what they value.
I’m glad that the president elect has spoken against cash bail although it seems to be a subject out of his federal expertise.
NPR and particular parts of the organization are ostensibly nonpartisan but are in such alignment with Democratic Party positions value-wise that the assertion of nonpartisanship is a distinction is without a difference. I write and think that as a lifelong listener. By promoting “In Defence of Looting” when they did it was clear that it wasn’t a random book review but an editorial statement of what behavior was acceptable and a dramatic non-denunciation of extra-legal actions taken by people peripheral to the protests of the period.
Would you be willing to wager something about some concrete action a Biden administration could take about cash bail that would indicate a care for the topic outside of the quadrennial BLM protests? It might be a block grant to assist municipalities in decreasing cash bail or a regulatory restriction on funding that encouraged the same, or some other class of concrete action that wasn’t just words.
Fiy, California had repeatedly tried to end cash bail. California’s senator, and the 2nd in command in Biden’s admin, has also advocated abolishing cash bail. Are you seriously telling me you think the only reason you think the Biden admin cares is political points on the left during BLM protests?
> Why not pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who came to DC to protest but had nothing to do with the storming of the capitol?
Because they didn’t break into congress? There’s a special type of attention you deserve when you form a mob and storm national legislatures (as seen on TV!), and neither the peaceful protesters from the Trump rally or BLM did that.
There is a fundamental difference between storming the house with the intent of stopping a democratic process (the confirming of the next president) and marching to it to deliver a message.
I sincerely hope you don't mean this to be comparable. Beating police with batons? Stealing their riot shields? Spraying them with mace? Stealing property from the capitol?
You and I both know that if all the folks did yesterday was go into the Capitol and march and chant in the halls, they'd be framed as deranged lunatics who might've gone a bit too far - not domestic terrorists. Show me the video evidence from the women's march where they coordinated a group to push into the police while yelling for "fresh patriots" to come to the front line and push back.
The left was basically allowed to freely enter the Senate building, in an attempt to sway the ongoing confirmation vote of a scotus justice, and met little to no police resistance, and it was celebrated by the media.
Replace "confirmation" with "certification", and "scotus justice" with "president," and what's the difference, politically?
the left portends to have authoritative insight over the intent of others... based only on their biased perception or desire. And that is precisely the problem.
You just did it to me.
The media does it depending on whether they want "mostly peaceful protests march" or "attempted violent coup."
There is no honest way to suggest that the events of this week are comparable to the events surrounding the protesting of appointments.
I will note however, that you're subtly changing the topic when you change your argument from the protests about the appointment of a judge to the "mostly peaceful protests".
Again, this is bad faith. You are just moving the goal posts to try and suite your argument.
Edit: I conflated the womens march with the protest about the appointment of scotus judge.
> You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous.
This is beyond bad faith, this is an open "fuck you" to anyone that dares participate in this discussion. To shut it down, to make any sort of dialogue impossible.
And you say the left wants to censor, what a laugh.
The only "bad faith" going on here is the left's pathetic attempt to shut down any mention of the political violence that they have been encouraging and celebrating for the last 4 years and the 6 months of nationwide rioting they've cheered on.
As if smashing doors and climbing through them while armed guards tell you not to with congress fleeing on the other side is not "directly threatened".
The absurdity of these arguments is astounding. What's worse, they seem to be thinking that they are making sense and that there is some global conspiracy on the left to "silence them".
The rest of the world is standing in awe and shock at the US.
In this false equivalence you're trying to make, did the people in the women's march come with zip ties to kidnap congressmen? Did they come to interfere with the electoral process? Did they steal? Were they violent?
How are they not equivalent? Both were organized protests intended on occupying the capitol for the sake of airing out their political grievances. What truly harmful action took place that was caused by the protestors? Be specific.
The only difference that in can see is that during the 1/6/21 event, the police were called in. They attacked and killed 4 protestors.
Maybe you don't know that 60 Capital Police were seriously injured, 15 remain in the hospital, and one is confirmed dead from the attack.
Maybe you don't know that of the 4 rioters that died, one had a heart attack (unconfirmed), one was shot and the others were trampled (by the mob).
Maybe you didn't know that congresspeople from both sides of the isle hid in closets and under desks, terrified and afraid for their lives.
Maybe you just didn't know these things, and got them wrong. But when confronted with them, you aren't going to say "oh sorry I was mistaken." You will respond with whataboutism and other deflection, to preserve your worldview that this wasn't a mob and Trump didn't do anything wrong, etc.
Which was OP's point. This isn't a good faith discussion. You are either ignorant of the truth (and will respond poorly when confronted with it), or you know the truth and are cynically lying about reality to win a rhetorical game.
This is the nature of all bad faith political discussion, which is why I (try to) avoid it all together.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about me for someone claiming I’m arguing in bad faith.
Maybe you don’t know that the police officer who died, died as a result of a blood clot. Not as a direct result of any action by the protestors.
Those police were doing crowd control. If they were not deployed there would have been no on-duty injuries. Was law enforcement deployed on the women’s March protestors?
> Those police were doing crowd control. If they were not deployed there would have been no on-duty injuries.
"The Bank security guard would have never been hurt if they just let people steal the money and take hostages."
> Maybe you don’t know that the police officer who died, died as a result of a blood clot.
This is beyond bad faith, this is insulting. And i'm not going to participate anymore. I just hope people like you die out before this country is irrevocably harmed, and your children don't carry your sickness to a new generation.
> "The Bank security guard would have never been hurt if they just let people steal the money and take hostages."
can you explain this analogy? What are you assuming the protestors would have done if the police weren’t deployed?
> I just hope people like you die out before this country is irrevocably harmed, and your children don't carry your sickness to a new generation.
This is a pretty radical statement. I’m actually a center left liberal and you’re wishing that I die simply because of a fact I brought up that refutes your narrative. Can you substantiate your claims that I’m causing harm to this country by citing facts? How did you get this radicalized?
Well I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve been cordial and rational in my reasoning and interactions with you. Why does the mention of the fact that the officer’s cause of death was a blood clot provoke such a strong negative reaction?
You're pretending that your "rational" arguments are anything other than bad faith.
It's difficult to take anything you say seriously when you can't admit that the actions this week are not the same as the women's march.
This is game that the rest of us are tired of being subjected to. The results of this style of thinking has just borne fruit thanks to the continued lying and obfuscating of the President and his gaggle of sycophants. The world is not confused about the dangerous actions that just transpired.
The fact remains that 4 unarmed protestors were killed, at least 2 were directly killed by capitol police. There were no deaths directly caused by the protestors. Sicknick died from a blood clot.
So when you say that the protestors caused a truly harmful action to take place, what exactly are you referring to?
Of course, if you’re fair and reasonable in your judgments you’d see that both were legitimate protests, and the only innocent victims of violence in the maga protest were the unarmed protestors themselves.
It's MAGA world, they are closing ranks around "violence is ok look what you made us do".
It's the natural last step in any fascist movement. The question remains, how many Americans remain this radicalized. If the number is low enough , the country survives.
I never compared jumping off cliffs and breaking into Congress. The point is that your argument that we ought to condemn the actions of the trump supporters because the rest of society has done so is not a rational argument.
I don’t think breaking into Congress is always bad. I support people’s right to peaceful protest. The Trump supporters by and large did not initiate violence, the violence was initiated on them by the police. If there was evidence that the trump supporters actually were initiating mass violence against people in the capitol that would be a different story, but with 4 unarmed protestors dead, they were the only ones who suffered casualties. That’s simply a fact.
You’re drawing a line that any protest which occupies the capitol is immoral. I disagree with that but if you really believe that, was it immoral when the women’s March protesters took the capitol? https://twitter.com/EgSophie/status/1048634940169048064?s=20
> your argument that we ought to condemn the actions of the trump supporters because the rest of society has done so is not a rational argument.
I’m not arguing that at all, I’m just telling you what the rest of the society is doing; that pressure you feel to change your opinion is coming entirely from within yourself.
> was it immoral when the women’s March protesters took the capitol?
I’m not sure, let me check: did they break windows and doors to gain entry into the capitol building? Did they break into representatives’ offices? Were there weapons and detaining tools found on their persons?
> I’m not sure, let me check: did they break windows and doors to gain entry into the capitol building? Did they break into representatives’ offices? Were there weapons and detaining tools found on their persons?
So now your position is that it’s okay to occupy a capitol building as long as you don’t break windows, break into representatives offices, and/or some small percentage of them have weapons on them? Even if they directly cause no one harm. Okay. Was it immoral when BLM occupied and damaged the Ohio capitol? https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/05/state-officials-asses...
> Damage included 28 broken windows along the west and south sides of the building, as well as damage to the wooden window frames, five pole lamps and two doors, including the West Rotunda entrance, according to the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board, the agency responsible for keeping the Statehouse grounds. Flags planted in flower beds were burned.
> So now your position is that it’s okay to occupy a capitol building as long as you don’t break windows, break into representatives offices, and/or some small percentage of them have weapons on them?
No, but it’s the bare essentials to stick to if you don’t want to be taken for an insurrectionist.
> Was it immoral when BLM occupied and damaged the Ohio capitol?
Yes! Whoever thought that was a good idea is a goddamn punk. Although, they weren’t trying to change the outcome of an election; that’s a pretty significant difference. There’s few things in a democracy worse than interfering with its election, I’m sure you agree, except maybe literally blowing it up.
> I never compared jumping off cliffs and breaking into Congress.
You’re not a child, I think, so I can’t scare you with made up stories about what happens when you lie. But seriously, it’s not good for you, or those around you.
But this is the point I tried to make at the top of this thread.
These people are playing a game. They aren't interested in talking about this honestly.
Seriously, where is the legitimate debate about the events of this week?
Is anyone compelled by the idea that this seditious event was comparable to the women's march?
I don't know what tools we have to bring these people back. I wish I could point to something and say "here", this is how we can find common ground. But they are proving every day that they are more interested in this dishonest babble than engaging in serious discussion.
Again, for anyone whose made it this far. The fact that they are pretending that there is no difference between the women's march and the events this week are all you need to see to dismiss the rest of the justifications they put forth.
Don't fall for the trap. They wont argue "the point". They will deflect, lie and twist every issue to fit their narrative.
"The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknick's death were not immediately clear, and the Capitol Police said only that he had “passed away due to injuries sustained while on duty.” At some point in the chaos "
Capitol Police said this...
Or are we only allowed to provide partial facts?
Maybe all of those gun shot victims I keep reading about are simply dying from loss of blood? My mistake...
"While authorities haven’t provided details on the medical emergencies, Greeson’s son said his father died from a heart attack mid-protest. Boyland died after being crushed by the crowd, according to one report, while Philips had a stroke, fellow protesters said."
If they do respond, it will be with "Yeah but what about..." without missing a beat. No reflection, no introspection, just furthering the infinite game.
This is why I don't talk politics, ever. You simply cannot attack a person's idea in politics, because their ideas are their identity. They will respond with the ferocity in which they would if someone were to physically attack them. While noble of you to try, it will fail. Every time.
