> 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.
> I find it odd that no one on the Democratic side is stopping to think what a civil war in which one side has disarmed themselves because they think weapons are evil and the other already is ideologically aligned with most of the police and military would look like.
That, my friend, would be a senseless massacre. You find it odd that most Americans don’t spend their daily lives worrying about getting literally murdered by Republicans? Why? Should they?
first of all, plenty of democrats own guns. not nearly as many as republicans, but I wouldn't be surprised if the gap closed a lot after controlling for urban vs rural living.
if anything is odd, it's that konjin just made a case for why it would be rational for democrats to push gun control and disarmament of the police.
Funny, I’m pretty sure it just did, as it has for the last 4 years of abject defeats the judiciary has been handing out to Trump. Good luck with your lynching fantasies, sounds like you’ll need it to get through the next 4 years.
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.
Now you’re just helplessly denying. I just want to remind you that you’re free to change your opinion, no one will think less of you if you do. I’ve done it before, it can be pretty exciting to turn your world around and re-evaluate things every now and then.
I'm willing to change my opinion as soon as someone provides me some evidence that this was actually a coup, and not a riot that's being inflated to order to justify sweeping authoritarianism.
It’s possible you’re underestimating the sheer practical and symbolic significance of the building they broke into (and the people who work there). Which, actually, is kind of the whole problem. Can you provide an example of an evidence that would make this a coup for you?
In short, a coup is an organised action to seize power. For that, it's essential to have secured the support of at least part of the armed forces, and a plan to replace the top of the power hierarchy. Nothing like that was seen in the Capitol riots, which seemed disorganised and essentially demonstrative in nature. Once entering the building, the rioters proceeded taking selfies.
Some took selfies. Some proclaimed themselves in control of Congress. Some entered the Senate chamber with weapons and handcuffs.
The authors said a coup has 3 criteria.
> 3) Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power?
The authors said yes.
> 2) Is the target of the insurrection the chief executive of the government?
The authors said yes.
> 1) Are the perpetrators agents of the state, such as military officials or rogue governmental officials?
The authors said no because Trump can deny meaning to incite it. They're extremely charitable. And this isn't part of the common definition of a coup anyway.
> Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power?
I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power, as the power is simply not there. Power is alliances and a chain of command, not being in a room with shiny big buttons.
I do agree that Trump's position is ambiguous: one cannot deny that he was probably hoping for more. In that case he would be the only one to have imagined a coup, as the rioters were just a few... impressionables.
> I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power.
The fairly overt goal, articulated in only slightly elliptical language by the President in inciting the mob, was to cause, by intimidation, members of Congress to alter their behavior re: the count of electoral votes so that Trump would be declared the victor and thus retain executive power.
Oh well, for that he would have needed a mob of at least several millions. If that's what he really hoped for, he was off by at least four orders of magnitude.
"Stop the steal" groups have imagined a coup for weeks. More than a few people stormed the Capitol. All coups need impressionables.
The insurrectionists thought most voters and at least 150 members of Congress supported them. The commander in chief egged them on. Coups have succeeded with weaker allies.
Some insurrectionists thought they could pressure enough members of Congress to block certification and send the election to the House. Some wanted Trump to declare martial law. Some openly welcome civil war.
Congress has executive functions too. Like counting electoral votes.
>"Stop the steal" groups have imagined a coup for weeks.
Those groups have imagined a coup for years. These are the same people who were rumbling about a cold civil war turning hot any moment now during the Obama years, quoting the revolutionary language of the Founding Fathers and strongly implying that something must be done about the leftist menace when they thought the Tea Party would actually follow through.
That actually is a pretty good argument. I have indeed been playing fast and loose with the terminology; yes, it wasn’t a military coup, but it is still an unprecedented attack on the federal government, a riot.
If Twitter made the decision based on government pressure, it would be because of influence by the upcoming administration. I have not seen evidence to this effect.
Yes, the definition of tolerance in a society is often a function of its existing social consensus. So if your social consensus is flawed, tolerance of it is also flawed. But when the consensus in question is something like “you shouldn’t mob up and storm the legislature because you lost an election,” yes, the paradox of tolerance applies, unironically.
> “If there is ever armed conflict between urban areas vs everyone else, "everyone else" in the U.S. will win overwhelmingly.”
I remember back in third grade when kids would argue about how their dad would beat the others’. As I grew up, I realized that that’s not how conflicts work, and certainly not how they’re won.
> I realized that that’s not how conflicts work, and certainly not how they’re won.
Please tell that to the Afghanis.
This isn't about some civil war, it's about what would happen if Red State America decided it wanted to behave like Blue City America has been for the last year. People talk about "Proud Boys" as if that's equivalent and I just have to roll my eyes.
There is an immense reservoir of anger within America in people who feel overlooked and the system is stacked against them. If they receive the downsides of civil strife even though they haven't participated in violence, they might decide they want the upsides of civil strife as well. This culture, unlike the sadly tolerated insurrections of Antifa, has the ability to have real power through violence if it ever came to it.
Despite the often exaggerated claims of singular victimhood, I actually do realize that the current right-wing rage does come from real suffering, and sympathize to an extent. What makes me wonder is that extent to which this rage is directed at the new wave of black civil rights movement; they both have roots in economic or cultural marginalization of certain populations, and from what I can tell, they’re not competing for some common resource. Which, in my mind (and many others similarly puzzled), leaves racist hate as a likely candidate.
Point being, if your goal was genuinely to bring awareness to and address some real suffering in your community, you’d just do that; get out on the street, break a few windows, punch a cop, petition for legislation, like BLM does. That’s called civil disobedience. “Insurrection” starts when you try to override and overrule the very fabric of the system, like the federal legislature.
That’s an interesting take, but I was making a different point. Corporations will always do what’s necessary to thrive, and what they need to thrive is largely a function of what society demands. If the corporations are taking down their nationalist trappings, then it’s because we no longer demand them. As far as my globalist politics is concerned, that’s good and well.
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.