Members of Congress will use this event as a catalyst for fundraising, soon after the election they will draft legislation that threatens to control and/or regulate the tech giants. Shortly after that the lobbyists representing Big Tech get wind of this new legislation on the horizon and donations will flow like a river to the PACs and re-election campaigns, then the proposed legislation will be shelved.

> then the proposed legislation will be shelved

My bet is when legislation appears it will pass and subtly entrench the incumbents. Win-win!

If you see how much wealth the politicians, especially the one holding important position, you see why they want the job for a merely $200,000 a year.

Clinton and Obama got very wealth after their presidency. Pelosi wealth goes up many fold for becoming speaker of the house. Not only their wealth go up, everyone around them got a lot wealthier too.

Because there is plenty coverage of Republican sleaze. The mistake is in thinking one set of politicians is “doing the right thing”.

Additionally, as of tomorrow the Republicans are irrelevant when it comes to the selecting a party to lobby. Democrats control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Keep their coffers lined and you keep the regulation at bay.

> Why are you not mentioning any Republicans?

That’s a good point. It’s not like Trump’s holdings weren’t fed a line of patrons while he was in office. Seems odd to leave out the most prominent and recent example.

Just because he didn’t make money because he’s a failure at business and his particular ventures were negatively affected by the coronavirus (the explanation given in your article) completely ignores that he funneled a substantial amount of tax payer dollars into his private ventures by spending so much time there with his security detail.

That’s not what the article says at all. It says that his hotel businesses went south due to COVID. That’s orthogonal to the myriad ways he extracted money from being a president.

…incorrect, that’s the second dip only. The virus wasn’t around for the first.

Patiently waiting for Apple and google to remove the facebook app, and AWS to… well… say they can’t join AWS someday.

> their decreasing popularity

FTFY: in the US

> repeated scandal and failure

At this point what large company hasn’t had breaches or cancelled projects? Hell, is your company doing OK in terms of security? Are they hashing passwords correctly? How large is the security team? My company doesn’t even hash passwords…

At some point you need to stop living in a bubble and recognize that plenty of people, businesses, communities, etc. rely on the app in a positive way.

I can understand that you’re not using it, or think it’s evil, but not everyone shares your opinion.

> My company doesn’t even hash passwords…

I understand this is somewhat my privilege speaking here, but I don’t think I could continue working at a company that didn’t do something as basic as hashing passwords (and refused to prioritize fixing that as soon as I pointed it out). It’s a massive ethical, if not legal (IANAL), liability — and a huge breach of users’ trust. It’s 2021, hashing user passwords is astonishingly easy; I can’t imagine any remotely justifiable excuse for something like that.

For what it’s worth, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity publishes recommendations[0] for measures that digital services should implement to fulfil their responsibilities under the GDPR. One of the recommendations, K.6 is:

> User passwords must be stored in a “hashed” form.

These guidelines aren’t legal requirements for every service, but if a data breach occurred, and passwords were leaked, regulators would presumably point to this recommendation, and the ease of complying with it, and take that into consideration when issuing a fine.

[0] https://www.enisa.europa.eu/risk-level-tool/help

> At this point what large company hasn’t had breaches or cancelled projects?

‘Breaches’ and ‘cancelled projects’ aren’t the only scandals and failures to come out of Facebook … just the other day on HN front page was an article (from 2018) where Facebook openly admitted that their platform enabled the Myanmar crisis.

>FTFY: in the US

No, in lots of places. In Scandinavia Facebook is “for old people”.

>not everyone shares your opinion

I do and everyone I have asked (and maybe informed as part of asking) agrees. The thing is that people are lazy – it is not that they don’t think Facebook is evil – they are just too lazy to do anything about it. Very few informed people sees facebook as Not Evil.

Also, please don’t do FTFY reddit post crap.

> How large is the security team?

More importantly, how big is their whiskey budget?

It’s not the greatest proxy, but how regularly your security team drinks is a not-terrible way to gauge how much trouble your org is going to be in should something happen.

What’s interesting about this to me is that Facebook, where most of the planning took place, is still online, while Parler has been, for all intents and purposes, killed. I wonder why AANG isn’t colluding to kill F like they did with Parler – by tomorrow morning – now that this has come to light. It seems only fair given that we now have an established standard of user behavior that dictates whether or not companies can continue to exist.

> Parler has been, for all intents and purposes, killed.

Parler wasn’t “killed” because planning took place there, but because they were openly at least unable if not actually unwilling to take action against a huge backlog of specific problem identified to them; the problem was current and forward, not retrospective.

Amazon has stated that it warned Parler for months without redress, but to offer another perspective, the CEO of Parler stated in an interview that they were notified the day before they got the plug pulled, sought to work with AWS on solving the issue, then were “deplatformed” the following day.

He said she said, but obviously both sides are incentivized to make themselves look clean

If anything, the same is true for other platforms like Facebook and Twitter as well.

Not the OP, but it’s the reason AWS gave:

In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.

“Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms,” the email reads. “It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p…

This reminds me of a discussion with a parent who was distressed about Parler being deplatformed. She was never on it, but her choices of news media told her this was “bad”.

I argued that threats of violence were viable on the platform. She didn’t seem to believe me. I later sent screenshots of violent rhetoric that I found with a quick web search. No response.

There are people who refuse the validity of reality right up until they can’t anymore. Then silence.

There are two really simple reasons. One is that any such collusion would itself be a breach of anti-trust. The other is that they can’t. Facebook has its own servers in its own data centers, its own fiber lines, etc. They could remove the apps from the iOS and Android app stores, but that wouldn’t affect the billions who already have the app or get it preinstalled by carriers. And that’s all beside the question of whether Facebook deserves such special treatment, either compared to the others or at all.

It’s worth noting that quite a few politicians hold facebook stock, most notably Nancy Pelosi. I believe most of her current personal wealth is from facebook stock.

My point is not to be skeptical of Pelosi from some partisan perspective; I have never voted Republican. I merely aim to cast doubt on whether anything will fundamentally change.

Did a quick fact check on this. Her husband is an investor and traded options* for tech companies including Facebook, which she disclosed out of their own will since she was attacking them at the time. Basically everyone has been trading FAANG in the past year so that tells you nothing.

* which also means most likely he never actually held the stocks

It was planned for months, openly on Facebook in plain view of everybody. Remember that when politicians call for more intrusive surveillance in response.

Yeah, it’s weird that the discussion has centered around censorship, rather than like… why didn’t law enforcement shut this down sooner? Or at least properly prepare for it?

Far-right terrorism in the US has never really been taken seriously. No one took them seriously. Until the Capitol was attacked.

The Feds are starting to roll up high ranking militia members, so hopefully they learned their lesson this time.

I apologize for being imprecise. Far-right terrorism hasn’t been taken seriously until a far-right terrorist actually commits violence. Then government is vigilant for a couple of years and goes back to ignoring them.

Far-right terror was taken seriously after the OKC bombing. But the far-right terrorist threat had been steadily increasing for three years at that point. Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege contributed to a surge in far-right militias and other terrorist groups. It took someone driving a truck bomb and killing hundreds of people (in an attempt to spark a race war) to take far-right terrorism seriously.

They took far right terrorism seriously in the 1870s. They more or less stamped out the (original) KKK while simultaneously giving the south the requisite autonomy to enact Jim Crow. Obviously Jim Crow doesn’t square with our modern view but at the time the lack of some systemic way to keep the black people down was a serious grievance that a lot of people had. The government cracked down on the extremists who were starting to get off the porch while simultaneously extending an olive branch to the people who sympathized with them (and throwing black people under the bus in the process).

The same thing happened in the civil rights era. When it looked like things might get serious the .gov caved to the MLK types to prevent the Malcom X types from gaining further sympathy from the masses.

Fast forward to the 1990s and you get the ATF trilogy. Of course the magnitude of the problem was smaller than the KKK so the reaction and adjustments were smaller. On one hand the FBI cracked down on all the extremist groups (cue jokes about how the modern KKK is just a recreation club for FBI agents) but at the same time you’ll notice that when the Bundy Ranch rolled around the feds didn’t just shoot everyone and botch the thing as they would had they let historical precedent be their guide. Same pattern. Crackdown on the extremists while avoiding pissing off the moderate sympathizers.

Likewise hundreds of cities are reconsidering how they allocate law enforcement and social services resources after the events of this summer while also (recently, like past month) starting to crack down on protests to prevent them from getting fiery. Same pattern.

The overarching theme is pretty clear. The government never takes people’s grievances seriously until there’s a “real” threat of extremists getting off the porch and causing serious problems with a large body of sympathizers to back them up.

In light of that it’ll be interesting to see what if any long term changes come out of the whole capitol thing.

> he government never takes people’s grievances seriously until there’s a “real” threat of extremists getting off the porch

I haven’t noticed any gay-marriage terrorists on their porches, and yet here we are. Women-for-equal-pay have not been observed cleaning and oiling their rifles menacingly, and yet the law was mended in their favor. And I don’t think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US, but their persecution has ended all the same. You’re only looking at things that became explosive, so quite naturally you will not find things that were resolved peacefully and/or timely. They still exist though, in fact they may be dominant.

It’s a great comment otherwise, I enjoyed the trip down the memory lane. Looking forward to seeing you again.

> I don’t think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US

Both international terrorism (directed at the UK, but sometimes involving direct conflict with the US military) and organized crime-linked terrorism were very big things associated with the Irish in America in the 19th C.

And, on the Jewish side, more recently, Meir Kahane’s Jewish Defense League was a real thing.

Part of the problem is that institutions are always highly resistant to the notion of right-wing, white violence being a serious threat, rooted specifically in its right-wing whiteness. See the Columbine shootings and the frantic finger pointing at video games, Satanism, and bullying, all to avoid facing the fact that what happened could be most easily slotted into the legacy of white dude rage in America. The dynamic both aggravates the people involved, who correctly hold that their true ideologies and aims are being obfuscated, and provides them cover.

It keeps happening because these institutions, often headed by white men themselves, are terrified of confronting their family, neighbors, or even their own feelings in a meaningful way. Anything that happens must be done quietly and carefully enough not to indict their personal identity.

https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/turning-20/columbine-mass…

It seems to me that the unpleasant, but unavoidable conclusion is that a significant fraction of the citizenry is sympathetic to the far right domestic terrorists.

Edit: If you think this is untrue, you have an extremely narrow filter bubble.

They have not taken this threat seriously. You specifically mentioned militias, but the domestic terror threat is not just militias.

Look at this case for example. He has left many threatening voicemails to congress members over several years, including while under probation, and the FBI just told him to knock it off without arresting him. So he kept doing it. They only finally arrested him after the terrorist attack on the capitol.

>According to the complaint, Capriotti repeatedly called multiple Congressional offices in Washington, D.C., between October 2019 and January 2020 and left “disturbing, anonymous messages” that often included “profanity along with derogatory remarks concerning the race, religion, political affiliation, or physical appearance” of some members of Congress.

>FBI agents located Capriotti and interviewed him last February, according to the complaint, which states that Capriotti admitted making the calls but insisted he was “just f—ing with them” and “didn’t mean any ill will.”

>The agents advised Capriotti to stop making the calls, but phone records showed he continued to do so between February and November 2020. A series of voicemails Capriotti allegedly made to Congressional offices in November and December were then detailed in the complaint.

https://news.wttw.com/2021/01/12/chicago-heights-man-charged…

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/1/12/22227466/feds-a…

The rush to call the storming of the capitol terrorism is really misplaced.

By adopting words like “terrorism” you’re paving the way for an overreaching response from lawmakers and law enforcement — something that will likely end up being used against a cause you might support, like BLM.

Firstly, nobody was terrorized. No, this wasn’t “our 9/11.” I doubt it’ll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don’t talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all.

I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds and they should be prosecuted; the violence and property damage is inexcusable. But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment — taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.

What we need right now is de-escalation.

Millions of Americans watched the Capitol insurrection play out live on tv. That has an impact on the national psyche that’s very similar to a terrorist attack. People aren’t going to forget about it because we all witnessed it together. It’s going to be the defining event of trump’s presidency, whether you think that’s fair or not

You honestly think that THE defining event of Trump’s presidency is going to be the Capitol riot? You don’t think it’s the bungled response to coronavirus that landed us all locked up in our houses for over a year, the assassination of an Iranian leader on another sovereign’s soil, the trade war with China, the tax reform bill he pushed through, the Mueller probe, the BLM protests, the “stolen” SCOTUS seats, or any number of other things he did?

You think the defining moment of his presidency is something that he only tangentially had a hand in that resulted in a couple arrests and a stolen podium?

That’s a hot take.

How many of those other things was he impeached and subsequently condemned by the Republican floor leader in the Senate for?

Those are slow burns. The attack on the capital was a severe jolt to our national psyche. You may not want them to be different, but they are.

I disagree. The things that happened at the Capitol stick out in your mind because they are the most recent thing that happened. Every moment I posted was hailed as “the most important thing to happen in our lifetime” when it occurred. This is one of the big problems with our society now: sensationalism rules and our collective memories are short.

It’s just hard for me to believe that in fifty years I’ll be saying “oh boy you remember those dudes that broke into the Capitol?” as I stand in line for my bi-monthly mRNA booster shot that the newly appointed 99th Supreme Court Justice (after the Court has been packed, of course) has ruled is mandatory for all citizens.

To be honest I had almost forgotten about many of these events until you mentioned them again. There are just so many things going on that it’s hard to fixate too much on one thing. That said, humans tend to focus on both the beginning and end of a time-frame. In this case, the Capitol raid has a clear advantage over the other things you listed.

The virus is in its own zone as far as memory is concerned. It’s been going on for so long that it overshadows Trump to some extent

Wait a month or so: more arrests are coming, and it’s quite possible that members of Congress will be prosecuted for sedition.

The Capitol insurrection was a culmination of 4 years of POTUS cultivating a rebellion. You’re right that those other events had broader effects on the world, and Americans in particular. I’d add leaving the Paris agreement to your list. But people respond to symbols, and the last capitol building breach was two centuries ago in 1814.

The historians will take everything you mentioned into account—though Khashoggi’s murder and probably the tax cuts will get short shrift—and they’ll frame it all as pointing to an inevitable coup attempt.

Though honestly, Jan 6 is probably only the beginning, given how many Americans are so invested in Trumpism. I expect more violence to come, so while his part is ending (he will likely be in prison soon) the fractures in the citizenry that he exposed and deepened are going to be with us for a while.

> Firstly, nobody was terrorized.

This doesn’t seem to be true. Several elected officials have expressed fear they or their family would be harmed by members of the far right, most notably Rep. Pete Meijer (R-MI), who was one of the few house republicans to certify the results of the election:

“I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families,”

He also said “That was what weighed on the colleague in mind’s conscience, and the last thing that that individual said to me, concern about the safety of that individual’s family, if that individual voted to certify the election… That is where the rhetoric has brought us. That is the degree of fear that’s been created.”

In Facebook comments, one rioter wrote:
“Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in.”
“We get our President or we die,” they added. “NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/people-will-try-to-kill-us-s…

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/13/22229052/capitol-hill-riot-int…

Sure seems like terrorism to me.

Now, do I think we need increased surveillance? Absolutely not, it was largely planned in public on Facebook. We just need an FBI that takes this movement’s threats more seriously. Exposing that some far right elements act like terrorists is one way of calling attention to the seriousness of the problem.

Edit: I also think the appeal that they might somehow treat BLM protestors even worse is not worth considering much. I don’t identify with any “side” that uses the threat of physical violence against elected officials to change their vote, even if they were to do it for a “good cause”. I don’t want that to be an available tool for BLM or anyone either.

The capitol was ransacked by a non-homogeneous group as far as I can tell. Some people were probably there just to wave some flags and take some selfies, as you suggest. Others were erecting gallows, setting bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters, breaking windows, carrying zip-tie handcuffs into the building, actively searching the building for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, fighting with the police, and so on. (This is just the stuff we know about.)

I think it would be a stretch to call all the rioters terrorists, but I think a lot of them would fit any reasonable definition and they were well-organized, intentional, and numerous. Even if a terrorist attack is unsuccessful or does not kill or injure a large number of people that doesn’t make it not terrorism. And I think there was a real risk that members of Congress could have been kidnapped, injured, or killed if things had gone a little bit differently.

Saying something wasn’t terrorism doesn’t mean it wasn’t unlawful or stupid or terrible. It just means it wasn’t terrorism.

The definition – ‘the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims’ – seems to fit the event we’re discussing.

Yup, and Antifa and BLM have caused fear in Portland for political reasons as well. They lit the mayor’s apartment building on fire, but were not called out as terrorists.

The media is not even handed here.

Yes, there is credence to the old saying: “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”.

But I really don’t think we need to devolve to whataboutism here. We’re talking about the actions of people storming the capitol building, to try and say ‘yes well X group of people are also terrorists’ is a completely moot point and an intentional deflection.

This thread started with you saddened at folks downplaying the events at the Capitol.

I’m much more concerned with the media being complicit in downplaying what we both agree is domestic terrorism elsewhere.

I suppose that’s a “what about”, but I fear the current structures of power colluding to form narratives more than angry trumpers.

So, there’s a few things to unpack here.

1. I don’t (personally) agree that the ‘black lives matter’ protests should be considered as ‘terrorism’, because fundamentally they began as a protest against the systematic mistreatment of a certain race/demographic of people. While it can be viewed as political, it’s not quite the same as ‘storming the capital of a country to overturn the result of an election’, which is undeniably a political goal. While some BLM rioters eventually did conduct what could be described as terrorist acts, it fundamentally isn’t the same thing.

2. You’re welcome to disagree on that point, but it’s not what’s being discussed in this thread.

3. Yes, media overreach is an issue, but it’s not the topic of the conversation.

4. I am still sad that people are trying to downplay the issue, and not just because some people don’t want to call it terrorism. People saying ‘oh in the future it won’t even be remembered’ etc etc is also problematic as it’s downplaying the event itself.

Edit: Added point 2

the same people have been denying this problem for the past few years. they’ve been constantly either changing the subject or denying that the problem exists at all. mass shootings? oh no big deal. a newsroom was shot up? oh no big deal. bombs sent to every democrat leader, cnn, soros, etc..? oh don’t discuss that, discuss this instead! obvious signs of misinformation and propaganda spreading like a virus through internet forums? oh that’s not anything to worry about.

The people huddled in offices with an angry mob banging on the door were terrorized.

> Firstly, nobody was terrorized.

I can count six DC-area thousand+ employee firms that provided grief counseling in response. And as a reminder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism – even if a subset of people implemented violence with political ends in mind (breaking in, beating innocent people, attempting to take hostages, all in the name of overturning a legitimate election), at the very least, that subset meets the precise definition of “terrorists.”

> No, this wasn’t “our 9/11.”

The Capitol was breached as part of a coordinated and failed plot. Last time this happened was 1814.

> I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds, and the violence and property damage is inexcusable.

Yes, using the rest of the people in the crowd as human shields, but nonetheless:

> But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment — taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.

This isn’t a valid defense to any crime literally ever.

If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you’re diluting actual terrorism.

The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11.

The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.

I think you’re underestimating the intent of people who showed up with pipe bombs and flex cuffs and gallows.

Sure, there were a lot of play acting idiots hanging on and joining in, like that girl who seemed somehow incensed that she got pepper sprayed when “all she’d done” was “shown up for the revolution and trespassed on The Capitol”, but not all of them were just clueless morons.

Some of them had plans and intent that would 100% be called “terrorism” if they were of middle eastern descent, and should 100% be called terrorism even though they’re home-grown American citizens.

So what was the goal of storming the Capitol? You keep saying it wasn’t terrorism, so what was the purpose?

It seems pretty obvious to me the purpose was to intimidate elected officials in some misguided attempt to prevent them from completing their constitutional duties. That is literally terrorism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism

>Terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

> If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you’re diluting actual terrorism.

> The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11.

> The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.

Interesting. What makes 9/11 a terror attack that doesn’t similarly make the Capitol Insurrection one? Because they both left a similar imprint on the people, and they were both implemented by groups with extremist ideologies and political objectives in mind.

I note that you tossed the reference to the definition of terrorism and focused on grief counseling. Interesting decision.

I’d say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest — not really unreasonable since we’ve been having protests nonstop for like a year.

Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too

> I’d say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest — not really unreasonable since we’ve been having protests nonstop for like a year.

> Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too

I’m straining my neck to understand how you equated the litany of protesters who broke into the Capitol building (excluding the terrorists who came equipped with pipe bombs, tactical gear for hostage-taking, and who planned the insurrection for months) with innocent bystanders on doomed flights on 9/11.

Well, for one, almost 3000 people died in the September 11th attacks. Kind of an important point.

I don’t really see how the number of people killed makes a difference in whether an attack is terrorism. An attack can result in zero casualties and still be terror (depending on some definitions. Others require at least one death)

The violence and property damage wasn’t the problem. Democracies can survive some broken windows, stolen laptops, and yes, even people getting hurt and killed at a protest. This sort of thing has happened for decades and centuries.

What they can’t survive is groups of thugs that don’t like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.

There was an excellent article by someone from a place where a failed coup led to a real one a couple of years hence. Democracy is not ‘intact’, it is now damaged, and whether or not manage to repair it remains to be seen.

The most dangerous thing you can do now is to think this is behind you and from here on in everything is normal. It isn’t and it probably won’t be for some time. If you manage the next two transfers of power at the end of election cycles without further mishap I’d say that you can say democracy is intact. Until then all bets are off.

Edit: I wished I could locate the article, so far no luck.

edit2: finally found it in my history, this article was from 11 November 2020, and very prescient:

https://indica.medium.com/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-…

I would like to see some data on failed coups that does not involve any military.

The latest major failed coup that I can remember would be the 2016 Turkish coup d’état attempt, and the effect it had on the country is well known. The general consensus internationally seems to be that the efforts by their government to stamp out their “terrorists” has been a bit of an overreaction, even if literal tanks was involved. The censorship machine in particular has been quite overreactive.

One can really hope that the US democracy manage a more appropriate reaction that is more proportional to the threat.

> > What they can’t survive is…

> And yet, here we are, democracy intact.

You keep cutting off quotes without including the relevant details. You need to stop doing that. The original quote:

> What they can’t survive is groups of thugs that don’t like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.

The last part of that sentence you cropped (emphasized by me) didn’t come to pass because it was interrupted by Capitol contingency plans and Shelter In Place protocols, among other things. It very well could’ve been successful; we’re lucky to not know that outcome.

Democracy only works because we all believe that it works.

When that belief is shattered, and people no longer believe in a peaceful transfer of power, you get violent transfer of power.

I think it’s far too early to make such a claim. Wait till 2022, or 2024, or 2028. This genie is not going back in the bottle without putting up a fight – not while its being egged on by opportunistic mainstream politicians.

Are we? Because to me there are huge cracks opening up. Death toll isn’t the important part about terrorist attacks, it’s the responses that count, and the response to this seems about the same or more extreme as 9/11 to me, and I lived through that on a military base. I don’t remember 25k troops being deployed into DC for 9/11.

These actors haven’t finished.
The pattern so far is that the current admin has tried every single dirty trick they could muster to avoid leaving power.
Even if something happens to Trump today, these folks will recrystallize around a new cult leader.

Right, just like Germany survived the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 just fine, democracy intact.

People are fools to think this is all just suddenly over now that Trump is gone and big-tech de-platformed one tiny social media platform.

>doubt it’ll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don’t talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all.

Unlike the Senate bombing, the Capitol attack was the coda on four years of the American right wing and Republican Party sliding into fanatical racism-fueled conspiracy theory on behalf of, and encouraged by, the most hated President in American history losing his damn mind about not winning a second term.

I mean, Trump was already going down in history based on his personality, Twitter trolling and all around incompetence even before he purposely undermined and politicized America’s COVID response, creating the atmosphere of fear and paranoia that led to armed marches in the streets. And then came the “stop the steal” movement, which had already committed violence prior to an armed insurrection against the government itself.

People will definitely still be talking about this in a few years. People will be writing theses on this. You could argue this isn’t “our” 9/11, but only for the relative lack of violence. In terms of the repercussions on America’s cultural, social and political landscape, it is, and it isn’t leaving the cultural consciousness for a long time.

There is already a huge gulf between how BLM protests were treated and how the capitol protest was. There’s a photo from a BLM protest in DC where the Lincoln Memorial steps (not the capitol building, which is widely-stated misinformation) had lines of National Guard troops stationed on it.

Compare that with the tiny Capitol Police force guarding the Capitol building while one of the most important state functions was in progress, with much of the executive branch succession and the legislative branch in attendance. National Guard troops were denied both in advance and for a while during the ensuing riot, citing concerns about “the optics.”

Any meaningful discussion of protest response and overreach, potential or actual, has to account for that disparity.

As you said, some rioters were “planning terrible deeds,” which increasingly clearly means “kidnapping or executing congresspeople and the VP for not keeping DJT in power.” This raises the issue to the level of sedition (organized incitement to rebellion) and insurrection (actual acts of violence against the state or its officers).

Maybe “terrorism” doesn’t broadly apply here, and it’s better to refer to the capitol invaders as “insurrectionists.” Trump, the other government supporters of the protest, and any private backers should be labeled as “seditionists.” I am less likely to push for a “terrorism” label if I can be confident that the other two labels will be applied and prosecuted as such.

Alternative take: Maybe DC Police and others learned some restraint in the ~6 months in between and tried to avoid escalating the situation in the earliest moments.

Even if it was misplaced, isn’t that a better opening mindset?

That’s a fair take concerning the Capitol police (who are a separate force from DC police, just FYI). But even the calls to have the National Guard on standby, given new intel 1 or 2 days before the event that it was going to be bigger than expected, were denied before the event.

Then when things began to escalate, calls for National Guard assistance were denied by the Pentagon for at least a full hour. In a rapidly-evolving situation, especially when the Capitol building has been breached and it takes time to summon the troops since they weren’t on standby, that is an eternity.

You’re onto something there. But it’s more a means to a political end, as opposed to another data point of systemic racism. Both are awful, but not entirely correlated in this instance.

There was a varied response to BLM riots.

In my city, BLM demonstrators – or at least people purporting to be part of BLM – declared several city blocks an autonomous zone. The zone’s security forces subsequent killed several people (among them, ironically, an unarmed black 16 year old). It took the city 3 weeks to clear out this zone, and it was done without lethal force.

By comparison, the people occupying the Capitol were removed in a matter of hours including employing lethal force.

The Capitol protests were met with more leniency than some BLM demonstrations, but less than others.

Worth mentioning that the only lethal force in the capitol was when they were breaching the barricades where (I think) VIPs were being guarded.

That’s lethal force in self-defense, not lethal force to clear out the protest.

>The zone’s security forces subsequent killed several people (among them, ironically, an unarmed black 16 year old).

There seem to be a lot of people who are absolutely certain that the security forces were responsible for this.

The police aren’t among their number, however, since they haven’t detained, arrested or charged anyone.

There was also another killing in the zone that was, iirc, erroneously blamed on the security forces.

another thing that immediately came to mind after the capitol rioting was the standoff with Cliven Bundy and an article I saw a few years ago[1]. I even remembered that at the time there were people on Fox who were downplaying this as some sort of patriotic resistance against the government. Imagine if someone started a caliphate on US territory, I’m sure we’d be hearing the same kind of arguments /s

“Cliven Bundy and sons cleared in case of 2014 armed standoff, a major defeat for the federal government that critics fear will empower far-right militia groups

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/08/bundy-family…

You forgot to mention why the charges were dropped:

> The judge declared a mistrial in December and ruled on Monday that prosecutors could not retry the case, arguing that the US attorney’s office had willfully withheld evidence and engaged in misconduct.

Somehow I don’t think such consideration would have been extended to the Boston bombers, even with LE overreach on display for the whole country to see re: the search and entry tactics in Watertown et al.

>so hopefully they learned their lesson this time

I might be cynical, but I think that will work just about as well as the first impeachment.

Did you ever read any actual FBI documents regarding extremism? Clearly not, I guess.

>Far-right terrorism in the US has never really been taken seriously. No one took them seriously.

The FBI, hardly a bastion of left-wingers, has been warning for decades that white supremacists have been attempting to infiltrate police and the military.

When polled 25% of active-duty military personnel say they know at least one.

When it happened, there was a reporter on CBC talking about how it was common knowledge in DC for a long time that there was a protest planned there.

So indeed. The real question is why was there seemingly no preparation to handle it.

Compared to other DC protests, the absence of preparation was the preparation.

Clearly some of the Establishment wanted it to succeed.

> Clearly some of the Establishment wanted it to succeed.

Or massively & publicly fail… if we’re trading conspiracy theories.

You have a point. I’m trying to find the differences between this attempted insurrection and a police sting and there are less than I first guessed.

That difference might not be observable from the outside at all. How do you separate “good old incompetence” from “malicious withdrawal to allow the coup and seize power” from “malicious withdrawal to allow the coup to fail and use the blowback to seize power”? Investigation into the behavior of the Capitol police will be of greatest importance to the integrity of the republic.

Fail in what way? I mean they didn’t actually overthrow the government or string up Pence, but their penetration and looting of the Capitol buildings was incredibly successful.

Qanon and friends have been talking about “the storm” for years now.

January 6 was either luck and foolery or clever planning.

A year ago I would have said dumb luck but the weekend before super Tuesday last year with the centrists clearing the lane for Biden all within 36 hours convinced me there’s capable skilled political actors who, I guess, just don’t act frequently.

January 6 was perhaps the least harmful version of the storm possible. The people there, they are the kinds of people that follow crazy conspiracies and do mass shootings, tens thousands of them. They’ve been antagonized and fueled this antigovernment narrative, some of them for almost 30 years by the shock jock grifters.

They got their storm, the pitchfork moment and relatively little violence happened, it lasted just an afternoon, then they left, not returning the next day and now people are being arrested in a way that doesn’t martyr them as revolutionaries or put them into any kind of overarching constructive narrative.

They weren’t lined up against the wall and taken care of like revolutionaries but instead individually arrested like common criminals. There was no clear “deep state” repression or large arrests to stoke the conspiracies of FEMA prison camps etc.

The storm happened. It was a dud.
Afterwards the conspiracy social media accounts were denouncing the Republican party. Almost like the Republicans were able to shake off this toxic part of their coalition in the exchange.

This is an extremely favorable outcome for the establishment. They even got to shut down a bunch of the biggest troublemakers in the process. So really I don’t know what to think. Brilliant execution or dumb luck, maybe a bit of both…

They were within minutes (reported in national newspapers as “within one minute”) of being in the room with Mike Pence, so perhaps the Vice President was lucky.

Yup, that’s what really stinks about these protests. You could go to several social media sites and see the 6th plans.

It was incredible to see so few Capitol police guarding the capitol. Further, the fact that they didn’t employ things like tear gas sooner was incredible. They just sort of let the rioters through the weak barriers they setup.

Security HAD to have known this was coming. This wasn’t some secret plot. I knew this was coming just because I like to keep tabs on what the trump supporters are saying. It was all over the reddit knockoff (win).

The winds that day were fairly strong (looked like 15+ knots, with many of the flags being fully horizontal). It seems like tear gas would be relatively ineffective as a crowd-dispersal agent in strong winds.

There have been a bunch of Trump protests in DC since the election. The city was boarded up in preparation for them. But they’ve all been completely peaceful. People got complacent.

That’s why trump replaced his secretary of defense after he lost the election. That’s why they didn’t bring in requested national guard troops. (if I understand the situation, Trump never authorized the NG, as he was cheering on the coup from the WH, and the guard deployed bc Pence was pleading for it, which has its own weird constitutional issues.)

My guess is that it was a calculated decision to allow to allow a poorly organized insurrection attempt to fail as opposed to shutting things down and strengthening their cause.
Life was certainly lost.
So if that’s what happened they should have shut it down as it was happening instead of ignoring capitol police calls for support.

The protest was planned, that’s for sure. But here the context is the attack, not the protest.

Can somebody explain, since this was a long planned coup attempt against a Capitol that has its own police force, in a capital that has one of the largest and most heavily armed police forces in the world, why did the guncrazy far right militants leave their guns at home? And instead behaved mostly like an out of control protest with a few dozen violent rioters? It is a very peculiar way to attempt to overthrow a government.

You don’t need the guns if you have people on the inside. And a good number of the rioters seemed really quite surprised when law enforcement fought back against them. After all, they were carrying Blue Lives Matter flags, surely the cops are on their side!

(and besides, there were a good number of people with guns at the protest. And some others brought pipe bombs. Thankfully neither ended up being a factor but no one would have known that at the time)

As I said, they did have weapons. Not an overwhelming amount of them certainly, but more than enough to pose a threat if they managed to capture Nancy Pelosi.

And again: if you have the support of the police (and potentially also the armed forces) it’s all pretty moot anyway.

> why did the guncrazy far right militants leave their guns at home?

Because despite their public rhetoric and willingness to carry guns when they don’t expect law enforcement opposition, they realized that their only chance of success at the Capitol was to not be treated by law enforcement the way that law enforcement (including the Secret Service) would treat a visibly-armed mob surrounding the Capitol during proceedings (which include Secret Service protectees).

How did they coordinate not bringing guns? Or did they each individually realize this strategy without coordination? I think you’re giving them too much credit here.

I agree that “realized their chance of success” makes it more group-strategic than is probably warranted.

“Realized that the likely law enforcement stance likely at the Capitol would make visibly carrying a firearm increase their personal risk rather than their effectiveness” is probably more accurate.

A lot of the protesters have said they expected the police to be largely on their side. I suspect that when things got violent both the armed rioters and police realised that guns would just end up in a blood bath on both sides, and the first person to shoot on either side would probably end up dead pretty quickly.

If I suspend my disbelief for a second, do you have a link to any interviews or similar with those protesters?

Surely you are not conflating quotes from peaceful demonstrators against (alleged) election fraud, with militants trying to violently overthrow the government?

I suspect the police weren’t shooting because they realized how overwhelmed they were. I’ve seen a couple of videos where they had drawn their guns and prepared to fire but they were simply surrounded.

The interaction I saw between the rioters and those defending the Capitol just after the woman was shot seem more enlightening than this theory.

Probably not. Even when actually shot, people don’t always run. It would be pretty hard for them to stop the crowd with a few cops and a few handguns.

I suspect they thought there’d be more complicity or active support from the police/guards. bringing your guns out in the open directly would have been too visible a giveaway up front, giving people time to react/block.

Anecdotally, I tuned into some of the protester’s livestreams early on because I assumed that they would be trying to get into the building to stop the confirmation of Biden’s win. It almost felt so incredibly obvious to me that it was going to happen.

Some of the Capitol Police workers did apparently bring concerns to their supervisors, but nothing much was done about it.

Part of the answer that I am surprised you haven’t been given yet is that there is an ongoing infiltration of the police forces in this country by far right wing activists. I mean, Exhibit A is the two off-duty cops from (I think) one of the Carolinas that were present in the actual riot. Here is a think piece [0] that has links to sources. I would not be surprised at all to learn that there were people in the Capitol Police itself who were sympathizers.

[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/hidd…

Cynical view: Because way too much of law enforcement is totally in on it, from upper management right the way down to beat cops. Compare their (collective) preparations and actions on the 6th to their preparation and actions at many many black lives matter protests.

Like the song says: “Some of those who join forces, are the same who burn crosses.”

Or they paid exactly the right amount of attention to it and it’s only the media that’s blown it out of proportion. Had this been a BLM protest it would have been one of the ‘mostly peaceful’ ones with questions about why a rent a cop killed her when the professionals in front of him didn’t think it was a situation to use deadly force in.

The hypocrisy from both sides is astonishing and the reason why cops can kill whoever they feel like: half the country will cheer them on because that {anarchist,nazi} deserved it. I find it sickening that I share a citizenship with blood thirsty savages with no concept of empathy.

There are different conversations in different places. The conversation here is obsessed with “censorship” for fairly clear reasons; more of our livelihoods depend on how these rules work. But there is a very active conversation about the law enforcement breakdown on multiple levels. I expect there will be a 9/11 style commission. I expect its findings to be very depressing (along the lines of the people in charge going easier on people they viewed more as “us” rather than “them”).

TPTB like when certain tragedies happen because it catalyzes public support for laws they want to pass.

I have heard two theories that seemed plausible to me:

1. The Capitol police are used to dealing with large protests. They happen frequently in DC, especially in and around the capitol. So they may have unfortunately assumed that there is no reason to think this protest would be different, and thus not prepared properly

2. They assumed that a pro-Trump, QANON crowd would be pro-police. This is probably not a bad assumption, some of the people were waving blue lives matter flags etc. If they assumed that, they might have assumed that they would not break the law and were under-prepared.

Another plausible explanation could be large portion of the officers were sympathetic to the cause, but I’m not sure I have seen any evidence of that yet.

A few possibilities:

– Overcorrection: law enforcement had come under fire for using excessive force against protests and they erred on the other side.

– Conspiracy: the security state is firmly under the control of the pro-Trump faction, who (incorrectly) thought they could make Trump president for life once the Q Shaman took the Senate.

– Conspiracy: the security state is firmly under the control of the anti-Trump faction, who (correctly) thought that letting the protest go too far would be politically devastating for their enemies, and would provide the hook for passing new security laws.

– Incompetence: America can’t protect its capitol for the same reason it can’t distribute a vaccine, build railways or put a man on the moon.

It’s not at all weird that the discussion has centered around censorship in reaction to this. As Winston Churchill once said…”Never let a good crisis go to waste” [1].

Democrats are seizing upon the opportunity created by this incident to permanently silence their opposition and attempt to cement long-term political power. A former Facebook official has even publicly suggested that cable companies banish conservative news networks, and that Facebook and YouTube expel conservative influencers from their platforms, in reaction to the incident [2].

Attempting to silence and ostracize vast swaths of the population seems like it might backfire in pretty dramatic fashion. Even Jack Dorsey acknowledged that we had entered into dangerous territory when Twitter blocked Trump and the rest of big tech killed Parler, and he seemed to suggest that the only long-term solution was decentralized social media [3] (something I have been saying since they did this).

In any event, we are certainly in for a wild ride over the next few years. American society is cracking at the seams, and our “leaders” and financially-incentivized media companies seem to be actively encouraging it.

[1] https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/never-waste-a-good-water-cr…

[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/former-facebook-offic…

[3] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21

> it’s weird that the discussion has centered around censorship

The discussion here has focused on the shutdown of Parler, both because the demographic leans right and because tech people feel more comfortable talking about data access and civil liberties than about political violence.

In the rest of society, I assure you, the laser focus of discussion is absolutely about the act itself, and the response to it, and questions about the likelihood of it happening again. The stuff about Parler is a side show for the most part.

“Following orders” isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. If LE didn’t speak out, they are co-conspirators.

Well, “following orders” can absolutely be a get-out-of-jail-free card when the orders come from the person in charge of handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards.

Considering the person in charge giving out said cards is going to be out of office tomorrow, that excuse is going to have less and less use going forward.

The constitutionality of “future-effective” pardons is in question. There’s also the question of if those pardons will even be issued (does he care enough).

At a minimum, it is a reason people expect to get get out jail free cards when the person perceived to be giving orders has the power to hand out get out of jail free cards.

I haven’t seen these calls for surveillance. I have seen calls for sedition charges against the politicians that encouraged it and law enforcement that ignored the evidence of coming insurrection.

Crypto wars II. Barr was making noises about banning strong domestic cryptography again, a few months ago. It’s a Democratic party trigger, too, so don’t expect this to change much.

[Can you fine folks in California vote out Feinstein? She’s long past her best-used-by date]

I’ve tried but no smart up and coming democrat wants to start their career by poking the party establishment in the eye, so we largely don’t get great challenging candidates. And california republicans have the albatross of what the national Republican Party has become around their neck in the state.

Your questions are all over the place, I’m not sure what you’re getting at? I’m also not sure given what occurred in this instance that you can make some of the assumptions you included within these questions.

Also – Tim Pool isn’t considered “reasonably neutral” by any stretch of the imagination. He is a very unnuanced commentator, his bias is hard to ignore, he tends to cherry pick data and often misrepresents opposite views, aside from that he is very inconsistent. If you do recommend people should check sources, I’m with you but Pool really isn’t a particularly reliable one for factual accuracy, summaries or analysis.

To be honest FBI did see this and they did work to counter it but the Administration did not take their warning seriously. Donald Trump refused to deploy National Guard and Pence had to do it even though Pence did not have the authority. You can’t blame the tail of snake of the venom in its head.

There is plenty of evidence that the GREAT LEADER tried to overturn elections. If the Congress fails to impeach him it would imply the Congress is not a strong and relevant institution anymore and what the GREAT LEADER failed at someone else would succeed in future. Also, no point blaming FBI here as they were merely pen pushers, their bosses and Congress from which derive legitimacy are far more incompetent and responsible for this mess.

Cato Institute (Libertarian/Conservative think tank) analyst David Bier has a timeline here. The Great Leader Supreme had called for this rally in early December and had since used violent language asking folks to move to DC on December 6th.

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1351552702032056328?…

Here are some quotable quotes.

> 12/19: Trump announces the Jan. 6th event by tweeting, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Immediately, insurrectionists begin to discuss the “Wild Protest.” Just 2 days later, this UK political analyst predicts the violence

> On Dec. 29, the FBI sends out a nationwide bulletin warning legislatures about attacks

> 1/1: Trump tweets the time of his protest. Then he retweets “The calvary is coming” on Jan. 6!” Sounds like a war? About this time, the FBI begins visiting right wing extremists to tell them not to go–does the FBI tell the president?

>1/5: Trump tweets at various law enforcement, intelligence, and military agencies that he supposedly oversees about the threat from “Antifa.” At the same time, a VA FBI Office warns of a “war” at the Capitol from the far right starting the next day.

> 1/6, 12:00-12:17pm: Trump begins his speech. At 12:17, he says that he will march with the rioters to the Capitol to demand the election be overturned.

> “After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol” – Donald J. Trump – Jan 6 2021

> “We are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give weak Republicans the pride and boldness that they need to take back our country… So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Ave” https://youtu.be/ipTSkxiToDE

Yeah “we need to break all encryption to catch people planning terrorism in Facebook groups, e-mail, and unencrypted SMS…”

Most terrorists are idiots because most people who are not idiots are not terrorists.

There have been plenty of extremely well organised, sophisticated and technically competent terrorists. The IRA, the Red Amy Faction, the PLO and Black September, Al Qaeda.

Aside from 9/11 none of them have operated successfully in the US and your domestic terrorism has mainly been perpetrated by individuals or very small one off groups of just 2 or 3.

It’s worth noting the Weather Underground were well organized and sophisticated terrorists, although they were admittedly a lot less violent and long-lasting than the listed groups.

Most people who are idiots are not terrorists either.

On average a terrorist would be smarter than the average person. Terrorists are highly motiviated individuals, they can deeply understand an ideology and they activity learn/train in specialized skills. Compared to the average person their IQ would be 20 points higher.

Being a terrorist isn’t easy. It’s not a job for everyone.

> On average a terrorist would be smarter than the average person

Because the stupid ones get killed/thrown into jail

> they can deeply understand an ideology

Looking at what motivated most of the Capitol insurrectionists does not support this claim. They are seemingly unable to distinguish reality from obvious propaganda or wild conspiracy theories.

What is the purpose of the NSA and FBI if they can’t prevent something this obvious? Wasn’t the supposed bargain that nearly unlimited surveillance of Americans would prevent terrorism? What should be done with agencies incapable of fulfilling their most basic functions?

Why do you think they had an incentive to prevent it? The President was the one encouraging the insurrection!

Blurting out the words “be peaceful” during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn’t “explicit”, it’s a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability.

It’s not fooling anyone but the brain dead and comatose.

Maybe be telling people for weeks that the election was a fraud (without providing proof, and presenting “bogus” proof), that he actually had won, and saying the result would not be accepted?

P.S.: I’m not american and never have been to USA.

Too many people here are unable to distance themselves from their ideological contempt for Trump to be able analyze this with a clear mind. There is not much of a case that Trump “incited” a riot. The fact that this was planned for months only further cements that.

Check your own biases. He was telling a huge crowd that the election was stolen, he would show proof the same day (we are still waiting), and they “will not stand down”. What else is needed to make that case?

(non-US person here)

Like it or not, Trump is allowed to dispute the results of the election. He’s also allowed to do so openly and to a crowd. Language like “will not stand down” is obviously in reference to the “fight” for his “case” and falls in line exactly with the language he had been using at previous rallies and on Twitter. Was he “inciting” a riot then?

I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary, but I am not a fan of Trump. But I feel there is enough to condemn him for without grasping for straws.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

You’d think in-the-open discussions would have facilitated their work… but if they can’t even spy on public conversations…

The Pulse nightclub shooter was reported directly to the FBI for being suspicious at a gun store prior to the attack. They did nothing. The surveillance was rolled out under the guise of protecting you, but it never has. It’s for control.

What control?
There’s no control, else deadly attacks to the capital no less should not occur.

It’s chilling how quickly the tech industry has coalesced around oppressive and biased social media censorship policies. A scant few years ago, the tech industry was a beacon of free expression.

It’s chilling how quickly radical terrorist groups have coalesced around using social media to coordinate their hatred and their attacks. A scant few years ago, America actively fought terrorists instead of encouraging and facilitating them.

Off topic but I’m having increasingly more difficulty with the term Terrorist. How’d you call American intrusions in sovereign states? Just somewhat recently the drone strike of the General Soleimani on sovereign grounds were an act of terrorism if perceived through the eyes of most Iranians, and possibly Iraqis as the strike was on their ground. Terrorist is a term that is stretched and applied beyond meaning.

I would define terrorism as forced coercion of an outside group (or group perceived to be “outside”) through violent actions. Controlling through fear.
So yes, any assassination, and especially that one, would be terrorism. However, terrorism committed by independent actors makes them terrorists, but terrorism committed by the state is more appropriately classified as military aggression, or acts of war.

The whole point of the military doing anything short of all out war is to scare an “enemy” into compliance through threat of violence. So it’s not classified as terrorism for the same reason as lethal action by police is not murder. The blessing of the state changes its definition.

That’s a bit loose. Terrorism aims to inspire terror, those violent acts have to be extreme and indiscriminate to do so.

For example, missiles from unmanned drones hitting civilian targets like schools and hospitals.

Note the statistics here [0] – of course the numbers are very fuzzy but at the worst case scenario it’s 1:2.5 civilians: military targets. So for every 2.5 military targets, 1 civilian. That fits the bill for extreme and indiscriminate.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

We all know how things are – the world is not a fair place. It never was, and so far its rigged in a way that it never will be. Strong oppress the weak. Skillful strong oppress in a way that weak don’t even notice but that’s another topic. The word terrorist currently means ‘enemy of me’, if me is state powerful enough to project its power on others. US took any other meaning internationally from this word over last 17 years pretty effectively.

If you actively object the biggest military in the world, there is no safe place on this planet. A country that effectively uses black op sites to do torture on suspects that would be illegal back home, a country that actively uses a prison to indefinitely detain (and torture) suspects without any legal process (and so on and on… really, there are whole books about this), has absolutely 0 issues with bombing some enemy general. It can be even in the centre of Brusel for all they care, if the benefits outweigh the cons. If they kill 50 kids along, all they do is try to minimize media damage. Do you see many americans shedding tears over this? From outside its pretty hard to spot any, and anybody who cares knows how things are.

Let’s not pretend wars are something nice, fair and some gentlemanly approach is applied. Almost anything that works will be used.

Uuuuuuuum, that is emphatically not the parallel you want to draw here. We did fuck all to prevent extremism from metastasizing and set the Middle East on a course to be a shatter belt for our lifetimes and likely that of our kids. We also killed a bunch of civilians and terrorism was used as a pretext for a hell of a lot of pretty racist policies. Having power means you have to be the grownup in the room. It sucks but the choice is that or a kind of repression that strengthens the grievances of the people you’re supposed to be fighting. The way terrorists work, when they’re successful, is by leveraging the overreaction of their adversary to win adherents, resources, and eventually legitimacy. We can’t let that happen again, we can’t let that happen here, and we sure as hell can’t let it happen with white supremacists.

No they didn’t. Look at the damage done to Seattle and Portland with the full cooperation of Twitter and Facebook.

I missed the part where BLM advocated overthrowing democracy. At worst they advocated to defund police and held obnoxious signs. And despite the right wing narrative, the people carrying signs and doing sit ins were not the ones rioting and looting, but rather getting their ass beat by police.

What do you call CHAZ? Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?

You mean that thing[1]

> The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership. Protesters united behind three main demands:

> 1. cut Seattle’s $409 million police budget by 50 percent,

> 2. shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities, and

> 3. ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes.

Is that what you meant?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone

Nome of those points take away from it being “a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government”.

If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified? I certainly don’t think so.

> What do you call CHAZ?

The popular view of it, especially on the Right? A fiction deliberately constructed by right-wing media (notably Fox News) and the Trump Administration.

> Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM

BLM isn’t a single, unified organization, so “fully supported by BLM” isn’t a meaningful phrase. The protests which spawned what was briefly called (by unknown persons) CHAZ before being renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest specifically to emphatically repudiate the implication of seditious intent were organized in part by activists identifying with the BLM movement.

> and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?

Nope. Fairly good discussion here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/15/dont-liste…

Are you referring to Antifa and BLM, who also organized on FB and Twitter during 2020, too?

You mean the fictitious boogeyman “group” that not one member has ever been identified and the movement for black rights that was widely brutalized by the police?

I suppose not, seeing as one is a fantasy and the other clearly had the police paying attention to their plans.
Besides, neither has attempted a coup to overturn an election so it’s not really the same is it?

When antifa storms the Capitol and gets Congressional representation (i.e. folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene), do let me know.

I honestly believe that antifa is not an organized entity.
Antifa exists as a vaguely defined concept around the idea of counterprotesting right-wing groups. Its the same thing as the alt-right, an ill-defined idea that can be whatever bogeyman you want it to be to whoever you want to scare.

This is the problem. You asked if people really don’t believe that antifa is real. Obviously it is real in some sense since we are talking about something called antifa, but we have no idea if you are thinking of the bogeyman organization that doesn’t exist, and I am thinking of a philosophy of counterprotest.

When people talk about ‘getting rid of antifa’ there’s a reason that so many people on the left laugh. It’s because there is a false conception on the right that it is some sort of unified organization like the ACLU or NRA where you can literally be a card carrying member. People on the left understand that there is no such thing, it is just an ill-defined idea.

How is it that this fictitious bogeyman group has managed to take over portions of Seattle, get two people killed in Seattle, and spend months burning down neighborhoods in Seattle and Portland?

Easy, my friend. All it has to do is deny its existence, and ensure that this denial is reflected up and down the stack. Under such cover, it can do anything, and blame anything that goes wrong on its opponents.

Oh right, I forgot about the part where “Antifa” or the BLM protests ended in them infiltrating the United States Capitol, killing guards with fire extinguishers and american flags, stole laptops from members of congress and attempted to sell them to Russia, and were wearing literal Nazi propaganda and claiming a revolution.

An angry mob surrounded the White House and tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents on May 31, 2020.

Trump had to shelter in the bunker, but he was just a coward, and the people were just demanding justice.

> Then came darkness, and with it, another night of mayhem. In the park, protesters faced the familiar pop, pop, pop of pepper bullets and stinging clouds of tear gas meant to push back hundreds of them as they tried, again and again, to break through the police barricades set up around President Trump’s home.

> Later, American flags and parked cars and buildings were lit ablaze — including St. John’s Church, a historic landmark opened in 1816 and attended by every president since James Madison. Firefighters quickly extinguished the basement fire, which police said was intentionally set.

Protesters then, as on Jan 6th, tried to entice officers to take their side;

> A black officer, according to witnesses, briefly took a knee in solidarity with the protesters, who cheered.

> Not long after, another officer made an announcement on a megaphone: “Attention: We will continue to move back unless you break the police line.”

> And again, cheering from the protesters, many of whom appeared to want the officers to join them rather than fight with them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-…

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/washington-dc…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-braces-for-third-day…

Yeah, I was reflecting back on that incident where BLM tried to breach the White House barriers. It was widely seen as a moment of weakness for Trump and opportunity to dunk on him for lying about it, and protests themselves described in supportive tone “Protesters have turned the newly constructed White House fence into a living memorial to racial justice”[0] / passive voice “started relatively cheerfully … “tensions between protesters and police mounted … multiple fires broke out near the White House late on Sunday evening etc etc.” not like “an angry mob was about to try to storm the White House and that’s bad”[1]

In fact these were really violent, dangerous protests and god knows what would have happened if they had breached the fences. Likely a lot of dead protestors and a major regime legitimacy crisis.

The night prior, more than 60 Secret Service personnel were injured from thrown bricks, rocks, bottles and fireworks, officials said.

“Secret Service personnel were also directly physically assaulted as they were kicked, punched, and exposed to bodily fluids,” the Secret Service said. “A total of 11 injured employees were transported to a local hospital and treated for non-life threatening injuries.”[1]

It’s impossible to play the counterfactual, but I have to believe months of extremely violent political protests being tacitly allowed/encouraged sent a signal to many in the country that violent political protests are ok or even good, or at least what the other side has coming to them.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/white-house-fence-bl…

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-…

[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-floyd-protest-updates-joe-b…

This is the biggest downer of our time to me. The media/elite control of the narrative is astounding and nearly ironclad – and as best I can tell social media is just being used to reinforce it.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if white supremacists performed those same actions, it would be described as a violent terroristic insurrection.

You don’t think attacking the elected head of state is related to a transfer of power? At least 11 Secret Service agents had to be hospitalized after they defended the WH and President from angry rioters…how on earth is that materially different from January 6? Suppose they had succeeded in breaking through the line?

What exactly is so sacrosanct about elections that disputing them is an insurrection, but not storming Senate chambers to stop a Supreme Court confirmation, trying to storm the WH, or literally declaring an autonomous zone not subject to the US government?

It’s hard for me to understand how this is not simply nit picking some insubstantial detail and using it to put the things we like on one side and the things we don’t like on another. Never mind that the election nor the integrity thereof were ever remotely threatened by these riots.

It’s chilling how we moved the blame from books and video games to social networks, wondering what will be next, VR?

I stand corrected and edited. Its still a non trivial amount and apparently “most expensive riot in history” according to your source.

There’s some apples to oranges going on there.

You’ll see in the top ten list several listings in April 1968, when Martin Luther King was assassinated. Counting these (and the many, many other cities they took place in in 1968) separately, while lumping together “protests that took place in 140 U.S. cities this spring”, is fairly hard to justify.

You should also consider what else your preferred news sources may have blown out by a similarly inaccurate 10-20x amount about the BLM protests.

It amazing how the same people saying “terrorism is overblown” a few years back are jumping on the “terrorism is threatening our republic” bandwagon.

You know what’s also chilling? Major tech platforms choosing to publish, amplify, and normalize: white supremacy, antisemitism, serious calls to violently overthrow democracy, conspiracies about the deep state cabal of satan-worshiping pedophiles, the health benefits of drinking bleach, denial of well understood scientific facts, etc.

These things are fine for the town square, since people have free speech, but nobody should be handing them a megaphone that reaches 7 billion people.

Free speech does not mean you are entitled to have your speech broadcast to a global audience.

Honest question, what are you referring to when in regards to published/public content?

All of these topics you’ve mentioned are and always have been far away from trending (‘amplified’, ‘normalized’) pages. You can’t go anywhere on these sites and see these topics without searching for them, and when you do the hashtags are either immediately taken over by the rest of the users on the site or taken off of trending deliberately by administrators, often both. Can you provide one example of these topics consistently being ‘amplified’ or ‘normalized’ by one of the major tech platforms? I’m talking public content, not private groups. Posts that are ‘amplified’, not just present. You can find posts from anyone about anything online, so I don’t really see what separates these private facebook groups from something like a mailing list. It doesn’t seem “normalized” at all.

I’m going by what the article said: “Facebook spent the past year allowing election conspiracies and far-right militia activity to proliferate on its platform, laying the groundwork for the broader radicalization that fueled the Capitol insurrection in the first place.”

Facebook exercises editorial control (moderation) of what user-provided content is published on its site. Therefore if something is there, it’s because their moderation system allowed it to be there. I don’t use Facebook myself so I can’t provide a first-hand example, but it’s increasingly being reported that this content spreads virally through these platforms’ recommendation rabbit-holes and through promotion by end users.

I also don’t use Facebook which is why I was asking. Supposedly after some more research it seems that Facebook has a feature that actually recommends private groups to people, which I was not aware of. It’s interesting that they choose to do that, then.

The trouble in my opinion comes when these social networks begin to promote content to the user algorithmically. My Twitter feed is filled with content from users I do not follow. It makes up the majority of my feed. Likely, even if it was content that I was following, the most “engaging”, or oftentimes “enraging” content, would be the content shown first.

If social networks were largely just content crafted by the people I follow, it would then be more representative towards a digital representation of the in-person social structures that would or do exist.

They make much less money that way though. Your average user would probably also use it less.

Even harder: Who gets to decide who gets the megaphone? I see the problems with “nobody, therefore everybody gets the megaphone”, but I see nobody that I actually trust to decide who gets it…

which mythical social media platform choose the amplify and publish “white supremacy, antisemitism, serious calls to violently overthrow democracy”, because those I know were and are removing such content

Seriously. That is stuff that nearly everybody’s against and is a constant boogeyman brought up by many on the left, but they can’t ever seem to demonstrate that it is a pervasive problem. Nobody admits to being a white supremacist because it’s basically universally denounced.

But those same folks will happily excuse the whole BLM/Antifa rioting during 2020 where billions of dollars in property damage was caused and dozens of people died.

Weird, I distinctly remember Twitter, Facebook and Google removing Islamic religious content under the guise of stopping terrorism a decade ago. What I don’t remember is the current free speech absolutist crowd objecting to such censorship. In fact, I remember them cheering those companies on.

This isn’t so. I and many other free speech proponents did not support that. There were people supporting it, but to the best of my knowledge they appear to mainly be the same people supporting censorship now.

I agree with your use of “chilling” but more in the traditional sense when it comes to expression: that any censorship/bans/etc will likely have a chilling effect on this type of speech. In this case I think “this type of speech” comes down to people expressing their violent fantasies or plans, and I don’t think it’s bad if we have less of that particular kind of speech. As the classic argument goes, however, you can’t have it both ways with both total freedom of speech and some kind of moderating censorship.

All that said, if we can make our way past the obvious consequences of limiting speech we might get to a more interesting place. In particular I’m more interested in how social media moderation might change our opinions and laws about speech itself. Does everyone’s speech deserve to be treated the same way by the algorithms that decide what gets traction and what doesn’t? Should the algorithms or platforms themselves be restricted in their “speech” in some way? How do we square our desire to allow corporations to develop algorithms to increase commerce when those same algorithms also necessarily foment rage and violence?

I don’t think it’s worth arguing whether free speech is worth protecting (it is, despite the evils you also have to protect) but I do think it’s worth considering how we think about what constitutes speech when commerce, social media platforms, and algorithms come into play.

I would like to believe you that this would be even handed at all violent talk and extremism, but blm from just months back stands as a major counterpoint.

I’d argue that this has been creeping for a while. At first it’s used to ban blatantly illegal posts and obvious spam. However the power to moderate is easily abused. Big Tech is now effectively punishing wrong-think, and it doesn’t even have to happen on the platform in question.

Society has been steadily picking off free speech diehards. I think the turning point is when reddit started cracking down

>A scant few years ago, the tech industry was a beacon of free expression.

It wasn’t. Not since the 00s and at that point social media was small enough that rooting for the underdog was rooting for themselves.

It’s chilling how quickly misinformation merchants, hostile foreign agents, and other bad actors coalesced around using popular mainstream social media as the world’s most effective megaphone.

A scant few years ago, they lacked a direct communications channel by which they could radicalize the average American.

I think it’s simultaneously funny and I feel a bit of empathy for them. They imagined puppies and rainbows on their free speech platform, but what they got was Donald Trump tweeting his way into the White House. They facilitated that and it’s gotta be a big punch in the gut to people who consider him literally hitler, an existential threat, etc. When they looked around their very liberal cities they felt like they were the 99%, but a shocking reality check came for them.

>The Capitol Attack

Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk?

Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a “non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients.

On one hand we have hooligans using a crowd as cover to get away with property damage.

On the other we have hooligans organized for the express purpose of overturning the results of a democratic election.

In the case of BLM, the crimes don’t reflect on the movement’s overall purpose. Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform — it’s an argument for more police presence, if anything. In the case of the capitol riots, not only are the crimes worse (storming the capitol >> property damage), but the criminal acts absolutely do reflect on the movement’s agenda. Intimidating congress is a plausible vehicle for obtaining the votes they needed that day to overturn the election. Trump’s pre-riot speech emphasized that this was the goal. These factors increase the culpability of platforms and leadership in the capitol riots as compared to BLM.

What would you call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone if not an attempt at insurrection? Come on, can we have some intellectual honesty here? Both situations sucked, the people involved sucked, their reasoning sucked and they should all go to jail so that sane people can get back to their lives in peace. We are being forced into building absurd logical houses of cards just so we do not concede an inch to the other side. What childish madness.

If we’re being binary, yes, both situations sucked. For some reason, most arguments I see regarding this fail to even see the slightest shade of gray.

I, for one, believe that taking over a city block and declaring it an autonomous zone is significantly less concerning than attempting to stop the presidential election — arguably the single most important piece of our democracy — from happening, calling for the death of the vice president while building gallows, and potentially looking for other politicians to kill.

Yeah, CHAZ was wrong and stupid. Yeah, the people who did it should get some kind of punishment. So should the people who destroyed private property during the riots, that’s not cool.

But it seems pretty clear to me that the storming of the capital is so much worse than that as it is a clear attempt to undermine our democracy. I believe the response should reflect that.

This has been the left’s rhetoric for eons. They always excuse their actions because of their ”noble” goals. Same regarding policy – its the stated goal that matters, not the end results and real-world consequences of their policies.

Having a convicted terrorist as a director of their beloved BLM movement means nothing. Lofty ideals matter.

Invading a city block means nothing. Lofty ideals matter.

If you don’t think the people who did CHOP and Capitol are equally dangerous to society, you’re wilfully turning a blind eye.

> This has been the left’s rhetoric for eons.

Except it hasn’t been. You just don’t want to listen to what people are actually saying because it’s easier to argue against a strawman.

FWIW lots of people on the left do the same thing. So I guess you’re in good company?

Most folks that I know in Seattle didn’t think that CHOP/CHAZ was a good thing, and one of their leaders Raz Simone was heavily criticized for being… well, dumb to put it lightly.

It’s okay to criticize both things here. CHOP/CHAZ was clearly wrong, as is throwing a molotov at a police officer. No question about that. The capitol was wrong as well.

+1000000 on this. It’s all stupid and bad, and we need to stop looking for reasons to excuse it, regardless who is doing it, when or why.

That’s exactly right. The amount of mental gymnastics people do to excuse the thing they agree with but not the one they disagree with is staggering.

Unlike the Capitol Hill issue, the ChaZ people actually had guns, and shooting deaths there (and not shootings by cops).

From my perspective as someone outside the US, I don’t have an emotional dog in this fight. That said, the Capitol raid was the one thing that made me stop joking around for a bit in the entire Trump era because I genuinely believed a coup was not only possible but probably underway given the parameters. In the end it turned out to just a bunch of disorganized wannabes but the context was still genuinely worrying especially with reports of the police standing down to let the mob in, even if we cast aside the shrill theatrics that followed in the media.

In comparison, the BLM unrest seemed like it would predictably peter out fairly quickly without much in the way of concrete changes, and that’s exactly what happened. At no point did I expected some radical uncertainty in the future as a result.

Equating a bunch of dumb activists taking over six city blocks to an attempt to overturn the election of POTUS is “intellectual honesty”?

Look, I’ll agree that everyone involved with both CHAZ and the Capitol Riots needs to go to jail. That includes Donald Trump, though. He was the one trying an end-run around the US electoral process in order to hold on to power for four more years.

> What would you call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone if not an attempt at insurrection?

CHAZ: An occupation. They weren’t killing anyone. They weren’t trying to kill people. They literally setup a community garden.

Capitol Hill attack: An insurrection. It was clearly a violent rebellion against the government of the US, with people actively working to kill the VPOTUS and members of the government.

I can easily see the differences. So can many others.

> What childish madness.

It’s childish madness to treat the two as the same.

In fact there were two shootings within a week in “CHAZ”, and one of the victims died.

Neither of which were the goals of CHAZ, both were related to gangs that happened to be there.

Context matters. One group had specific goals, none of which involved killing. The other group specifically was calling out to kill someone.

So it’s OK that someone died, because your political framework is aligned with some ethereal goal of CHOP. Based on the definitions stated in this thread, you support terrorism.

>Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform

Yet hundreds of cities are in the process of reevaluating how they allocate police and social service resources.

In light of that it’ll be interesting to see what comes out of the capital mess.

Honestly? Probably nothing, not to their advantage anyway. The blm peaceful protests /riots had the backing and mandate of their mainstream. From what I’ve seen of the fight wrong media /power centers, this does not. The capitol hill protests /riots have drawn immediate flak not just from the left aligned media, but even their own side.

>Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk?

Blessing? The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned.

>Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a “non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients.”

And served 15 years in prison for it with a 58 YEAR sentence. Clinton faced plenty of criticism for the pardon too. That being said, are you suggesting someone who has served their time should… permanently be ostracized by society? Prison is meant to punish not reform?

If you’re suggesting she’s still supporting violence, provide the evidence. Her book seems to indicate she has a different world view after spending time in prison. Literally the outcome we SHOULD want from people being arrested and imprisoned.

> The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned.

I know many people who defended the BLM rioters on social media. The actual rioters – not just the protesters.

> Prison is meant to punish not reform?

slightly off-topic but I don’t think a 58-year sentence will reform anyone more than a 10-year sentence would. The entire American prison system is built around punishing our prisoners.

I think you hit diminishing returns even before 10 years. Unless you have a reason to believe that if let out they would immediately do harm I would cap it at 5 for the very worst offenders.

Absolutely, I figured the argument would stand stronger with 10 years as, even if you’re of the mindset that prison works, 10 years is obviously more than enough for the “rehabilitation.” If anything, prison seems to breed more resentment for the system that put them there in the first place.

I really think the entire prison system needs to be rethought from the ground up though. It doesn’t make sense that excons carry this weight with them throughout their life, failing background checks. If someone’s been released from prison, they should be done with their punishment. Period.

– The BLM movement is, while poorly framed and easily co-opted by other people, about genuine problems with policing in the United States. Problems that are backed up with verifiable facts rather than scummy used car salesmen and the Inventor of Email™.

– The BLM movement, while the source of many large large scale protests (several of which turned into riots and outstayed their welcome) never, at any point, even pretended to stage a coup or murder a member of the Capitol Police.

A couple cops were killed by blm rioters. Sure they weren’t capital police but they were still police. ACAB was all over Facebook and Twitter which at a minimum raised the temperature and hatred towards cops.

It’s also easy to look at the summer’s riots and forget that it was a mixture of peaceful protestors and violent antagonists. Until we have some convictions with evidence in court, we can’t say BLM’ers killed cops.

and to your 2nd point, I don’t think it was ppl saying ACAB that raised the temperature and hatred towards cops. It was the cops killing innocent black people.

It can be both. Police racism is a real problem. But saying ACAB (“All Cops Are Bastards”) is both untrue and hardly improves the situation. That said, I don’t believe the majority of the BLM movement is that extreme.

Some of the black people who were shot by cops were in all likelihood not innocent. Look at Jacob Blake for example. He came at the cops with a knife. Blake did survive though.

Just because one event raises the temperature doesn’t mean another event also doesn’t. Saying ACAB and defund the police seems like it would also raise the temperature.

What are the verifiable facts again? Do you have alternative statistics because they’re actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you’re saying. The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters. I hate to be stone cold but that’s my understanding of what unfolded. We witnessed something similar in 2015.

I should add a caveat around “the BLM movement is about.” One of its problems (like many progressive movements) is everyone has a different idea what it is about, and the mainstream media does not help with that in the slightest.

So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true. There are no statistics to worry about for that one and there don’t need to be: just look at a handful of publicized cases and be angry.

But of course, people do like statistics. You can’t be angry without statistics. (Truly, you shouldn’t. It’s unhealthy). Also, that framework makes a terrible export. (Which is unfortunate because Canada loves importing protests from the States instead of making its own).

So, various other progressive movements globbed on to the name, as they do, but fortunately it’s a more visceral thing than, say, Occupy Wall Street, so they are at least mostly on topic. I think the real problem, which is the source of most of the recent anger (see the equally badly named and easily co-opted slogan “Defund the police”), is that police are killing a lot of people for stupid reasons.

It is still important to emphasize that black lives matter, because they do, and it’s infuriating that that makes people uncomfortable. But the root cause is the United States has an unreasonable approach to policing in general, which creates as many problems as it solves. And I think if you talk to most BLM supporters, they aren’t going to tell you about racial sensitivity training or hiring more black cops: they’re going to tell you how the police in a developed country shouldn’t act as if they’re expecting a war.

>So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true.

Is it though? Seems to me you’re advocating feelings matter more than facts. I believe it would be more accurate to say “police in the United States are killing people for stupid reasons, which is true.” while keeping in mind that those incidents are the exception, not the norm. The police shot 28 unarmed people in 2019. On a population of 320 million.

>This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_anal…

>We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.

https://archive.is/Xppla

>In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.
The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

https://archive.is/MIoYJ

I think the issue isn’t just police killing unarmed black people but also an incredibly large disparity in use of all physical force which your stats allude to:

>This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities.

Further down in their comment they cite statistics about variant violent crime rates by race, where African Americans commit more than 50% of violent crime, which seems in line with your cited non-lethal force rates. Violent criminals receiving proportionate rates of violent force doesn’t stand out as a disparity.

I’ll join you on beating that drum. Statistics are the key skill for making policy decisions. One that the vast majority of the population, educated or not, fail to grasp.

To be specific, the data shows Google search interest – not number of protest events.

Protests are not necessarily “newsworthy”; however, that search interest would track media stirring up news before elections seems likely.

Further, (and I say this as a Minneapolitan) the significant protests of this summer were very clearly and obviously precipitated by real world events, not astroturfed protest crowds.

> The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters.

So, Trump was behind it, so he could run on a law and order platform? Because he certainly did take advantage of it.

I’m afraid the boring truth was that ordinary people got angry during a time of high unemployment, with protests and rioting being a predictable result. It’s not as though large protests over police shootings are new.

> they’re actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you’re saying

You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. s

When you make a claim put some effort into it, instead of hearsay. And made up statements to support your point of view

“You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. s” what is the context of this joke Im not following. I stated a fact (FBI statistics) and then an opinion. Are we allowed to do that on the internet?

According to The Washington Post, 19 unarmed black men were killed by police in the entirety of 2019. Black people are disproportionately killed by police for their population, but almost exactly in proportion to the rate of violent crime broken down by race.

Obviously every “unjustified” death, especially deaths by the police (who are trained and held to higher expectations given their position) is a tragedy. The riots and protests led to far more deaths, far more injuries, and far more damage (including causing the second wave as cases were decreasing) than seems at all justified even considering these tragic police shootings.

In other words, while police brutality is a genuine problem, the response was completely disproportionate, misinformed, and morally wrong.

This is a disingenuous false equivalence. Local protests that turn violent based on political grievances regarding police violence are not the same as storming the nation’s capitol with the goal of overturning a democratic election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rosenberg

> Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years’ imprisonment on the weapons and explosives charges. She spent 16 years in prison, during which she became a poet, author, and AIDS activist. Her sentence was commuted to time served by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001,[5] his final day in office.[6][7]

She was charged, served some of her time (16 years of 58 years is 27.586%), and then a president pardoned her.

Doesn’t appear to be a pardon, which involves the conviction being expunged. Commuting a sentence means more like “you have been punished enough, but we were right to punish you”. A pardon is “we were wrong to punish you”.

Oh sorry, you are correct. The president commuted her sentence. I got confused with pardons today.

BLM is fighting to end police violence against the Black community. Antifa is fighting to stop white supremacists from gaining power in the streets and in government.

The people who attacked the Capitol were fighting to end democracy and keep an unelected would-be dictator in power.

Do you see the difference?

Thank you for the first legitimate critique of the Black Lives Matter organization that I’ve seen.

I don’t think it invalidates all of the points of the platform of BLM, but it does make me question the sanity and legitimacy of the organization’s leadership.

I don’t mean this unkindly, but your information diet has incredibly serious problems if you haven’t come across any legitimate criticisms of the BLM org in the past. As someone whose pet issue has been police and justice system violence for a really, really long time, I really wish BLM wasn’t the organization/movement representing this particular struggle[1]. The 2020 iteration is a little more connected to reality and a little less hateful than the 2015 one, so I’d count myself as a supporter in a way that I didn’t in 2015, but if you’ve not come across _any_ valid criticism of them before now, I suggest sitting down and taking a hard look at your media diet.

By far the scariest facet of the modern moment to me is all the people sneering at Trumpists detachment from reality while happily wallowing in their own post-truth bubble. The average person has always been horribly un- and misinformed, but the shift in the last couple of years in my white-collar, coastal social group legitimately terrifies me.

[1] Though I’m well-aware that getting attention and support is probably the most important part of driving social change, and they’ve obviously done very well there.

If BLM isn’t the face of the justice reform movement, then why is the capitol riot the face of the “the election was stolen” movement?

This is such a spot on comment. I think the trouble is that you can’t pick the way that opposition to very bad things finds it’s moment. We have had decades of horrible abuses and creeping police state totalitarianism. It affects everyone. It permeates life everywhere. I wish the current zeitgeist around changing that was less identitarian, but I will take what I can get and happily support it.

Yes, I agree, and tried to capture this sentiment in my edit. It’s easy to sit in an ivory tower and sniff about how the masses don’t agree with you, and it’s much harder to find an intersection point that fires up the masses while also doing some good. The latter is how change actually happens, so I give a lot of leeway to activist or policy groups when it comes to not having perfect policy goals.

BLM 2015 didn’t quite meet this tradeoff, and was in some cases explicitly against race-blind solutions to police violence and in favor of pseudoscience like IATs (at which point their detachment from reality points them in the opposite direction from managing to do good). BLM 2020 is pretty different in character, and while it still has its stupidities, I reckon that it’s a decent enough direction that it may lead to some positive change.

Thank you for the courteous response to a comment that could easily have been taken as an insult!

I don’t think it’s about individually high-quality sources as much as it is about how you take in information. Don’t consider yourself to understand an issue until you’ve heard a compelling argument on both sides, or have thoroughly convinced yourself that you’ve adequately searched through diverse enough fora. Don’t read anything, from Alex Jones’s Facebook page to the frontpage of the NYT, without spot-checking sources, reading studies, etc. There’s no filter that ensures that journalists are the best humanity has to offer: just like all humans, plenty of them are incompetent or dishonest, and beyond that groupthink exists in cultures that get as insular and self-aggrandizing as journalism’s. Correctly combine a variety of low-quality signals and you can get a really high-quality signal.

That being said, some general recommendations for individual sources are (in ascending order of obscurity) The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and Marginal Revolution (economist Tyler Cowen’s blog). I find they do a better job than most of:

1) representing different opinions intellectually honestly

2) being thorough in their reasoning and analysis

and/or

3) being fairly high-quality

> while happily wallowing in their own post-truth bubble

Explain? I have not seen any conspiracy theories on the left that are remotely close to the Qanon/plandemic/stop-the-steal clusterfuck of recent years.

Even though I also haven’t seen those kind of theories on the left, that doesn’t mean that the information consumed is unbiased in the slightest. I mean, you have the sideplot of the Trump presidency playing out on CNN where every time he coughs there are calls for him to be removed from office for being a dementia patient… or something.

The point I’m trying to make with this winding comment is that you can still consume an unhealthy amount of biased media without delving into the levels of Qanon- expand your horizons and try other sources!

I personally even make it a point to read FOX and r/conservative once in a while through a critical lens to see what exactly the right is consuming.

Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media?

This is incendiary and false.

The magnitude of threatening the lives of national leadership is different from the property damage of the BLM movements. The implications of each are different, too. Both are bad things.

Of course not. But institutions matter, and shutting down a governing body through threats of violence has consequences far beyond just the immediate politician’s lives.

Shutting down a judicial governing body through nightly attacks for month should also have consequences…but it didn’t. I literally watched it happen for months on end with little repercussions by local law enforcement (because they were restricted by the mayor).

What happens when you take over multiple city blocks for a few weeks and don’t allow any government agencies to do their jobs? That should also have reprecussions…but it didn’t.

Don’t forget trying to torch the justice building with people in it. Or throwing burning stuff into Ted Wheeler’s apartment building where many other people lived.

It sounds like you are talking about the federal judiciary in Portland? Being specific helps readers understand how to address your comments.

Or the incident at the white House that had the secret service moving trump to a bunker for his safety. Note that left aligned media considered this a good thing.

Contrasting this to the reaction to capitol hill does not bode well to me.

A small number of protestors made it over some waist high barricades and nearly made it to the white house lawn. They were arrested. Trump himself said he wasn’t whisked to a bunker.

If you don’t see a categorical difference between the two events, I’d recommend checking your biases.

Yes, the citizens’ lives do matter.

Which is why our intelligence and security infrastructure are moving heaven and earth right now to locate and intercept the many foreign agents who attacked the capitol alongside their american collaborators. With luck, they will be intercepted before anything can happen that might be deleterious to the safety of all these lives we’re all claiming are we care about so deeply.

It’s good to see so many loyal and patriotic americans keeping eyes forward in this common endeavor. And not being sidetracked by matters like, say, street crime, that can be reliably left to the capable handling of municipal authorities.

That is an utterly false comparison. Black Lives Matter is more of a slogan than an organization or a movement. Many if not most of the BLM related protests were peaceful. There were many events such as police making a show of taking the knee in front of protesters that have no comparison. Where in the capitol actions did police take the knee as a show of empathy?

And there was a great deal of push back against BLM related protests. Near me in Oakland, California the discount grocery store that serves a mostly black and largely poor neighborhood was ransacked and this caused a huge uproar and major social upheaval. There was considerable resistance against the rioting at that time.

But all we heard from the right was a wretched flow of lies. Democrats do nothing to stop violence they said, even when police were hurting from attempts to bring peace. And then the same lovers of political theater cheered on an attack on the capitol.

It’s pretty clear what’s going on. The mass-media elite who dictate the prevailing narrative are telling the masses that it’s good to support BLM and Antifa, while it’s bad to support the others. Simple as that. “It’s only bad if it’s not my group doing it”.

There is nothing more disgusting than a person who applies ideals and values selectively like this, who doesn’t commit to the ideals themselves (gleaned from a related comment which I love [1]):

“I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military’s abuses in the middle East.

Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they didn’t like.

Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information related to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned it because it was targeting someone they actually supported.

This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions (“freedom of information is good, it exposes the US’ crimes!”) will just as quickly discard those ideals when they stop working in their own interest (“WikiLeaks should not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!”).

I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the group’s attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred.

When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group.”

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899476

idk how to tell you this in a way you’ll listen to but doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad.

Yeah, I’m sure the guy burning down someone’s small business and looting television sets was doing it with the intention that it would stop police brutality.

The idea that you can do so is pretty fundamental in politics. It’s how the federal government justified the US Civil War, for example, and how the Founding Fathers justified a lot of things that tend to get glossed over in grade school history books.

The debate ultimately hinges on sympathies. For someone who wholeheartedly supports BLM, the riots might be regarded as something that was regrettable, but also understandable. In the words of Martin Luther King, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” The observation also works in the direction of the Capitol insurrection. The rioters were there because they believed that their opinion on the election was not being heard.

Deciding which group had more grounds to be angry is left as an exercise for the reader.

Violence is categorically bad, regardless of what the intentions are. Referring to violence as “doing things” purposely avoids recognizing this.

Violence is not categorically bad, I don’t think. Rarely, violence is necessary in self defense. It might be the option of last resort, but sometimes violence can stop worse consequences.

I’m not justifying any particular actions that anyone has taken in specific, just objecting to the categorization that it is always bad. (For example, someone suffering from domestic violence might strike back in an effort to escape.)

What does this mean? If something is necessary, is it not justifiable? If it is justifiable, how can it be bad?

If we’re saying all violence is categorically bad, I guess you’ll want to abolish the military and the police, too, right?

Violence is not categorically bad. Violence is a tactic that is sometimes necessary and sometimes good. For example if you are being attacked, it is completely justifiable to defend yourself, violently if necessary.

The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.

I’m sorry, but that’s revisionist history.

Ariel Atkins – Chicago BLM leader:

“That is reparations,” Ariel Atkins, an organizer, told NBC Chicago. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it”

She said that about a riot in which 13 police officers were injured, and at least one rioter fired at police.

This is just one example of many where BLM leaders justified (or glorified) violence.

Agreed. Additionally, it’s important to recognize that “peaceful” does not mean the same thing as “non-violent”. The protests were not necessarily peaceful — they intended to be disruptive — but they were explicitly non-violent.

>”peaceful” does not mean the same thing as “non-violent”. The protests were not necessarily peaceful — they intended to be disruptive

peaceful:

1. free from disturbance; tranquil.

2. not involving war or violence.

Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.

You do realize that everyone has their own opinion on what is good and bad right? I cant believe how naive this statement is.

Golly it’s just so hard to know who to trust. The crowds protesting racial injustice and police brutality? Or the literal, self identifying nazis, white supremacists, and cultish conspiracy theorists trying to kill political leaders.

Alas our moral non cognizance in a post modern perspective.

edit: to the below, really, no. There’s no hyperbole. If your group features nazis, and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis, your group is, at best, nazi adjacent. Nazis are the hyperbolic euphemism of peak historical immorality. It is preposterous that anyone feels they’re making a good faith argument throwing whatabout comparisons when the starting point is nazis.

Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views.

Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.

The ‘Camp Auschwitz’ hoody and the “6MWE” (6 million Jews wasn’t enough) not enough of a signpost for you?

Continuing to prove my point. “wide brushes of their opposing views” Thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi because you saw a a guy with a t-shirt is something stupid people do.

Someone who thinks that the holocaust didn’t go far enough is, literally, a nazi.

The fact that this is something you’re in a state of active denial about is a ‘you’ problem, not a ‘me’ problem.

Talking about some remote person or group of people and pretending it represents a nonexistent large population is insanity. There have always been fringe groups on both sides. The issue at hand is you have no perspective after being gaslit and think everyone you disagree with is a “nazi”.

No, I don’t believe everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi. However, if I see a group of people displaying actual nazi sentiments then I will assume that all the group are either actual nazis or cool with being associated with nazis.

Remember, the OG antifa were on the beaches at Normandy.

I severely doubt that 70 million Americans were holding anti-jewish flags / Confederate flags and beating officers with them on January 6th. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of conservatives are horrified at what they saw that day.

But if you want to paint the viewpoints of the entire 70-million with that kind of hatred, that’s on you, not me.

We are talking about the little group of seditionists, trying so desperately hard to convince people that a larger group agrees with their goals or their tactics.

70 million people cast a vote based on political affiliations. And their side lost, and they accepted that. The commonality with the seditionists ends there.

> 70 million people cast a vote based on political affiliations. And their side lost, and they accepted that.

Did they, now?

“A CNN poll, released on Sunday and conducted by SSRS between January 9 and 14, shows that 75 percent of Republicans do not think that Biden won the election legitimately, compared to 1 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents.”[0]

[0] https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-joe-biden-won-election-…

> and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis

This was the most bothersome part to me. Trump talked about wanting to punch protestors, but tip-toed around actual Nazi’s supporting him and coming to events. He would eventually denounce violence or hate after being prodded, but never seemed to be able to state plainly if someone is a Nazi, then GTFO.

Personally, if I’m in a group and literal Nazi’s are also allowed in the group, that’s not a group I’m going to remain a part of.

> never seemed to be able to state plainly if someone is a Nazi, then GTFO.

> Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin… we must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence… Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-…

Donald Trump has many qualities worth criticizing. You should do some basic research to make sure you’re repeating real ones and not just nonsense from an echo chamber.

I’ve read that, yet he kept on walking the line. His initial statements always seemed to need clarification later. As I said, he always managed to denounce later after prodding.

From the summer:
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/28/trump-tweets-video-with…

And this:
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/880377872/facebook-removes-tr…

And then stuff like this:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-condemn-white-suprem…

When asked to condemn “white supremacists and right-wing militia groups,” Trump verbally articulated a willingness to do so (“Sure, I’m willing to do that”), but also prevaricated, delayed, and bristled at the request, for example asking “Who do you want me to condemn?” when the terms of the request had already been made clear, and saying “Give me a name, go ahead.” He also swiftly shifted focus from white supremacists (the subject of the moderator’s question to him) to a condemnation of “the left wing.”

While it can be argued that Trump did not unequivocally refuse to condemn white supremacists, he undoubtedly demonstrated a reluctance to do so, one that will be very worrying to many voters. When Trump ultimately got around to issuing his version of the condemnation requested by Wallace and Biden, it was shrouded in ambiguity (“Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by”) and followed by another rapid shift in focus to “antifa and the Left.” Whatever Trump did say, he did not condemn white supremacists.

Unfortunately, because of the pandemic I’ve probably watched, read, and listened to more Trump than his supporters. The only echo chamber I’m in is his own material. His hesitancy around the white supremacist topic has always been alarming.

Yes, that doesn’t mean we have to respect all opinions equally. The lies about election fraud should not be tolerated even if some people are foolish enough to entertain them.

> doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad.

“Things are justified because I support them or unjustified because I don’t support them”.

This is how children and narcissists think. Reality is that a lot of arguments are really this with a layer or two of post-hoc justification though.

I can’t tell if this post was meant as a joke, but if it wasn’t it’s either impressively self-aware or completely and utterly lacking self-awareness.

Hacker news seems to really struggle with this, partly because there are still Trump supporters here somehow.

> somehow

Computing has long been an interplay of curious, light-hearted hacker types and business/military types. e.g. Woz/Yannes/Stoll/Stallman and Jobs/DARPA/Musk/Thiel.

I don’t think the values of skill, sacrifice, daring, and greed (sorry if that offends anyone) that roughly underlie HN are effective filters to remove Trump values. In fact, they move the needle toward the business/military side. HN appreciates the fun hacks, but, by design, amplifies the business side.

> Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983

I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention.

It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: “No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot
Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth.” [1]

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-ca…

Even if correct it is a moot point. There have been left wing terrorists for a long time now, and most of them get adequate police response, and sometimes even condemnation from other left wing groups. But even if it didn’t that still doesn’t make the leeway right wing terrorists get justified.

Susan Rosenberg has paid for her crimes and no longer uses terrorism to further the cause. Pointing to her case is a sever form of whataboutism, and is never done in good faith.

She was pardoned by Clinton even though some of the incidents she was involved in resulted in deaths.

Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?

It’s extremely dishonest to compare a QAnon fueled outright ‘voter fraud’ & child abduction conspiracy that lead to Congress being forcibly entered to legitimate & coherent concerns about policing, race, & the prison system in USA.

And getting up-voted too. I thought the BLM=Looters talking point was debunked a long time ago, given that BLM protests took place mainly in the daytime, while the looting was done by thugs, at night, after the protesters went home. So it is very strange to see that narrative being taken at face value here.

So you’re able to clearly separate out the bad actors from BLM, but apparently not with Trump supporters?

‘Even the bad actors aren’t really that bad because they support a cause I see as valuable’ seems to be the primary excuse floating around on here.

All political violence should be treated equally.

I also think that all races/genders/etc should be treated equally but even that has become taboo in progressive circles. Which is probably using the same sort of mental gymnastics that justifies some violence but not vilifies others.

I also think that all races/genders/etc should be treated equally but even that has become taboo in progressive circles.

Problem is, it’s always been taboo in conservative circles as well. That is the great problem of our day. All these political ideologues espouse beliefs contrary to the good of large numbers of people in our society. They give speeches about how it’s not “us” but the other side who are the bad guys, but then they all send their pet terrorists out to riot, loot, and in the case of the capitol attackers gather intel to hand over to our nation’s adversaries.

These political extremists are simply bad people all the way around. No matter what way you look at it.

I will say that these events have given me some respect for the right wing media. They at least were willing to call these riots and condemm them, which is more than I can say about the reaction to blm. From the left media.

I find them harder to separate in the capitol incident. The event they were attending was named “Stop the Steal”. At some level people there were invested in a tenuous narrative about how functional our elections are.

It’s obvious they did not all commit crimes, but they somewhat tacitly encouraged what brought it about. I generally don’t feel the same way about BLM activists. There were situations in BLM events where the boundary was overstepped, and inexcusable mob behavior took over. Perhaps I give a big pass because I am sympathetic to the overall aims of the movement, and for the “Stop the Steal” event I see a lot of malice in the lies that caused people to deny (not just question) the outcome of the election.

there were 70M+ that voted for Trump.
estimates say about 1M folks were somewhere around in DC
A few thousands walked to the Capitol
A few hundred got into the building
There were known provocateurs from the other side..not an opinion, charges filed against Antifa and also a CNN reporter who was recorded being excited about the whole thing.

Yet, you paint all of them with the same brush…

When Trump himself is one of the bad actors, all his supporters are bad actors. The bad subset of BLM supporters weren’t leading the BLM movement.

Ah some classic “whataboutism”.

Nice way to detract from the point that people are directing violence towards politicians.

But yes a Target got looted and some fires were set because people are fucking angry about the institutional violence directed towards their communities.

Clearly the same thing, yeah?

Such a lazy, and hateful attack. Your post doesn’t belong here.

We’re talking about terrorism here, and your first reaction is: “But what about BLM?!?” They have nothing to do with each other. Your assumption is that people didn’t condemn the violence this summer. They did. You just choose to ignore it so you can keep your political nonsense.

Get a grip.

Any rational definition of terrorism (lives lost, property damage, etc) would implicate BLM/Antifa orders of magnitude more than the Capitol rioters.

> Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months

This sentence fragment appears deliberately vague and it assumes the conclusion. Compare, for example, “The Capitol Attack” vs “Right Wing Violence in America”. One references a specific event with specific actors, the other is a vague non-specific description of a phenomena that may or may not exist.

I’d encourage you to be more specific — which instances of fires and looting do you feel were not adequately described as attacks? Who is failing to describe them, again, specifically.

Right now, this does not read like you are interested in discussing this in good faith.

What about CHAZ/CHOP?

-Armed protestors took over government buildings and city blocks

-Promoted/condoned/excused by government officials

-Lots of violence and murder

Which government buildings? The police just left the east precinct… And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with? In my experience it was umbrellas and loud voices.

And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time.

> Isn’t the east precinct a government building?

Yes, but your framing isn’t genuine. Some protestors did wander into an abandoned building. I’m not sure whether any of them were armed. That’s a far cry from “Armed protestors took over a government building.”

> Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles:

Again, your framing is clearly flamebait. I obviously don’t deny that Raz was there, and that there appears to be a video of him giving a long gun to someone. (Singular.)

But calling Raz “the Warlord of CHAZ” is needlessly biased and inflammatory. Just say Raz Simone, or if you feel you need to clarify, add some factual clarification.

> How many people were shot within the protest zone by occupants of CHAZ versus police over that time?

Again, your framing lacks nuance.

The first shooting in the protests was by someone driving into a crowd who claimed to have a brother who worked in the east precinct.

The second shooting does not have a clear connection to the protest occupants. The Police chose not to help the shooting victim (and the reason for the shooting is unknown). This may have been protest related violence. It may have been non-protest related violence. It’s unclear if the victim would have survived if the Police had made any effort.

The third shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) appears to be racially motivated, and according to the victim was allegedly at the hands of a white supremacist. It’s unclear if this is related to the second shooting.

The fourth and fifth shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) have no details beyond someone getting shot in the arm.

The sixth and seventh shootings were of two teens who had reportedly driven an SUV through the crowds overnight, including through the park. Details are hazy, and it’s not clear whether this was an act of self defense or something else.

So, on my counting there were seven shootings:

2 appear to be against protestors or racially motivated.

3 have no clear details that link them to the protest, and 2 of which did not take place in the zone

2 are allegedly in self defense, though the veracity of those claims is TBD.

Stoo spreading fake news.

>The first shooting in the protests was by someone driving into a crowd who claimed to have a brother who worked in the east precinct.

Wrong. The first shooting came after an argument between leftists escalated. No vehicle involved.

>The second shooting does not have a clear connection to the protest occupants. The Police chose not to help the shooting victim (and the reason for the shooting is unknown).

Wrong again, it is directly linked because it happened when the protest occupants were marching back from a protest around city hall. Protestors blocked the police and firefighters from entering the area, and once the police made headway, the victim was already moved.

>The third shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) appears to be racially motivated, and according to the victim was allegedly at the hands of a white supremacist. It’s unclear if this is related to the second shooting.

Wrong, it was a Black leftist/anarchist that shot himself.

>The sixth and seventh shootings were of two teens who had reportedly driven an SUV through the crowds overnight, including through the park.

Driving a vehicle that was a different make and model, but similar color, and they were killed for it. Two Black teens died because CHOP security extra-judicially shot and killed them because they were misidentified.

Two teens, killed in a no-cop-zone, by “community security”, during a protest that was started due to the extra-judicial killings of Blacks… May have been the most ironic moment of 2020.

So, on my counting there were seven shootings:

None of them were racially motivated.

All have direct links to the protest.

I went through the Wikipedia page the parent posted and summarized them. The first shooting that I saw was the man who drove a vehicle into a crowd. The crowd attempted to stop him, and he shot a protestor. Go read the wiki page and the sources it links yourself.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here