2 ms·

> If I jump the fence on Pennsylvania Ave and run across the White House lawn with delusions of grandeur about taking over the government—and promptly get shot

> If I jump the fence on Pennsylvania Ave and run across the White House lawn with delusions of grandeur about taking over the government—and promptly get shot—it isn't a failed coup. Quantity matters. A single fence jumper is different than a thousand. One person is a nutball, a thousand is a mob. Proximity also matters. We now know that the mob came dangerously close to members of Congress. In at least two instances they came within feet of members, or within seconds of passing through barricades that were not yet erected. This is like your hypothetical fence jumper making it into the Lincoln Bedroom with a few hundred of his closest friends. Given that they literally beat at least two cops to death and erected gallows, there is no doubt that they intended the worst for Congress. > The Capitol breach is not comparable to a junta raiding a presidential palace. It was more like the lone nutjob, except there were a few more nutjobs. And a bunch of LARPers and miscellaneous morons tagging along to riot because the protestors outnumbered the cops. You are building up an incorrectly narrow vision on what a coup actually looks like, then using that to declare this to be a non-coup. You are absolutely correct that this looks nothing like a Junta raiding the presidential palace, but that is far from the only form that historical coups have taken. More than once countries have been toppled by a mob seizing the legislature while the military stands around without an idea of what to do. Arguably that is exactly what happened during the August 10th insurrection in Paris, which toppled a constitutional monarchy and led to the Terror.

vehemenz 6y ago
> You are building up an incorrectly narrow vision on what a coup actually looks like, then using that to declare this to be a non-coup. That's fair enough. Living in the present, we usually have a blind spot about how present events relate to others in history. It's likely that some peasant revolts throughout history were just as stupid and chaotic as this one. However, the events on Wednesday were particularly complicated. There were many factions and ideologies present. There were MAGAs, QAnons, "Federalists", neo-Nazis, COVID-deniers, Blue Lives Matter supporters, Boogaloo Bois, Proud Boys, Moms for Trump. There was but one shared allegiance—Trump. There were five separate raids into the building, each as unorganized and chaotic as the next. Not a single rioter inside the Capitol was seen brandishing a firearm (I did see a few outside the Capitol though, via live streams). Many of the rioters were destroying things, but even more were marching through the hallways and rotunda "saying their peace" (from interviews I saw later, many thought they were still legitimately protesting). While there were a few dozen paramilitary types among the mob—or to stop the "coup", as they see it—their intentions were closer to fantasy fulfillment than a coup. One of the "zip tie guys" was there with his mom. There was a lack of organization, little actual violence, no realistic attempt to seize anything, let alone a realistic chance to seize power in the first place. Throwing "attempted" in front of "coup" does not change the fruitlessness of the proceedings. In hindsight, I don't think even the worst case scenario would have changed much. Regardless of the criteria we use to determine this case, I argue that it's not clear cut, and the use of "coup" and "terrorism"—as many outlets have—to describe the whole affair, especially before the dust has settled, seems like an overreach. And it's exactly the kind of thing that Trump supporters are constantly accusing the "mainstream media" of perpetuating. That's why it's an uprising, revolt, insurrection, seditious riot. All of these terms are accurate enough for now.

vehemenz 6y ago

> You are building up an incorrectly narrow vision on what a coup actually looks like, then using that to declare this to be a non-coup. That's fair enough. Living in the present, we usually have a blind spot about how present events relate to others in history. It's likely that some peasant revolts throughout history were just as stupid and chaotic as this one. However, the events on Wednesday were particularly complicated. There were many factions and ideologies present. There were MAGAs, QAnons, "Federalists", neo-Nazis, COVID-deniers, Blue Lives Matter supporters, Boogaloo Bois, Proud Boys, Moms for Trump. There was but one shared allegiance—Trump. There were five separate raids into the building, each as unorganized and chaotic as the next. Not a single rioter inside the Capitol was seen brandishing a firearm (I did see a few outside the Capitol though, via live streams). Many of the rioters were destroying things, but even more were marching through the hallways and rotunda "saying their peace" (from interviews I saw later, many thought they were still legitimately protesting). While there were a few dozen paramilitary types among the mob—or to stop the "coup", as they see it—their intentions were closer to fantasy fulfillment than a coup. One of the "zip tie guys" was there with his mom. There was a lack of organization, little actual violence, no realistic attempt to seize anything, let alone a realistic chance to seize power in the first place. Throwing "attempted" in front of "coup" does not change the fruitlessness of the proceedings. In hindsight, I don't think even the worst case scenario would have changed much. Regardless of the criteria we use to determine this case, I argue that it's not clear cut, and the use of "coup" and "terrorism"—as many outlets have—to describe the whole affair, especially before the dust has settled, seems like an overreach. And it's exactly the kind of thing that Trump supporters are constantly accusing the "mainstream media" of perpetuating. That's why it's an uprising, revolt, insurrection, seditious riot. All of these terms are accurate enough for now.