5 ms·

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-capitol-invaders-enjoyed-the-privilege-of-not-being-taken-seriously https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columni

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-capitol-invaders-enjoyed-the-privilege-of-not-being-taken-seriously https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-capitol-in...

refurb 6y ago
“Not being taken seriously”? They are all being tracked down and arrested. Put on no fly lists. New legislation is being drafted to address domestic terrorism. All of their social media platforms are being shut down. What does this author mean by “not being taken seriously”?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  “Enjoyed”, past tense, while they were openly plotting terrorism and insurgency. Once they executed it, that stopped (mostly, though people—including here on HN—are still arguing that they shouldn't be taken seriously.) But, had they been taken seriously when plotting murder and Insurrection in the open, it could have been disrupted before they swarmed the Capitol, or even showed up in D.C.
  - refurb 6y ago
    I’m reading the FBI warned the Capitol police about it ahead of the rally. So again, I don’t see them “not being taken seriously”.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > I’m reading the FBI warned the Capitol police about it ahead of the rally. I’m reading now that anonymoust “senior law enforcement officials” are claiming that, even though the FBI already, after the event, said they had no intelligence that anything beyond First Amendment protected activity was planned or likely to occur. So either the FBI was previously lying on the record to make themselves look bad, or officials that won’t go on the record are lying to place the blame for failures on the Capitol Police after the head of the Capitol Police resigned at the request of the Speaker, so that responsibility is on a head that has already rolled.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  At this point the partisan hyperbole is thick enough that one can take a look at the title, domain name and reliably predict the content of the article. It would be encouraging if individuals could take the media and political institutions 'seriously'. Instead, as you observe, the divisions are being driven deeper. Dissenters are being labeled terrorists. Those who wear there tolerance on their shirt sleeves can't tolerate disagreement. They claim that only intolerant people disagree. If 50k+ people march on the Capitol Building, at what point are the politicians within responsible for failing to represent their interests? Isn't that a basic premise of democracy, that violence will be averted by proportional representation? If half the country finds no credibility in media reportage, at what point are reporters responsible? Was there nothing else that the media or the political establishment could have done to address the public's concerns and add legitimacy to the process? Or is it simply enough to dismiss them all as terrorists? Obviously this strategy hasn't worked thus far, yet the establishment seems keen on doubling down. According to the narrative I've seen, the above non sequiturs should be ignored. The circumstances are special. It is all the work of an exceptional conman. The people have been deceived because they are not as intelligent or compassionate as their betters. Of course, you dear reader are part of the in-group. Allow me to throw you some platitudes as I demonize the others. Our form of tribalism is nothing like theirs. This time is different, but it is also the same as that other time. That time another political figure kept repeating the same lie. Be sure that is not our tribe repeating lies about the out-group. Did I mention that this time is different?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-capitol-invaders-enjoyed-the-privilege-of-not-being-taken-seriously https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-capitol-in...

refurb 6y ago

“Not being taken seriously”? They are all being tracked down and arrested. Put on no fly lists. New legislation is being drafted to address domestic terrorism. All of their social media platforms are being shut down. What does this author mean by “not being taken seriously”?

dragonwriter 6y ago
“Enjoyed”, past tense, while they were openly plotting terrorism and insurgency. Once they executed it, that stopped (mostly, though people—including here on HN—are still arguing that they shouldn't be taken seriously.) But, had they been taken seriously when plotting murder and Insurrection in the open, it could have been disrupted before they swarmed the Capitol, or even showed up in D.C.
- refurb 6y ago
  I’m reading the FBI warned the Capitol police about it ahead of the rally. So again, I don’t see them “not being taken seriously”.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > I’m reading the FBI warned the Capitol police about it ahead of the rally. I’m reading now that anonymoust “senior law enforcement officials” are claiming that, even though the FBI already, after the event, said they had no intelligence that anything beyond First Amendment protected activity was planned or likely to occur. So either the FBI was previously lying on the record to make themselves look bad, or officials that won’t go on the record are lying to place the blame for failures on the Capitol Police after the head of the Capitol Police resigned at the request of the Speaker, so that responsibility is on a head that has already rolled.
aww_dang 6y ago
At this point the partisan hyperbole is thick enough that one can take a look at the title, domain name and reliably predict the content of the article. It would be encouraging if individuals could take the media and political institutions 'seriously'. Instead, as you observe, the divisions are being driven deeper. Dissenters are being labeled terrorists. Those who wear there tolerance on their shirt sleeves can't tolerate disagreement. They claim that only intolerant people disagree. If 50k+ people march on the Capitol Building, at what point are the politicians within responsible for failing to represent their interests? Isn't that a basic premise of democracy, that violence will be averted by proportional representation? If half the country finds no credibility in media reportage, at what point are reporters responsible? Was there nothing else that the media or the political establishment could have done to address the public's concerns and add legitimacy to the process? Or is it simply enough to dismiss them all as terrorists? Obviously this strategy hasn't worked thus far, yet the establishment seems keen on doubling down. According to the narrative I've seen, the above non sequiturs should be ignored. The circumstances are special. It is all the work of an exceptional conman. The people have been deceived because they are not as intelligent or compassionate as their betters. Of course, you dear reader are part of the in-group. Allow me to throw you some platitudes as I demonize the others. Our form of tribalism is nothing like theirs. This time is different, but it is also the same as that other time. That time another political figure kept repeating the same lie. Be sure that is not our tribe repeating lies about the out-group. Did I mention that this time is different?