7 ms·

Along with this, it seems to me media should not be referring to the terrorists entering the Capitol as 'storming' as that is the terminology used by the fringe

Along with this, it seems to me media should not be referring to the terrorists entering the Capitol as 'storming' as that is the terminology used by the fringe groups of which they are proud of. I've read articles mentioning what these fringe groups call 'the storm' and I think distancing media reports from that is important.

silexia 6y ago
I suggest we make individuals or organizations that spread lies without evidence liable on a civil or criminal basis. The root reason for the violent riot at the Capitol last week was that many people have been lied to, and the lies are things that would incite people to fight. If you believed that America's democracy is no longer in place and has been replaced by a deep state dictatorship, you would probably fight against it yourself. We must fight the beliefs at the source - stop the liars by making them liable for the damage they cause.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  It is tough when the liar is the president and somehow the learned justices of our nation have decided the president is above the law and can only be held to account via an impeachment process.
  - jsight 6y ago
    Would you prefer a system where an unelected justice system has the right to remove the president?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- moron4hire 6y ago
  You sound almost like you want to give these people a pass. People get lied to all the time. The vast majority of them don't respond by forming an unruly mob of slathering idiots.
  - netsharc 6y ago
    Not grandparent poster, but what's the other option? If somehow we could give everyone god-esque knowledge and wisdom (e.g. make them able to be able to travel through time and space and check all those claims of voter frauds so they can deduce themselves, that, well, maybe there were fraudsters here and there, but not enough that it flipped the states from Trump to Biden; or to show them that no, there's no basement in some pizza parlor where the Democrat cabal are hiding Epstein and all the missing children), it would be great to be able to make the insurrectionists realize that they've been lied to. A lot of the mob on 1/6 probably really thought they were taking back the country from some corrupt Deep State and that Trump was this great guy who tried to fix the world, but has ben thwarted (although, saying all the non-Christian and non-Whites are not entitled to live here is not defensible). Like the lady who was shot, if you check her Twitter, she really bought into the whole QAnon brainwashing.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  What mechanism would you propose to implement your suggestion? Some kind of Ministry of Truth, or Council of Honesty? Or maybe just run everything everyone says through a fact-checker app and if they fail, lock them up? We have laws for actual harmful lies, such as falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But beyond that, it's a grey area, slippery slope, etc.
  - tuesdayrain 6y ago
    The amount of people advocating for a literal Ministry of Truth is very disappointing. It's almost like they read 1984 and thought "hey, that's a good idea!". Although in reality I think they just don't realize the implications of their suggestions.
    - ralph84 6y ago
      They think they'll be the ones running the ministry.
  - silexia 6y ago
    We already have a mechanism for harm from lies - libel and slander laws. Just expand these laws to make lying to the public about something that if they believe it could cause them harm a tort.
  - jmull 6y ago
    We have existing criminal and civil laws and courts of laws for this. The system is very sophisticated, though can certainly be improved. You have to take each case on an individual basis, meet a standard of proof, follow strong processes, convince a jury, survive appeals, so it’s not easy. But it can handle the grey areas that worry you. And while we’ve had ample opportunity, it doesn’t look like we’ve gone down a slippery slope.
mkr-hn 6y ago
Storming is just a term for what they did. It doesn't come from any particular movement.
- andybak 6y ago
  Many words would have been valid substitutions. Each word choice has it's own associations and resonances.
- x3iv130f 6y ago
  There are some Neo-Nazi associations with the word Storm. In Nazi Germany Sturmabteilung or "Storm Division" was the paramilitary division of the Nazi party until it was replaced by the SS on the Night of Long Knives. Some Neo-Nazis have kept up the language. Stormfront is a popular Neo-Nazi website. The Daily Stormer is another. I don't follow Neo-Nazism but I am sure there are others. So calling the riot a "Storming" is suggestive that it is an organized assault by Neo-Nazis.
  - mkr-hn 6y ago
    I suppose that takes "blitz" out of consideration. I see your point, though.
MattGaiser 6y ago
Storming is a generic term for taking over a building by force.
blisterpeanuts 6y ago
Should the media, or anyone, be referring to them as "terrorists"? Generally a terrorist uses extreme violence to "terrorize", hence the name. A crowd of morons busting into the Capitol building, calmly wandering the hallways, and taking selfies, scarcely meets the definition, even if some of the politicians felt terror. If only the 9/11 terrorists, and all terrorists, were this tame.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  I think a reasonable person would use "terrorist" to describe the dude running around with zip cuffs and a presumed intent to do something crazy, not the people staying inside the rope lines. Let's not forget the larger group who did not even split off to go to the Capitol building. The "terrorists," the "stormers," the "rioters," and the "protestors," all refer to different, and progressively larger sets of individuals.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Indeed. And the three people who talked about lynching the vice president, even bringing the noose with which to do it. Terrorism seems like a perfect description for that.
    - tstrimple 6y ago
      Certainly sounds like more than three people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fag0aC_M0_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fag0aC_M0_U
- rconti 6y ago
  Why does it need the "extreme" adjective? From the Googles: > the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Is there any question that's what happened here? It's too bad that we have to worry about "turning off" some sensitive people whose feelings will be hurt if we call a spade a spade, but it sure doesn't feel like appeasing them has done much good, either. Again, is there any question, whatsoever, that violence and intimidation were used here, in the pursuit of political aims? They 100% want to put the fear of violence into legislators in order to get their way.

silexia 6y ago

I suggest we make individuals or organizations that spread lies without evidence liable on a civil or criminal basis. The root reason for the violent riot at the Capitol last week was that many people have been lied to, and the lies are things that would incite people to fight. If you believed that America's democracy is no longer in place and has been replaced by a deep state dictatorship, you would probably fight against it yourself. We must fight the beliefs at the source - stop the liars by making them liable for the damage they cause.

gameswithgo 6y ago
It is tough when the liar is the president and somehow the learned justices of our nation have decided the president is above the law and can only be held to account via an impeachment process.
- jsight 6y ago
  Would you prefer a system where an unelected justice system has the right to remove the president?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
moron4hire 6y ago
You sound almost like you want to give these people a pass. People get lied to all the time. The vast majority of them don't respond by forming an unruly mob of slathering idiots.
- netsharc 6y ago
  Not grandparent poster, but what's the other option? If somehow we could give everyone god-esque knowledge and wisdom (e.g. make them able to be able to travel through time and space and check all those claims of voter frauds so they can deduce themselves, that, well, maybe there were fraudsters here and there, but not enough that it flipped the states from Trump to Biden; or to show them that no, there's no basement in some pizza parlor where the Democrat cabal are hiding Epstein and all the missing children), it would be great to be able to make the insurrectionists realize that they've been lied to. A lot of the mob on 1/6 probably really thought they were taking back the country from some corrupt Deep State and that Trump was this great guy who tried to fix the world, but has ben thwarted (although, saying all the non-Christian and non-Whites are not entitled to live here is not defensible). Like the lady who was shot, if you check her Twitter, she really bought into the whole QAnon brainwashing.
blisterpeanuts 6y ago
What mechanism would you propose to implement your suggestion? Some kind of Ministry of Truth, or Council of Honesty? Or maybe just run everything everyone says through a fact-checker app and if they fail, lock them up? We have laws for actual harmful lies, such as falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But beyond that, it's a grey area, slippery slope, etc.
- tuesdayrain 6y ago
  The amount of people advocating for a literal Ministry of Truth is very disappointing. It's almost like they read 1984 and thought "hey, that's a good idea!". Although in reality I think they just don't realize the implications of their suggestions.
  - ralph84 6y ago
    They think they'll be the ones running the ministry.
- silexia 6y ago
  We already have a mechanism for harm from lies - libel and slander laws. Just expand these laws to make lying to the public about something that if they believe it could cause them harm a tort.
- jmull 6y ago
  We have existing criminal and civil laws and courts of laws for this. The system is very sophisticated, though can certainly be improved. You have to take each case on an individual basis, meet a standard of proof, follow strong processes, convince a jury, survive appeals, so it’s not easy. But it can handle the grey areas that worry you. And while we’ve had ample opportunity, it doesn’t look like we’ve gone down a slippery slope.

mkr-hn 6y ago

Storming is just a term for what they did. It doesn't come from any particular movement.

andybak 6y ago
Many words would have been valid substitutions. Each word choice has it's own associations and resonances.
x3iv130f 6y ago
There are some Neo-Nazi associations with the word Storm. In Nazi Germany Sturmabteilung or "Storm Division" was the paramilitary division of the Nazi party until it was replaced by the SS on the Night of Long Knives. Some Neo-Nazis have kept up the language. Stormfront is a popular Neo-Nazi website. The Daily Stormer is another. I don't follow Neo-Nazism but I am sure there are others. So calling the riot a "Storming" is suggestive that it is an organized assault by Neo-Nazis.
- mkr-hn 6y ago
  I suppose that takes "blitz" out of consideration. I see your point, though.

MattGaiser 6y ago

Storming is a generic term for taking over a building by force.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago

Should the media, or anyone, be referring to them as "terrorists"? Generally a terrorist uses extreme violence to "terrorize", hence the name. A crowd of morons busting into the Capitol building, calmly wandering the hallways, and taking selfies, scarcely meets the definition, even if some of the politicians felt terror. If only the 9/11 terrorists, and all terrorists, were this tame.

whatshisface 6y ago
I think a reasonable person would use "terrorist" to describe the dude running around with zip cuffs and a presumed intent to do something crazy, not the people staying inside the rope lines. Let's not forget the larger group who did not even split off to go to the Capitol building. The "terrorists," the "stormers," the "rioters," and the "protestors," all refer to different, and progressively larger sets of individuals.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Indeed. And the three people who talked about lynching the vice president, even bringing the noose with which to do it. Terrorism seems like a perfect description for that.
  - tstrimple 6y ago
    Certainly sounds like more than three people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fag0aC_M0_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fag0aC_M0_U
rconti 6y ago
Why does it need the "extreme" adjective? From the Googles: > the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Is there any question that's what happened here? It's too bad that we have to worry about "turning off" some sensitive people whose feelings will be hurt if we call a spade a spade, but it sure doesn't feel like appeasing them has done much good, either. Again, is there any question, whatsoever, that violence and intimidation were used here, in the pursuit of political aims? They 100% want to put the fear of violence into legislators in order to get their way.