4 ms·

I am not on either side in the US, there isn't a party that represents me, but something stuck out to me. >culminating in an armed assault that some now claim

I am not on either side in the US, there isn't a party that represents me, but something stuck out to me. >culminating in an armed assault that some now claim as a false flag operation? We had to hear all summer about how it was really Boogaloo Boys/White Nationalists/The CIA and not BLM rioting. This is something I see as endemic to all sides. I think this must be perspective based as everything in the above list has a mirror image from the other party, and in both cases it seems like a fair criticism.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
> We had to hear all summer about how it was really Boogaloo Boys/White Nationalists/The CIA and not BLM rioting. I’m sorry the reporting is so bad. Here in the US as a leftist I saw most of my friends posting “in defense of rioting”, “property isn’t people”, and quoting MLK on the lessons of riots. The right just thought they could stage a coup and also get away without any criticism for trying.
- esyir 6y ago
  Interesting take. The blm riots were supported and approved by both the mainstream levers of power (media, government) and continue to be so. They were both larger in scale and duration. The capitol riots were both smaller in scale and, more importantly generally condemned by their sides equivalent levers of power. I actually consider the right response here more reasonable than the left.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  If black lives mattered and politicians represented their constituents these riots would not have occurred. I expect more. Until the consequences of treating minorities as subhuman directly effect billionaires and their very lives nothing will change.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> We had to hear all summer about how it was ... not BLM rioting. I think an important distinction here is that the riots had no political goal to them, and had almost no support from BLM figures themselves, and even less from national politicians. Indeed, if your goal is for the police to be defunded, then the last thing you would want to do is create a situation where people fear for their lives and their property and need the protection of the police. Contrast that with the goals of the people storming the Capitol and you'll see that they had national politicians who also wanted to interrupt the joint session of Congress and prevent (some of) the electoral votes from being counted, to ultimately change the outcome of the election.
- TrispusAttucks 6y ago
  Double standard. You're a victim of the bias the article is highlighting.
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    Do you really see the BLM marches (even the small minority that turned violent) as equivalent to what happened at the Capitol? Some obvious differences: - There were no politicians or their cronies calling for "trial by combat" or similar. - There was no one showing up with a gallows. - There was no intent to disrupt a democratic procedure. - Where violence occurred, it was quickly and unequivocally condemned across the board. - Destruction of property is not the same as threatening physical harm to people (and no, before you go there, engaging with riot police is not the same as advancing on a chamber of mostly-elderly, unarmed politicians).
    - cudgy 6y ago
      Congress was able to convene immediately after the nuts stormed the Capitol inside the Capitol. Minor physical damage was committed. Compare that to the BLM marches and the nuts that rioted, burned, and seized city blocks, freeways, police precincts, harassed people in restaurants with bullhorns, drank from their cups, ate their food, etc.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
        The invasion of the capital was an attempt to stop the legally mandated processes that allow the peaceful transfer of power. The attackers were intent on hanging on pence and others as evidenced by their chants and the equipment they brought. The rioters cannot honestly be lumped into the Democrat, blm, etc groups as different groups plainly held different objectives. I think the best explanation for the riots is simply revenge against people that sit comfortably ignoring the disaffected cries for help.
        TrispusAttucks 6y ago

eyelidlessness 6y ago

> We had to hear all summer about how it was really Boogaloo Boys/White Nationalists/The CIA and not BLM rioting. I’m sorry the reporting is so bad. Here in the US as a leftist I saw most of my friends posting “in defense of rioting”, “property isn’t people”, and quoting MLK on the lessons of riots. The right just thought they could stage a coup and also get away without any criticism for trying.

esyir 6y ago
Interesting take. The blm riots were supported and approved by both the mainstream levers of power (media, government) and continue to be so. They were both larger in scale and duration. The capitol riots were both smaller in scale and, more importantly generally condemned by their sides equivalent levers of power. I actually consider the right response here more reasonable than the left.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
If black lives mattered and politicians represented their constituents these riots would not have occurred. I expect more. Until the consequences of treating minorities as subhuman directly effect billionaires and their very lives nothing will change.

dane-pgp 6y ago

> We had to hear all summer about how it was ... not BLM rioting. I think an important distinction here is that the riots had no political goal to them, and had almost no support from BLM figures themselves, and even less from national politicians. Indeed, if your goal is for the police to be defunded, then the last thing you would want to do is create a situation where people fear for their lives and their property and need the protection of the police. Contrast that with the goals of the people storming the Capitol and you'll see that they had national politicians who also wanted to interrupt the joint session of Congress and prevent (some of) the electoral votes from being counted, to ultimately change the outcome of the election.

TrispusAttucks 6y ago
Double standard. You're a victim of the bias the article is highlighting.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  Do you really see the BLM marches (even the small minority that turned violent) as equivalent to what happened at the Capitol? Some obvious differences: - There were no politicians or their cronies calling for "trial by combat" or similar. - There was no one showing up with a gallows. - There was no intent to disrupt a democratic procedure. - Where violence occurred, it was quickly and unequivocally condemned across the board. - Destruction of property is not the same as threatening physical harm to people (and no, before you go there, engaging with riot police is not the same as advancing on a chamber of mostly-elderly, unarmed politicians).
  - cudgy 6y ago
    Congress was able to convene immediately after the nuts stormed the Capitol inside the Capitol. Minor physical damage was committed. Compare that to the BLM marches and the nuts that rioted, burned, and seized city blocks, freeways, police precincts, harassed people in restaurants with bullhorns, drank from their cups, ate their food, etc.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
      The invasion of the capital was an attempt to stop the legally mandated processes that allow the peaceful transfer of power. The attackers were intent on hanging on pence and others as evidenced by their chants and the equipment they brought. The rioters cannot honestly be lumped into the Democrat, blm, etc groups as different groups plainly held different objectives. I think the best explanation for the riots is simply revenge against people that sit comfortably ignoring the disaffected cries for help.
      - TrispusAttucks 6y ago