3 ms·

Assuming you bothered to look at any tech site or remotely reputable news sight, it was quite easy. There were literally hundreds of thousands of people watchi

by tw04 6y ago

Assuming you bothered to look at any tech site or remotely reputable news sight, it was quite easy. There were literally hundreds of thousands of people watching video simultaneously and posting the important stuff to twitter, reddit, HERE, cnn, fox, pick your major network of choice that wasn't RT or OANN or insert far-right "news" network. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in America there was no amount of "stitching together" that would make me believe storming the capital in order to prevent the peaceful transition of power was anything other than sedition. By definition.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Assuming you bothered to look at any tech site or remotely reputable news sight, it was quite easy. Third hand reports and context-free edits from opinionated partisans prior to adversarial examination. This is not a source of reliable information. > I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in America there was no amount of "stitching together" that would make me believe storming the capital in order to prevent the peaceful transition of power was anything other than sedition. By definition. Sedition basically means crime against the government. Throwing a shoe at George W. Bush is sedition. So that's a motte and bailey word. It implies an attempt to overthrow the government but with a word that also still applies to breaking a window in the capitol building. Then if the coup narrative disintegrates they can fall back on no, no, it was still technically sedition. Insurrection. But that's cheating your way out of the hard question, which is what actually happened. It's convenient if all you want is othering the perpetrators to justify tribal warfare, but tribal warfare is bad. And the problem with the coup narrative is that it's incoherent. There is no logical sequence of events where storming the capitol leads to an undemocratic transition of power. It doesn't work that way. That road doesn't go there. And for the same reason it makes no sense for Trump to have ordered or desired that. So then what the heck was it? A riot. Not a plan, despite whatever social media posts people try to retcon into a unified motive or an organizational structure. Undirected anger. Pissed off jackasses who smashed. Which is illegal. They're in jail. You don't do it that way. But a riot is a sign that something is wrong, and Donald Trump was more symptom than cause. When your choices are the establishment or Donald Trump and like half the country chooses Donald Trump, what does that say about the establishment? There is a deeper lesson here than orange man bad.

by tw04 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Assuming you bothered to look at any tech site or remotely reputable news sight, it was quite easy. Third hand reports and context-free edits from opinionated partisans prior to adversarial examination. This is not a source of reliable information. > I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in America there was no amount of "stitching together" that would make me believe storming the capital in order to prevent the peaceful transition of power was anything other than sedition. By definition. Sedition basically means crime against the government. Throwing a shoe at George W. Bush is sedition. So that's a motte and bailey word. It implies an attempt to overthrow the government but with a word that also still applies to breaking a window in the capitol building. Then if the coup narrative disintegrates they can fall back on no, no, it was still technically sedition. Insurrection. But that's cheating your way out of the hard question, which is what actually happened. It's convenient if all you want is othering the perpetrators to justify tribal warfare, but tribal warfare is bad. And the problem with the coup narrative is that it's incoherent. There is no logical sequence of events where storming the capitol leads to an undemocratic transition of power. It doesn't work that way. That road doesn't go there. And for the same reason it makes no sense for Trump to have ordered or desired that. So then what the heck was it? A riot. Not a plan, despite whatever social media posts people try to retcon into a unified motive or an organizational structure. Undirected anger. Pissed off jackasses who smashed. Which is illegal. They're in jail. You don't do it that way. But a riot is a sign that something is wrong, and Donald Trump was more symptom than cause. When your choices are the establishment or Donald Trump and like half the country chooses Donald Trump, what does that say about the establishment? There is a deeper lesson here than orange man bad.