7 ms·

This is just moving the goal posts (not to mention plenty of weapons and threats were involved). In all seriousness, at what point would you call something an

• tryonenow 6y ago
  A mob occupying private land, for weeks (months?), and declaring autonomy under a radical, explicitly and overtly anti-american, revolutionary flag, threatening and ejecting any approaching officials, including medical services, with violence. Particularly when this mob is affiliated with a decentralized network throughout the united states with similar goals. Storming the capitol with weapons, having leaders with knowledge of the layout, and actually spilling blood. The picture of the right in this country by media is generally a caricature of an inbred, uneducated southern hick, so it's easy to pretend that they planned for a serious coup and we're just completely incompetent. But the lack of weapons in any significant quantity, or their use, or even their brandishing in the capitol, suggests that there were never any serious plans for a coup or even for violence. The fact that "insurrectionists" came within 5 feet of the entrance to the chamber with the politicians they were allegedly targetting and obliviously walked past it more likely shows that there was no serious preparation, given that the layout is easily searchable online. This is manufactured hysteria by the media, for political goals. It comes from the same place as this twitch policy - we are in the midst of a dirty culture war.
  • weswpg 6y ago
    > there was no serious preparation "Oh, please. Attempted murder? They don't give the Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry!"
• jimbob45 6y ago
  You asked a well-considered question and got a stupid response. What a waste. My definition would be rioting, specifically using escalating violence until success, to attempt to coerce a system into passing laws that it would not otherwise have passed or wanted to pass (up to and including deposing the leader). I feel like my view loosely fits the Capitol riot, heavily fits the BLM riots, and heavily fits the 1776 insurrection.
  • dionian 6y ago
    The footage of the people that actually got into the Senate seems to disprove this painting of the events. I didn't see anyone attempting to abolish the government or whatever. Rather, it was a few people taking pictures and standing around. I dont support them but I'm not going to lie about the footage and claim it was anything close to an unarmed insurrection
    • jimbob45 6y ago
      Violent? 2/10 maybe Escalating? 0/10 not at all Attempt to coerce laws? 2/10 not really I mostly agree. It doesn’t pass my own definition.
    • PhasmaFelis 6y ago
      See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738
  • vkou 6y ago
    So, by your definition, Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch does not qualify? It was neither successful, nor an escalating use of violence. I feel that you're omitting something important in your criteria What about the police escalating violence against unarmed protesters until the police attained their political objective (Continued lack of oversight, and accountability)? Would that meet your criteria? Because that's been happening in a big way all of last summer. Does this mean that the police were the insurrectionists?
  • diob 6y ago
    Gotcha, I do appreciate you taking the time to reply seriously. My issue with your definition is that means the only thing you'll deem an insurrection is a revolution (basically a successful insurrection). I think the BLM protests (funny these are always deemed riots by certain folk, reminds me of how the military uses terminology to dehumanize, such as the word target) escalated to insurrection in one scenario that I know of, namely the CHAZ incident. Ultimately, that insurrection failed, since nothing significant changed. I would argue folks, for some reason, only deem things X when it's too late. That goes for genocide, insurrection (which is done for many reasons along the entire political and human spectrum), slavery, etc.