3 ms·

The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone (not to mention they

The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone (not to mention they were hardly an uprising). >Your claims here are like saying that the civil war wasn't an insurrection because the confederacy didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to form a different government. There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way.

darksaints 6y ago
> The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone. False. > There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way. It wasn't a war at first. The South Carolina Declaration of Secession was created and printed with significantly less violence than the insurrection at the capitol...the first shots fired didn't happen for another 4 months. The fact that only 5 people died in the insurrection doesn't mean that the would-be confederates didn't attempt an insurrection, it just means they didn't succeed, and couldn't muster up enough traction to last a single day.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  > False. What's false? Both the statements you quoted? I'll provide my reasoning for each. -------------------------------------------------------------- The first statement: > The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. Here's the definition that pops up when you Google the word: > a violent uprising against an authority or government. Or from the Oxford English Dictionary: > The action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint; with plural, an instance of this, an armed rising, a revolt; an incipient or limited rebellion. I think this is enough to show that it is often taken to denote a violent uprising. -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- The second statement: > The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone. The easiest response for me to make is a request: name one person the protesters killed. There was a lot of false reporting by the mainstream media at the time, so I don't particularly blame anyone for believing the protesters killed people. But it just doesn't seem to actually be the case. You can read an analysis of the violence here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-c... --------------------------------------------------------------
- shard972 6y ago
  @dang fake news alert

darksaints 6y ago

> The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone. False. > There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way. It wasn't a war at first. The South Carolina Declaration of Secession was created and printed with significantly less violence than the insurrection at the capitol...the first shots fired didn't happen for another 4 months. The fact that only 5 people died in the insurrection doesn't mean that the would-be confederates didn't attempt an insurrection, it just means they didn't succeed, and couldn't muster up enough traction to last a single day.

garbagetime 6y ago
> False. What's false? Both the statements you quoted? I'll provide my reasoning for each. -------------------------------------------------------------- The first statement: > The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. Here's the definition that pops up when you Google the word: > a violent uprising against an authority or government. Or from the Oxford English Dictionary: > The action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint; with plural, an instance of this, an armed rising, a revolt; an incipient or limited rebellion. I think this is enough to show that it is often taken to denote a violent uprising. -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- The second statement: > The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone. The easiest response for me to make is a request: name one person the protesters killed. There was a lot of false reporting by the mainstream media at the time, so I don't particularly blame anyone for believing the protesters killed people. But it just doesn't seem to actually be the case. You can read an analysis of the violence here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-c... --------------------------------------------------------------
shard972 6y ago
@dang fake news alert