5 ms·

Protesting what you believe to be a corrupt system isn't overthrowing the government, else BLM are also guilty. Illegally protesting inside the capitol isn't ov

Protesting what you believe to be a corrupt system isn't overthrowing the government, else BLM are also guilty. Illegally protesting inside the capitol isn't overthrowing the government, else AOC would be in prison for leading protesters into it in 2018. This protest was far less violent and less destructive than those that Americans have been made to accept as peaceful throughout the preceding year. This wasn't an insurrection, and none of your gaslighting will make it so.

cozuya 5y ago
By what metrics do we call it an insurrection? Since only 5 people died did we need 50 to die before it is an insurrection? 1000? For the "protestors" who shouted "hang Mike Pence", did they need to shout "hang all of congress" for it to be an insurrection? "Hang all democrats"? "White power"? Which is it?
- Grieving 5y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but I can cherry-pick examples of left-leaning protesters calling for deaths of Trump, Republicans, cops, white people, etc. When people are emotional, they are hyperbolic. Unlike those in the Chaz, for example, these didn't even attempt to seize power. They marched in, made some noise, and left. And as for deaths, we've seen far more of those over the previous year. The only one provably murdered in this case was a protester.
  - cozuya 5y ago
    Do you think your whataboutism makes even the minorest dent in anyone's opinion here in 2021?
krapp 5y ago
>This wasn't an insurrection, and none of your gaslighting will make it so. They literally discussed their plans for violent revolution openly on various social media platforms for months beforehand. Who is gaslighting whom, here?
- Grieving 5y ago
  They literally never did this. They didn't believe that the election was fair, and fought tooth and nail to make sure the results weren't certified. Even the whackiest of Q-believers, stupidly believed (and still do) that it would be the government that would step in to prevent a coup.
  - alexc05 5y ago
    I think it is fair to say that no matter how much we go back and forth on this, we are never going to agree. The gulf between what you perceive and what I saw is far too great a chasm to cross. If we carried on, it'd probably get heated or it'd end up being a massive wasted effort. I've been through this rodeo too many times before. I spend the effort to go find objective sources that prove the claims I make only to be met with shifting goal posts and denialism. For example the link literally describing the PB getting declared a terrorist organization. We're just hand waving that one away are we? Anyways ... That was a rhetorical question. I've seen the way this all goes. In order to preserve my own sanity and respect the sanctity of hackernews' no flamewars policy I'm just going to tell you that I disagree and wish you a peaceful day.
    - Grieving 5y ago
      > I think it is fair to say that no matter how much we go back and forth on this, we are never going to agree. The gulf between what you perceive and what I saw is far too great a chasm to cross. If we carried on, it'd probably get heated or it'd end up being a massive wasted effort. I've been through this rodeo too many times before. I spend the effort to go find objective sources that prove the claims I make only to be met with shifting goal posts and denialism. I feel the same. That song and dance gets old. My goal wasn't to come to an agreement, but to introduce a different perspective in a largely one-sided discussion. > For example the link literally describing the PB getting declared a terrorist organization. We're just hand waving that one away are we? It's kind of downstream from this discussion, no? That designation is contingent on the facts that we were directly debating. > In order to preserve my own sanity and respect the sanctity of hackernews' no flamewars policy I'm just going to tell you that I disagree and wish you a peaceful day. Thank you, you too. I know we aren't able to reconcile, but I do appreciate engaging with the other side on a more civil forum.

cozuya 5y ago

By what metrics do we call it an insurrection? Since only 5 people died did we need 50 to die before it is an insurrection? 1000? For the "protestors" who shouted "hang Mike Pence", did they need to shout "hang all of congress" for it to be an insurrection? "Hang all democrats"? "White power"? Which is it?

Grieving 5y ago
I hate to break it to you, but I can cherry-pick examples of left-leaning protesters calling for deaths of Trump, Republicans, cops, white people, etc. When people are emotional, they are hyperbolic. Unlike those in the Chaz, for example, these didn't even attempt to seize power. They marched in, made some noise, and left. And as for deaths, we've seen far more of those over the previous year. The only one provably murdered in this case was a protester.
- cozuya 5y ago
  Do you think your whataboutism makes even the minorest dent in anyone's opinion here in 2021?

krapp 5y ago

>This wasn't an insurrection, and none of your gaslighting will make it so. They literally discussed their plans for violent revolution openly on various social media platforms for months beforehand. Who is gaslighting whom, here?

Grieving 5y ago
They literally never did this. They didn't believe that the election was fair, and fought tooth and nail to make sure the results weren't certified. Even the whackiest of Q-believers, stupidly believed (and still do) that it would be the government that would step in to prevent a coup.
- alexc05 5y ago
  I think it is fair to say that no matter how much we go back and forth on this, we are never going to agree. The gulf between what you perceive and what I saw is far too great a chasm to cross. If we carried on, it'd probably get heated or it'd end up being a massive wasted effort. I've been through this rodeo too many times before. I spend the effort to go find objective sources that prove the claims I make only to be met with shifting goal posts and denialism. For example the link literally describing the PB getting declared a terrorist organization. We're just hand waving that one away are we? Anyways ... That was a rhetorical question. I've seen the way this all goes. In order to preserve my own sanity and respect the sanctity of hackernews' no flamewars policy I'm just going to tell you that I disagree and wish you a peaceful day.
  - Grieving 5y ago
    > I think it is fair to say that no matter how much we go back and forth on this, we are never going to agree. The gulf between what you perceive and what I saw is far too great a chasm to cross. If we carried on, it'd probably get heated or it'd end up being a massive wasted effort. I've been through this rodeo too many times before. I spend the effort to go find objective sources that prove the claims I make only to be met with shifting goal posts and denialism. I feel the same. That song and dance gets old. My goal wasn't to come to an agreement, but to introduce a different perspective in a largely one-sided discussion. > For example the link literally describing the PB getting declared a terrorist organization. We're just hand waving that one away are we? It's kind of downstream from this discussion, no? That designation is contingent on the facts that we were directly debating. > In order to preserve my own sanity and respect the sanctity of hackernews' no flamewars policy I'm just going to tell you that I disagree and wish you a peaceful day. Thank you, you too. I know we aren't able to reconcile, but I do appreciate engaging with the other side on a more civil forum.