4 ms·

This is quite possibly the most one-sided, emphatic, and fact-free editorial that I have ever seen on the HN front page. Coupled with threats of violence: "Bus

This is quite possibly the most one-sided, emphatic, and fact-free editorial that I have ever seen on the HN front page. Coupled with threats of violence: "Businesses that want to avoid chaos between now and 2022 and prevent system breakdown in 2024 would be well advised not to donate to politicians who repeat the big lie and suppress the vote."

Ancapistani 5y ago
I concur, and I’m definitely not on the “side” of the author. _However_, just because I don’t agree with something doesn’t mean I can’t learn from it or use it as a basis for analyzing my own beliefs. The thing that most struck reading this article is something that has repeatedly struck me while interacting with the “other side”: there is a complete disconnect between how Republicans and Democrats see the events of Jan 6. Note that the following is my perception of each side’s position. I am not asserting this is what anyone in particular believes, only that this is what they seem to believe, when filtered through my own biases. Democrats are using the words “insurrection” and “domestic insurgency” to describe it. They seem to be assuming that the people in DC on Jan 6 intended to overthrow a legitimate, elected government through force. Meanwhile, I see Republicans most often use the word “protest”. The strongest word I’ve seen used on that side is “riot”. Having spoken with a couple of people who were at the Capitol rally, I’m confident that the vast majority of those present there did not see themselves as “insurrectionists”, nor did they intend to overthrow anything. At most, I believe they saw themselves as practicing civil disobedience in an effort to be heard. The videos I’ve seen from in and around Congress didn’t strike me as if the people there were intending to use violence, either. Don’t get me wrong - it was a “mob” and “mob mentality” is real and I would absolutely not have felt safe to be on the other side of those doors. What I’m trying to say is that I believe I would have judged it to be a “potentially dangerous situation”, not an “attempt to overthrow the government”. I’d like to discuss the differing behaviors and apparent perspectives of people since that day, but I’ll wait a bit. I don’t want to write paragraphs on the topic only for the thread to be locked and it no longer be able to discussed. :)
- debacle 5y ago
  I think that, as more people look into the events of January 6th, they will find that the opportunity for violence was very small. Not a single protestor had a firearm. Most protestors did not enter the capitol, most of them didn't even walk from the Trump rally all the way to the capitol. The Proud Boys and other groups ducked out before the event began. Alex Jones of all people was the voice of reason during the event.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  > Having spoken with a couple of people who were at the Capitol rally Some unbiased sources there. > The videos I’ve seen from in and around Congress didn’t strike me as if the people there were intending to use violence And yet, many of them did do violence and there's plenty of video evidence of that.
- jfengel 5y ago
  I have a hard time figuring out how to bridge the gap when even "riot" is used without appending "... in the US Capitol, at a time when the transition of power was being formalized". I could understand not wanting to call it "insurrection", a somewhat rare and specific word. And if you don't want to use "overthrow", OK, I don't want to get hung up on semantics. But it's hard to see this as not attempting to alter the transition of power, and in so doing subvert the most basic principle under which people who disagree can live together. And even that would not have been so important if it had just been a series of isolated nut jobs, but it's clear that they believed that they were doing so under the direction of the person who was losing power. And who had used other less-than-entirely-above-board mechanisms for that as well. I just don't think it's feasible to present it as merely civil disobedience. The thing that they wanted to be heard about was a denial of the process by which others get their rights to be heard. Not just about this one event, but forever. The fact is that they could not have succeeded. But they were the most vehement of an extremely large cohort of people who have been convinced that this basic rule of modern nations -- that elections are the means by which we make collective decisions -- is invalid. Even if they're wrong, it becomes true if enough of them believe it. The threat of actual violence that day is dwarfed by that larger issue. I don't know how to respond to it. They have a self-realizing truth, one which I believe makes the country a much, much worse place to be.

Ancapistani 5y ago

I concur, and I’m definitely not on the “side” of the author. _However_, just because I don’t agree with something doesn’t mean I can’t learn from it or use it as a basis for analyzing my own beliefs. The thing that most struck reading this article is something that has repeatedly struck me while interacting with the “other side”: there is a complete disconnect between how Republicans and Democrats see the events of Jan 6. Note that the following is my perception of each side’s position. I am not asserting this is what anyone in particular believes, only that this is what they seem to believe, when filtered through my own biases. Democrats are using the words “insurrection” and “domestic insurgency” to describe it. They seem to be assuming that the people in DC on Jan 6 intended to overthrow a legitimate, elected government through force. Meanwhile, I see Republicans most often use the word “protest”. The strongest word I’ve seen used on that side is “riot”. Having spoken with a couple of people who were at the Capitol rally, I’m confident that the vast majority of those present there did not see themselves as “insurrectionists”, nor did they intend to overthrow anything. At most, I believe they saw themselves as practicing civil disobedience in an effort to be heard. The videos I’ve seen from in and around Congress didn’t strike me as if the people there were intending to use violence, either. Don’t get me wrong - it was a “mob” and “mob mentality” is real and I would absolutely not have felt safe to be on the other side of those doors. What I’m trying to say is that I believe I would have judged it to be a “potentially dangerous situation”, not an “attempt to overthrow the government”. I’d like to discuss the differing behaviors and apparent perspectives of people since that day, but I’ll wait a bit. I don’t want to write paragraphs on the topic only for the thread to be locked and it no longer be able to discussed. :)

debacle 5y ago
I think that, as more people look into the events of January 6th, they will find that the opportunity for violence was very small. Not a single protestor had a firearm. Most protestors did not enter the capitol, most of them didn't even walk from the Trump rally all the way to the capitol. The Proud Boys and other groups ducked out before the event began. Alex Jones of all people was the voice of reason during the event.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
UncleOxidant 5y ago
> Having spoken with a couple of people who were at the Capitol rally Some unbiased sources there. > The videos I’ve seen from in and around Congress didn’t strike me as if the people there were intending to use violence And yet, many of them did do violence and there's plenty of video evidence of that.
jfengel 5y ago
I have a hard time figuring out how to bridge the gap when even "riot" is used without appending "... in the US Capitol, at a time when the transition of power was being formalized". I could understand not wanting to call it "insurrection", a somewhat rare and specific word. And if you don't want to use "overthrow", OK, I don't want to get hung up on semantics. But it's hard to see this as not attempting to alter the transition of power, and in so doing subvert the most basic principle under which people who disagree can live together. And even that would not have been so important if it had just been a series of isolated nut jobs, but it's clear that they believed that they were doing so under the direction of the person who was losing power. And who had used other less-than-entirely-above-board mechanisms for that as well. I just don't think it's feasible to present it as merely civil disobedience. The thing that they wanted to be heard about was a denial of the process by which others get their rights to be heard. Not just about this one event, but forever. The fact is that they could not have succeeded. But they were the most vehement of an extremely large cohort of people who have been convinced that this basic rule of modern nations -- that elections are the means by which we make collective decisions -- is invalid. Even if they're wrong, it becomes true if enough of them believe it. The threat of actual violence that day is dwarfed by that larger issue. I don't know how to respond to it. They have a self-realizing truth, one which I believe makes the country a much, much worse place to be.