7 ms·

> The main exception was Jan 6, which we've been taught to believe is apparently worse than the civil war. Taught? We don't need anyone to teach what happened,

> The main exception was Jan 6, which we've been taught to believe is apparently worse than the civil war. Taught? We don't need anyone to teach what happened, it was on national television. We have perfectly good eyes and ears. The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol.

rjbwork 5y ago
Nor fly a traitorous flag in its halls.
iammisc 5y ago
I'm not justifying Jan 6. I'm merely pointing out that it was an expression of frustration and that it's not anywhere close to the civil war, as some politicians have put it. I think the same is true of other domestic terror violence we've seen. The Civil War is still the worst domestic insurrection in history. The two are not even comparable. That this comparison is even humored shows a major problem. > The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. I'm sorry you're being ridiculous. The US capitol has been bombed and parts destroyed by domestic terror groups in living memory. Those attacks were way worse than this. US congressmen have been shot at by radicalized domestic terrorists as well. Considering (1) Jan 6 resulted in minimal property destruction (certainly no structural damage) and (2) no politician killed (the only person dying directly as a result being Ashli Babbett, a rioter), it's safe to say that the bombings were worse (due to worse property destruction) and the shootings were worse (due to imminent potential of death to the victims) Perhaps you have some learning to do.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  Minimize it all you want, the facts remain: if the attackers had succeeded in their aims to overturn a legitimate and fair election, that would've been the end of the United States as a constitutional republic. Their motivations and 'frustration' are irrelevant - frustration with the outcome of an election is not a free pass to tear up the Constitution.
  - OwlsParlay 5y ago
    The rioters had no coherent "aim", they basically treated like a tourist trap, and were practically let in by the police.
    - mullingitover 5y ago
      No coherent aim, people just coincidentally had human restraint-grade zip ties with them at a peaceful protest? Nope, don't try to whitewash this. Thirty seconds of google searches easily puts these efforts to lie. > In the weeks before supporters of then-President Donald Trump assaulted the U.S. Capitol, TheDonald.win forum commenters debated how best to build a gallows for hanging — or simply terrifying — members of Congress deemed disloyal. What kind of lumber? What kind of rope? And how many nooses? > “The website, TheDonald, played a far more central role in the January 6th Capitol insurrection than was previously known,” he said. “There are thousands of posts — with tens of thousands of comments — detailing plans to travel to Washington and engage in violence against the U.S. Capitol. The ultimate end goal of this violence was, on behalf of Trump, disrupt the Congress and overturn the presidential election.” [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/15/thedonald-capitol-attack-advance-democracy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/15/thedona...
      - iammisc 5y ago
        > TheDonald.win forum commenters debated how best to build a gallows for hanging — or simply terrifying — members of Congress deemed disloyal. What kind of lumber? What kind of rope? And how many nooses? And wallstreetbets debates how to please your wife's boyfriend. That is to say both /r/thedonald and /r/wallstreetbets (who has also harmed people via their encouragement of gambling the markets) have similar cultures of irreverence, hyperbole, trolling, and joking with the intent of setting people off. They find it funny when taken out of context and used to terrify people. For example, it's the same thing behind how 4chan jokingly made the OK sign into a white supremacist hand sign, thus causing a moral panic. I'm not saying one way or the other as to whether the comments here are right. But you're dealing with a forum that trolls people by posting cartoon frogs, mocking the OK sign, and calling each other centipedes.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  Jan 6 had worse intent than the Civil War -- the Confederacy only wanted to secede while the Jan 6ers wanted to install an illegitimate government with jurisdiction over the entire country. Just because they were hapless and unsuccessful doesn't mean they aren't guilty of an attempted murder of American constitutional democracy.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Oh my goodness. this is simply something else. This is why the country is so divided. Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty. Or when protestors broke into the Supreme Court to overturn the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, no one compared it to the civil war. How hyperbolic can we get? And yet, hyperbole like yours is not only tolerated by mainstream news sources, it is parroted by elected officials, other news outlets, and regular people. It's absolutely insane. [1] By all measures, Raz the warlord's occupation of chaz qualifies as having been, for a few days, the sovereign government of that area. They enforced a law, punished criminals, taxed people, and provided safety, all the while preventing other forces from doing the very same. This meets any reasonable definition of sovereignty.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      Did the Chaz idiots have 147 of 435 House members vote to certify their independence from the US?
      - iammisc 5y ago
        I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referencing exactly.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty. Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order. Unlike Jan. 6, which sought to enforce the President's stated desire to overturn his electoral defeat, a desire in which the insurrectionists were joined by a substantial number of lawmakers, and sought to coerce or remove key opponents (most critically the Vice President acting as President of the Senate, under a theory that electoral votes could be arbitrarily discarded by whoever was serving in that position, which the President and his allies endorsed and advocated but the VP had publicly rejected.)
dukeofdoom 5y ago
Yes, but what you've seen is a sampling of the hours and hours of video from that day that has not been released. So you don't really know what's on the rest of that video and why it has not been released. What we do know that some of the main participants and organizers have not been charged, while some of the 500 others that had very minor roles are facing harsh charges, and were denied bail. It makes sense not to charge the main characters, only if some of those people most combative and leading the charge, were in fact FBI informants, as has been alleged on the house floor. Subversion of a political movement, to discredit the movement by the government is a common tactic. Just hasn't been seen in the US before, other than maybe during the civil right movement. Louie Gohmert making the allegation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCHL2GEO9hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCHL2GEO9hw Agent provocateur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > Louie Gohmert making the allegation Weird how this person making these allegations would vote against the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the very claims he's making. Not weird at all though if he were making the allegations in bad faith.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    That's possible, he is a politician after all. However, here's a civil rights lawyer's take on it and seems to echo this: https://youtu.be/1Ozbqjv0xw4?t=937 https://youtu.be/1Ozbqjv0xw4?t=937
- erk__ 5y ago
  Is it not because they are still building the cases? Also that guy tried to overturn the election in late December so could he as well not be a agent provocateur? Trying to rile up members of the republican party against the newly elected president.
TMWNN 5y ago
>The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. The one person who died violently in the "sack" was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot. >Taught? We don't need anyone to teach what happened, it was on national television. We have perfectly good eyes and ears. Let me guess: You "saw" a police officer being hit by a fire extinguisher, right? Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-extinguisher/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sicknick-capitol-police-officer-died-two-str/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>).) The one difference between what happened at the Capitol that day and the attempted assault on the White House during the George Floyd riots (serious enough for the Secret Service to take Trump to a secure bunker) was that the former was allowed to enter its target.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Why are you being downvoted. You are correct. The New York Times retracted its story on officer sicknick. They agreed with the autopsy. He died of natural causes. The capitol is broken into quite often, for example, during Kavanaugh's confirmation.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    Because the poster is doing a textbook strawman argument, probably. Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made] This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive.
briantakita 5y ago
What's this? The White House was attacked & Secret Service Agents were injured? INSURRECTION!!!! Where's the 6 months of news coverage? https://twitter.com/zhamiltoe/status/1267357454112657408 https://twitter.com/zhamiltoe/status/1267357454112657408 Oh my, the Capital building was bombed in 1980? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female-led-domestic-terrorism-group-bombed-us-capitol-180973904/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female... What should we do about this terrorist? Put her on the Board of Directory of Thousand Currents, sponsor of the Black Lives Matter movement, of course. Oh hold on, Snopes protests..."In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." But everybody who protested in Jan. 6th is a "terrorist" correct? How about Bill Ayers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers, with his Bombing...ahem..."activism" as Wikipedia calls it? In 1971 Bill Ayers bombs the US Capitol building. What happens to him? Why he is deeply associated with community leader cum President Barack Obama for decades. Let's make him an esteemed Professor at the University of Chicago for his crimes... Now January 6. Perhaps your eyes & ears can tell me who died during the protest? Oh yeah, Ashli Babbitt who was shot by a police office despite not attacking anybody or presenting any imminent danger. Did she really deserve to be shot? Is this "justice", where the punishment depends on politics? Sure, how justice is served does depend on politics, but should it be this way?

rjbwork 5y ago

Nor fly a traitorous flag in its halls.

iammisc 5y ago

I'm not justifying Jan 6. I'm merely pointing out that it was an expression of frustration and that it's not anywhere close to the civil war, as some politicians have put it. I think the same is true of other domestic terror violence we've seen. The Civil War is still the worst domestic insurrection in history. The two are not even comparable. That this comparison is even humored shows a major problem. > The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. I'm sorry you're being ridiculous. The US capitol has been bombed and parts destroyed by domestic terror groups in living memory. Those attacks were way worse than this. US congressmen have been shot at by radicalized domestic terrorists as well. Considering (1) Jan 6 resulted in minimal property destruction (certainly no structural damage) and (2) no politician killed (the only person dying directly as a result being Ashli Babbett, a rioter), it's safe to say that the bombings were worse (due to worse property destruction) and the shootings were worse (due to imminent potential of death to the victims) Perhaps you have some learning to do.

mullingitover 5y ago
Minimize it all you want, the facts remain: if the attackers had succeeded in their aims to overturn a legitimate and fair election, that would've been the end of the United States as a constitutional republic. Their motivations and 'frustration' are irrelevant - frustration with the outcome of an election is not a free pass to tear up the Constitution.
- OwlsParlay 5y ago
  The rioters had no coherent "aim", they basically treated like a tourist trap, and were practically let in by the police.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    No coherent aim, people just coincidentally had human restraint-grade zip ties with them at a peaceful protest? Nope, don't try to whitewash this. Thirty seconds of google searches easily puts these efforts to lie. > In the weeks before supporters of then-President Donald Trump assaulted the U.S. Capitol, TheDonald.win forum commenters debated how best to build a gallows for hanging — or simply terrifying — members of Congress deemed disloyal. What kind of lumber? What kind of rope? And how many nooses? > “The website, TheDonald, played a far more central role in the January 6th Capitol insurrection than was previously known,” he said. “There are thousands of posts — with tens of thousands of comments — detailing plans to travel to Washington and engage in violence against the U.S. Capitol. The ultimate end goal of this violence was, on behalf of Trump, disrupt the Congress and overturn the presidential election.” [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/15/thedonald-capitol-attack-advance-democracy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/15/thedona...
    - iammisc 5y ago
      > TheDonald.win forum commenters debated how best to build a gallows for hanging — or simply terrifying — members of Congress deemed disloyal. What kind of lumber? What kind of rope? And how many nooses? And wallstreetbets debates how to please your wife's boyfriend. That is to say both /r/thedonald and /r/wallstreetbets (who has also harmed people via their encouragement of gambling the markets) have similar cultures of irreverence, hyperbole, trolling, and joking with the intent of setting people off. They find it funny when taken out of context and used to terrify people. For example, it's the same thing behind how 4chan jokingly made the OK sign into a white supremacist hand sign, thus causing a moral panic. I'm not saying one way or the other as to whether the comments here are right. But you're dealing with a forum that trolls people by posting cartoon frogs, mocking the OK sign, and calling each other centipedes.
spoonjim 5y ago
Jan 6 had worse intent than the Civil War -- the Confederacy only wanted to secede while the Jan 6ers wanted to install an illegitimate government with jurisdiction over the entire country. Just because they were hapless and unsuccessful doesn't mean they aren't guilty of an attempted murder of American constitutional democracy.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Oh my goodness. this is simply something else. This is why the country is so divided. Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty. Or when protestors broke into the Supreme Court to overturn the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, no one compared it to the civil war. How hyperbolic can we get? And yet, hyperbole like yours is not only tolerated by mainstream news sources, it is parroted by elected officials, other news outlets, and regular people. It's absolutely insane. [1] By all measures, Raz the warlord's occupation of chaz qualifies as having been, for a few days, the sovereign government of that area. They enforced a law, punished criminals, taxed people, and provided safety, all the while preventing other forces from doing the very same. This meets any reasonable definition of sovereignty.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    Did the Chaz idiots have 147 of 435 House members vote to certify their independence from the US?
    - iammisc 5y ago
      I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referencing exactly.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty. Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order. Unlike Jan. 6, which sought to enforce the President's stated desire to overturn his electoral defeat, a desire in which the insurrectionists were joined by a substantial number of lawmakers, and sought to coerce or remove key opponents (most critically the Vice President acting as President of the Senate, under a theory that electoral votes could be arbitrarily discarded by whoever was serving in that position, which the President and his allies endorsed and advocated but the VP had publicly rejected.)

dukeofdoom 5y ago

Yes, but what you've seen is a sampling of the hours and hours of video from that day that has not been released. So you don't really know what's on the rest of that video and why it has not been released. What we do know that some of the main participants and organizers have not been charged, while some of the 500 others that had very minor roles are facing harsh charges, and were denied bail. It makes sense not to charge the main characters, only if some of those people most combative and leading the charge, were in fact FBI informants, as has been alleged on the house floor. Subversion of a political movement, to discredit the movement by the government is a common tactic. Just hasn't been seen in the US before, other than maybe during the civil right movement. Louie Gohmert making the allegation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCHL2GEO9hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCHL2GEO9hw Agent provocateur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

mullingitover 5y ago
> Louie Gohmert making the allegation Weird how this person making these allegations would vote against the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the very claims he's making. Not weird at all though if he were making the allegations in bad faith.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  That's possible, he is a politician after all. However, here's a civil rights lawyer's take on it and seems to echo this: https://youtu.be/1Ozbqjv0xw4?t=937 https://youtu.be/1Ozbqjv0xw4?t=937
erk__ 5y ago
Is it not because they are still building the cases? Also that guy tried to overturn the election in late December so could he as well not be a agent provocateur? Trying to rile up members of the republican party against the newly elected president.

TMWNN 5y ago

>The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. The one person who died violently in the "sack" was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot. >Taught? We don't need anyone to teach what happened, it was on national television. We have perfectly good eyes and ears. Let me guess: You "saw" a police officer being hit by a fire extinguisher, right? Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-extinguisher/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sicknick-capitol-police-officer-died-two-str/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>).) The one difference between what happened at the Capitol that day and the attempted assault on the White House during the George Floyd riots (serious enough for the Secret Service to take Trump to a secure bunker) was that the former was allowed to enter its target.

iammisc 5y ago
Why are you being downvoted. You are correct. The New York Times retracted its story on officer sicknick. They agreed with the autopsy. He died of natural causes. The capitol is broken into quite often, for example, during Kavanaugh's confirmation.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  Because the poster is doing a textbook strawman argument, probably. Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol. Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made] This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive.

briantakita 5y ago

What's this? The White House was attacked & Secret Service Agents were injured? INSURRECTION!!!! Where's the 6 months of news coverage? https://twitter.com/zhamiltoe/status/1267357454112657408 https://twitter.com/zhamiltoe/status/1267357454112657408 Oh my, the Capital building was bombed in 1980? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female-led-domestic-terrorism-group-bombed-us-capitol-180973904/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female... What should we do about this terrorist? Put her on the Board of Directory of Thousand Currents, sponsor of the Black Lives Matter movement, of course. Oh hold on, Snopes protests..."In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." But everybody who protested in Jan. 6th is a "terrorist" correct? How about Bill Ayers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers, with his Bombing...ahem..."activism" as Wikipedia calls it? In 1971 Bill Ayers bombs the US Capitol building. What happens to him? Why he is deeply associated with community leader cum President Barack Obama for decades. Let's make him an esteemed Professor at the University of Chicago for his crimes... Now January 6. Perhaps your eyes & ears can tell me who died during the protest? Oh yeah, Ashli Babbitt who was shot by a police office despite not attacking anybody or presenting any imminent danger. Did she really deserve to be shot? Is this "justice", where the punishment depends on politics? Sure, how justice is served does depend on politics, but should it be this way?