3 ms·

I'm just trying to understand what seems to be inconsistent about your view, no need to be hostile

by totony 5y ago

joshstrange 5y ago
> Whataboutism: a conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless [0] We aren't talking about BLM at all right now, we are talking about Jan 6th. If you want to include BLM then we can first talk about how cops took photos with the people who broke into the capitol while they beat and maced BLM protestors for far lesser infractions. If you actually watched BLM footage and compared it to Jan 6th then the difference is stark, officers going out of their way in most cases to not fight back against the people storming the capitol or just holding the line whereas during BLM protests they took any slight as a reason to unleash tear gas, start attacking, and start making arrests. Secondly "insurrection" is only really used (in my experience and from what I've seen in history) when talking about actual attempts to overthrow said authority. Even calls for defunding the police don't meet this bar. Even burning a police building in MN doesn't really meet that bar for me, no one thought burning 1 station was going to overthrow the police. On the other hand the people on Jan 6th marched in large part to stop the certification of the election, chanted to hang the VP because he wouldn't refuse to certify, and openly talked about killing/hanging member of congress. There is a very clear difference between protesting a provably systematically racist system and attempting to overturn the votes of the majority of Americans based on a lie. I'm sorry but I don't for a second believe you asked that question in good faith. [0] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism
- totony 5y ago
  >Secondly "insurrection" is only really used (in my experience and from what I've seen in history) when talking about actual attempts to overthrow said authority. This explains it to me, but is why I disagree with the insurrection label. If armed people really wanted to "kill/hang" politicians and marched into the capitol with the intent to overthrow the government, I (and imo most people) would assume they'd use their weapons/be way more aggressive. You don't go for an insurrection, weapon in hand, and the worse that can be seen is someone having a selfie in Kamala's (?) office/people getting stomped. IMO if you can argue whether someone died from that protest, then it wasn't an insurrection, or else there would be no doubt about it. Tldr; as far as I've seen there was not enough violence to show that they were going for an insurrection. At most it's a protest that escalated (as a lot of protests do, see BLM), which doesn't warrant the outrage it's getting.
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    There was one piece missing, that being a singular, previously decided upon leader. It was armed and violent anarchy with the intent to terrorize congress, and people were murdered by this mob. If they had a leader it would have been an insurrection. That is it.
    - totony 5y ago
      I also disagree with "violent anarchy." When calling something "violent," we usually refer to the whole thing. For example, if there is a murder in chicago, we don't say "violent residents of chicago cause another victim." In the same spirit, I don't think the violence was widespread enough to warrant that label. EDIT: But violent here can be argued, I just think the common use is less in line with the literal "there was violence."

I'm just trying to understand what seems to be inconsistent about your view, no need to be hostile

by totony 5y ago

I'm just trying to understand what seems to be inconsistent about your view, no need to be hostile

> Whataboutism: a conversational tactic in which a person responds to an argument or attack by changing the subject to focus on someone else’s misconduct, implying that all criticism is invalid because no one is completely blameless [0] We aren't talking about BLM at all right now, we are talking about Jan 6th. If you want to include BLM then we can first talk about how cops took photos with the people who broke into the capitol while they beat and maced BLM protestors for far lesser infractions. If you actually watched BLM footage and compared it to Jan 6th then the difference is stark, officers going out of their way in most cases to not fight back against the people storming the capitol or just holding the line whereas during BLM protests they took any slight as a reason to unleash tear gas, start attacking, and start making arrests. Secondly "insurrection" is only really used (in my experience and from what I've seen in history) when talking about actual attempts to overthrow said authority. Even calls for defunding the police don't meet this bar. Even burning a police building in MN doesn't really meet that bar for me, no one thought burning 1 station was going to overthrow the police. On the other hand the people on Jan 6th marched in large part to stop the certification of the election, chanted to hang the VP because he wouldn't refuse to certify, and openly talked about killing/hanging member of congress. There is a very clear difference between protesting a provably systematically racist system and attempting to overturn the votes of the majority of Americans based on a lie. I'm sorry but I don't for a second believe you asked that question in good faith. [0] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whataboutism

totony 5y ago
>Secondly "insurrection" is only really used (in my experience and from what I've seen in history) when talking about actual attempts to overthrow said authority. This explains it to me, but is why I disagree with the insurrection label. If armed people really wanted to "kill/hang" politicians and marched into the capitol with the intent to overthrow the government, I (and imo most people) would assume they'd use their weapons/be way more aggressive. You don't go for an insurrection, weapon in hand, and the worse that can be seen is someone having a selfie in Kamala's (?) office/people getting stomped. IMO if you can argue whether someone died from that protest, then it wasn't an insurrection, or else there would be no doubt about it. Tldr; as far as I've seen there was not enough violence to show that they were going for an insurrection. At most it's a protest that escalated (as a lot of protests do, see BLM), which doesn't warrant the outrage it's getting.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  There was one piece missing, that being a singular, previously decided upon leader. It was armed and violent anarchy with the intent to terrorize congress, and people were murdered by this mob. If they had a leader it would have been an insurrection. That is it.
  - totony 5y ago
    I also disagree with "violent anarchy." When calling something "violent," we usually refer to the whole thing. For example, if there is a murder in chicago, we don't say "violent residents of chicago cause another victim." In the same spirit, I don't think the violence was widespread enough to warrant that label. EDIT: But violent here can be argued, I just think the common use is less in line with the literal "there was violence."