4 ms·

> You bet I disagree. You simply cannot convince me that elderly folks with bibles and flags were attempting a coup d'etat. Elderly or not, they were demonstra

> You bet I disagree. You simply cannot convince me that elderly folks with bibles and flags were attempting a coup d'etat. Elderly or not, they were demonstrably colluding with parts of the army to create a situation where a GLO (Law and Order Guarantee) would be invoked. Lula, as much as I despise the guy, was very smart in seeing through the plot. In 2016 the protesters were claiming that Dilma ousting was a coup, and as much as they are wrong (the legal rites of her impeachment were satisfied), they were not themselves attempting a coup. You might be under the wrong impression that I agree with their bullshit in 2016. I do not. But the events of January 8th were as clear cut a coup attempt as it gets. The only real disgrace is that no one in the armed forces was punished yet.

gchamonlive 2y ago
It's exactly like this. I also don't agree or condone anything that the past government did. In fact weren't the previous governments corrupt, complacent and power hungry it would never have created the conditions for a far right extremist like Bolsonaro to rise to power. Seeing the coup for what it was doesn't mean we forget or downplay what happened before, but these circumstances were clearly different.
matheusmoreira 2y ago
> they were demonstrably colluding with parts of the army to create a situation where a GLO Bolsonaro might well have been. Whatever it is that he tried or wanted to do clearly didn't work out. He threw his hands up, flew out to the US and did absolutely nothing. The people protesting were hoping the military would show up and save them. Or something like that. This naiveté pretty much eliminates any possibility that those people were "colluding" with anyone. If they had been colluding with the military, they would not have been arrested.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  There are many, many videos showing them begging for the military to enact a coup. The army could and should have removed their encampment in the capital, and even forbid the police to dismantle that same encampment. This, among many other things, show those parties were colluding for a coup. You may argue that the coup attempt was foolish and had little chance of succeeding. Oh well, if I try to murder someone and fail because I am too much of a retard to murder someone I should still be charged with attempted murder. Sorry if I have little empathy for those that wanted to undermine democracy. They should be rigorously punished.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    Begging the military to enact a coup does not actually amount to a coup. As far as I'm concerned, that's just free speech. People may disagree but that must be tolerated right up to the point they pick up weapons. Only past that point could repression possibly be warranted. Showing up at the capital with flags and bibles is not an attempt to take power by force. So the "attempted murder" analogy is not convincing either. To take power by force, you actually need force. Every day on the internet people publicly wish fates worse than death on others. This does not amount to attempted murder or anything of the sort. So logically, wishing for coups doesn't amount to an actual coup either.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      > As far as I'm concerned, that's just free speech. People may disagree but that must be tolerated right up to the point they pick up weapons. Hard disagree here. Free speech is not unlimited, and in most countries there are limitations to it. Calling for violence is one of those things. Demanding a military coup is not, and should neve be, protected speech. > Showing up at the capital with flags and bibles is not an attempt to take power by force. You know full well that what happened there was a lot more than elderly people with flags and bibles. If you don't know, you are willfully blinding yourself. > So the "attempted murder" analogy is not convincing either. Murder, while a serious crime, in my opinion, is generally a less serious offense than the abolition of democracy. > To take power by force, you actually need force. Brazil has a long story of military coups, in more than one occasion invited by portions of the civilian population. > Every day on the internet people publicly wish fates worse than death on others. This does not amount to attempted murder or anything of the sort. We are not talking about people merely "wishing" a coup. They in fact, and very plainly, attempted to make it happen.
      - matheusmoreira 2y ago
        > Demanding a military coup is not, and should neve be, protected speech. Sure it should. That is a valid political position. They wanted the military to rule them. If you're gonna ban that speech, then I demand the complete erasure of speech I deem far worse. I demand the complete annihilation of the vast majority of brazilian political parties and literally everything they stand for, especially those which contain the words "communist" and "socialist" right in their names. Those ideologies are demonstrably far more damaging than the brazilian military dictatorship ever was. I simply do not accept the validity of the notion that militarism, fascism and nazism are all banned wrongthink while literal communists and socialists walk the soil of my country completely unpunished. I am not capable of the cognitive dissonance necessary to accept that. In order for me to maintain my sanity, one of those ideas must go. > You know full well that what happened I know the military didn't actually enact or even try to enact a coup. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant. > Brazil has a long story of military coups, in more than one occasion invited by portions of the civilian population. Yes. Military coups. Emphasis on military. > Murder, while a serious crime, in my opinion, is generally a less serious offense than the abolition of democracy. Surely we can agree that actual committed murder is worse than an hypothetical attempt to abolish democracy. A crime with actual victims must be more severely punished than one with zero victims. If we can agree on this, then we can agree that these people were punished in a completely uncivilized manner. They got worse sentences than literal murderers and rapists routinely get here. That's just stupid even if I were to accept the idea that they tried to take power, and I don't accept that idea. We should also be able to agree that this sends a very dangerous message: if you intend to protest these judges, you want full measures instead of half measures. They're going to punish you as if you had gone all the way anyway, you might as well go all the way. > We are not talking about people merely "wishing" a coup. They in fact, and very plainly, attempted to make it happen. Not at all. They were just generally protesting, and the protest was not in any way different in its violence compared to any prior ones. That they called for a coup at the same time does not make it an attempt to enact a coup. An attempt to enact a coup would be the people with guns showing up, beginning their operation and then failing. That's an actual attempt to seize power. An actual coup would end with them succeeding at it. They tried to get the military to do it. But they didn't try to do it themselves.

gchamonlive 2y ago

It's exactly like this. I also don't agree or condone anything that the past government did. In fact weren't the previous governments corrupt, complacent and power hungry it would never have created the conditions for a far right extremist like Bolsonaro to rise to power. Seeing the coup for what it was doesn't mean we forget or downplay what happened before, but these circumstances were clearly different.

matheusmoreira 2y ago

> they were demonstrably colluding with parts of the army to create a situation where a GLO Bolsonaro might well have been. Whatever it is that he tried or wanted to do clearly didn't work out. He threw his hands up, flew out to the US and did absolutely nothing. The people protesting were hoping the military would show up and save them. Or something like that. This naiveté pretty much eliminates any possibility that those people were "colluding" with anyone. If they had been colluding with the military, they would not have been arrested.

surgical_fire 2y ago
There are many, many videos showing them begging for the military to enact a coup. The army could and should have removed their encampment in the capital, and even forbid the police to dismantle that same encampment. This, among many other things, show those parties were colluding for a coup. You may argue that the coup attempt was foolish and had little chance of succeeding. Oh well, if I try to murder someone and fail because I am too much of a retard to murder someone I should still be charged with attempted murder. Sorry if I have little empathy for those that wanted to undermine democracy. They should be rigorously punished.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Begging the military to enact a coup does not actually amount to a coup. As far as I'm concerned, that's just free speech. People may disagree but that must be tolerated right up to the point they pick up weapons. Only past that point could repression possibly be warranted. Showing up at the capital with flags and bibles is not an attempt to take power by force. So the "attempted murder" analogy is not convincing either. To take power by force, you actually need force. Every day on the internet people publicly wish fates worse than death on others. This does not amount to attempted murder or anything of the sort. So logically, wishing for coups doesn't amount to an actual coup either.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > As far as I'm concerned, that's just free speech. People may disagree but that must be tolerated right up to the point they pick up weapons. Hard disagree here. Free speech is not unlimited, and in most countries there are limitations to it. Calling for violence is one of those things. Demanding a military coup is not, and should neve be, protected speech. > Showing up at the capital with flags and bibles is not an attempt to take power by force. You know full well that what happened there was a lot more than elderly people with flags and bibles. If you don't know, you are willfully blinding yourself. > So the "attempted murder" analogy is not convincing either. Murder, while a serious crime, in my opinion, is generally a less serious offense than the abolition of democracy. > To take power by force, you actually need force. Brazil has a long story of military coups, in more than one occasion invited by portions of the civilian population. > Every day on the internet people publicly wish fates worse than death on others. This does not amount to attempted murder or anything of the sort. We are not talking about people merely "wishing" a coup. They in fact, and very plainly, attempted to make it happen.
    - matheusmoreira 2y ago
      > Demanding a military coup is not, and should neve be, protected speech. Sure it should. That is a valid political position. They wanted the military to rule them. If you're gonna ban that speech, then I demand the complete erasure of speech I deem far worse. I demand the complete annihilation of the vast majority of brazilian political parties and literally everything they stand for, especially those which contain the words "communist" and "socialist" right in their names. Those ideologies are demonstrably far more damaging than the brazilian military dictatorship ever was. I simply do not accept the validity of the notion that militarism, fascism and nazism are all banned wrongthink while literal communists and socialists walk the soil of my country completely unpunished. I am not capable of the cognitive dissonance necessary to accept that. In order for me to maintain my sanity, one of those ideas must go. > You know full well that what happened I know the military didn't actually enact or even try to enact a coup. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant. > Brazil has a long story of military coups, in more than one occasion invited by portions of the civilian population. Yes. Military coups. Emphasis on military. > Murder, while a serious crime, in my opinion, is generally a less serious offense than the abolition of democracy. Surely we can agree that actual committed murder is worse than an hypothetical attempt to abolish democracy. A crime with actual victims must be more severely punished than one with zero victims. If we can agree on this, then we can agree that these people were punished in a completely uncivilized manner. They got worse sentences than literal murderers and rapists routinely get here. That's just stupid even if I were to accept the idea that they tried to take power, and I don't accept that idea. We should also be able to agree that this sends a very dangerous message: if you intend to protest these judges, you want full measures instead of half measures. They're going to punish you as if you had gone all the way anyway, you might as well go all the way. > We are not talking about people merely "wishing" a coup. They in fact, and very plainly, attempted to make it happen. Not at all. They were just generally protesting, and the protest was not in any way different in its violence compared to any prior ones. That they called for a coup at the same time does not make it an attempt to enact a coup. An attempt to enact a coup would be the people with guns showing up, beginning their operation and then failing. That's an actual attempt to seize power. An actual coup would end with them succeeding at it. They tried to get the military to do it. But they didn't try to do it themselves.