Couldn’t you just as accurately say they organized peacefully at the Capitol and THEN made it non-peaceful by doing those things?

It's probably more accurate to say that a some of the protesters were prepared to commit acts of violence towards those in the Capitol building, some had no interest in violence, and others had no explicit plans but were caught up by mob mentality.

The real differences are the lies and craziness.

Some of the participants were carrying things like nylon handcuffs, bombs (or bomb making materials?) and molotov cocktails. This preparation proves that peaceful protest was never the core intent.

The same could be said for the previous riots.

No, because they were doing things the president told them to! He scheduled the rally to directly coincide with congress's certification session. He didn't tell them to break into the Capitol, but he told them to march there. He didn't tell them to attack congress, but he told them they were in session trying to steal his election.

I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry. It's not. Any other speaker at that rally who had said the same things would be trivially charged. This was a crime, in ways that BLM organizing a march isn't. (Maybe there are some other BLM-related actions where people called out a target like this, it was a big movement. I'm not aware of one though.)

> I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry.

What you are really saying is that you don't think it is blurry.

The reason people argue that it is blurry is because they want to advance the interests of that side. So they argue whatever they can, including the blur, which might give them a 50-50 chance of prevailing in amongst the confusion.

It's how people argue when they can't prevail in an argument based on principle, logic, or literality.

> I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry.

It’s denial and it’s obvious that they want to believe something else with all their might. If Trump said it literally go do the deed there would be some who would argue that’s not true. Strategy amongst trolls is to wear us down a la gaslighting but I don’t understand what’s the long term goal, if there is any.

"I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry."

Because it is. I dislike Trump as much as the next guy, but he didn't say anything new in that speech ( frankly, neither did anyone that preceded him ). What he did, however, is consistently rile up his base. This time he overshot. And he did not even overshot with words. Tons of worse things are said on many political meetings if you ever been to one. He overshot with the timing and a sense of desperation. And the retard got burned playing with fire.

I'd be willing to say that they met at the White House with the intention of a peaceful rally/protest. However, that rally is where the match lit the fuse. They were sent to the Capitol to cause mayhem. Two different but related events to consider. If there was to be an organized event at the Capitol, things would have been prepared differently. However, the Capitol was already undergoing preparations for the Inauguration. I seriously doubt the people in charge of those plans would have agreed to a rally at the Capitol.

No.

I think the debating of what percentage of demonstrations were violent, or whether the violent people were provocateurs, is a red herring. I don't honestly know, for any of them, and I think people get trapped into arguing stuff they don't know.

The outrage is that, regardless of how many people were violent at or around the protests for racial justice, the ones who weren't violent were brutalized on many occasions. Lots of people, reporters and ordinary people, experienced it and documented it. And at the attack on the Capitol, no matter how many people were peaceful, the authorities gave the violent people strikingly more free rein.

Simply by arguing the statistics, I think you get derailed from what matters, which is how both sides are not equal.

Here we are mostly in agreement. On the flip side, BLM got much more favorable treatment from media, even if they did not get that treatment from cops.

You are right. Things are not equal. I would love for the same standard to be applied to everyone.

Care to explain?

Not really. It's so obvious that the only person that would likely disagree with me is person that will likely disagree with reality, but here I go anyways.

Trump called for insurrection. He didn't call for a protest. So did Trump Jr. So Did Giuliani. It's a matter of public record.

Also the people, and please respect that I single out this comment as completely tangential to the original point, that try to make the "Sure Trump supporters rioted, but BLM!" argument never seem to take the following into account:

BLM is fighting against a system that arbitrarily tortures and executes them, often with impunity. While The Trump supporters are literally fighting to end American democracy.

Where in his speech did he specifically call for insurrection? Quote it. You can blame him for riling people up all you want, but he never instructed anybody to break into the capitol or interfere with the electoral vote or anything of that nature. People who were there even say that they were breaking into the Capitol while Trump was still speaking.

So tired of people having these absolutely vile attitudes (accusing the person you're responding to of being "likely to disagree with reality") while never presenting any facts.

Folks take the part where T stated at the in-person event (IIRC) to "go wild".

So, he didn't say "do an insurrection" he said those other - on the margin things (are those the things called dog whistles?) like "go wild" and "we will never back down" and the like.

They are playing the "Yes judge, he said the man would make an Excellent Cadaver, but he only meant that he hoped the man lives out his natural life in good health and turns into a good looking corpse in a completely natural sense" game.

> But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.

Vice-president-elect Kamala Harris, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg

Rudy said the phrase “trial by combat”

There is no point, the dude is lost to reality.

So in other words, you cannot prove the thing you said. I suppose you are right, I am lost to reality.

The point of keeping one's language in the gray area is to avoid culpability. It's no different from when a boss wants their employee to do something unethical/illegal; they don't come out and ask for it explicitly. That isn't how real life usually works.

When people say Trump incited an insurrection, they are bearing this in mind. All but the most obtuse of people understand this.

Yes, he did. And you could rightfully point to that as incitement of violence. However, that is not Trump calling for insurrection.

Edit: I've been hit with the dreaded "You're posting too fast" block, meaning I cannot respond anymore. Why? Because I asked somebody who said that Trump was on public record calling for insurrection to prove it with a quote.

So in the absence of explicit instruction - go to the Capitol, break through the barricade, enter the chamber - there is no responsibility? What if a leader uses phrases like “we need to fight and take back our country and you know what needs to be done”? I’d hope there is a higher standard for president of the United States

> But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.

Vice-president-elect Kamala Harris, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg

Whataboutism is perhaps the most ignorant defense used by Trump supporters.

This is not a defense of anything. That's something you projected onto the comment on your own.

The comment is simply pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard that pervades this discussion.

If pointing this out makes you angry, that's not an issue with the comment, but an issue with your ability to handle information that undermines your constructed narrative.

The irony of a Trump supporter claiming projection and hypocrisy. These are literally the founding principles of Trumpism.

And yes, your comment was clear example of whataboutism.

Trump repeatedly encouraged protestors to stay peaceful leading up to the riot:

> Jan 6th, 2:38 PM: Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!

> 3:13PM I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!

From: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/

Can you link to where Trump called for insurrection? If that's true, that would certainly be significant. He's certainty spread unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, and it culminated in a riot. But saying that someone called for an insurrection is a very specific and very serious claim, and one that is best supported with references.

The order of events has troubled me since the beginning.

People came to a protest. Trump made a speech on the stage. People got incited to rush the building by what was said.

But then we the events that say that people constructed bombs at home and organized an attack far in advance, and traveled to the protest in order to rush the building.

The odd thing is that I heard similar narratives about BLM riots. In some it was said that BLM organized protests which were peaceful, but which later turned into riots. Other say that the rioters was people from outside that had planned the rioting in advanced and traveled to the protests.

Are all four versions true, or only a subset?

Bogaloo group has been mentioned before. At this point, I am certain that there are groups in US keen on using existing tensions for their goals.

All statements are true, except for where they're mutually exclusive:

For both the Trumpist Insurrection and the BLM protests, some people were intending a peaceful march, some were intending a riot, and some were even intending or hoping for violence.

However, where the Trumpist Insurrection differs was the (small?) portion that intended a "revolution," to quote one Elisabeth from Knoxville. The most extreme form of BLM seemed to be the CHOP, which may have wished for an autonomous zone, but not a revolution.

"BLM organized protests which were peaceful and then bad actors incited riots."

Interesting line of argument. How is it different from capitol climb? The protest in DC were mostly peaceful until after Trump ( and friends ) speech. It is just some bad actors, who incited riots.

"What happened on the Capitol was not peaceful from the outset--people came up, climbed the wall, broke through the entryway, took a podium, etc.--they started it."

This is where we may disagree. Initially, it was just a gathering. The wall climbing and all that jazz happened after speeches were over. Timeline is important.