In a pragmatic way, you are right. This could have ended up much worse than it did. But let's not fool ourselves, the intent of these people was to intimidate officials into disrupting a peaceful transition of power.

They didn't do so because of any actual evidence that the transition was fraudulent, but out of loyalty to one person and a cult of personality. It all just reeks of dictatorship-like behavior to me.

I disagree largely because you're extrapolating the exception to be the rule. There were hundreds of thousands of people there and 99% of them never even entered the Capitol buildings.

I think the most telling part of intent is coming from the arrest data. There have been less than a handful of arrests due to firearms. Two of them were alarming (one had mason jar IEDs, one was making assassination threats at Pelosi). I am sure we will get more of what I would agree with you were "people with an intent to intimidate officials", but they are going to make up less than 99.5% of the hundreds of thousands of people that were there to demonstrate. The bulk of arrests have been curfew related - no surprises there.

I think it helps to put ourselves in the mindset of the people there, regardless of what side you're on. These people were upset that while the "fraud" of 2016 (the Russian collusion narrative) was thoroughly investigated and proven to be false after 3.5 years of dragging the President through the mud, the 2020 "fraud" allegation feels like it's being completely ignored.

And look I do not think there was enough fraud to change the results (I assume that in any election with no voter ID there will be some fraud, period). What I think is problematic is when instead of investigating allegations to appease 70 MM of your constituents, you instead say "no investigation and if you even ask about this you must be de-platformed, banned from the internet, and are probably a terrorist". That response is extremely dictatorial and not the sign of someone acting with good intentions. That's what scares me much more than anything than the fraction of a percent of demonstrators did.

I think I see what you're saying, but it seems like we are focusing on two different aspects of the event. I'm perfectly comfortable with people taking issue and protesting the de-platforming. I personally think it was the right move, but I fully support that others be able to think differently and try to affect change.

But the ban is not dictatorial. It is fully within these private companies' rights to refuse service to the president. And most importantly, this is not the government suppressing the people, it's the people suppressing the government. I can hardly imagine a stronger example of true liberty. Surely in actual dictatorship that would never be allowed to happen.

What these corporations are saying is not "no investigation and you're banned". They're saying they believe Trump purposefully incited people to take action so he could retain power despite the results of the election.

Yeah, this is honestly the best response to the above comment. It was an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power, at the behest of a wannabe autocrat, fueled by lies and conspiracy theories. The fact that it was incompetent and disorganized, and that not everyone there shared that goal, doesn't change anything.

The vast majority of the people there were LARPers who didn't intend any violence.

How does that change the fact that there were multiple armed groups and individuals, many of whom had very clear intentions. Given the chance, they would have absolutely taken hostages, or killed a Senator or the Vice President. And they were able to literally walk right into the Capitol, almost completely unimpeded.

Why does the fact that the majority of them were LARPing change that fact?

> How does that change the fact that there were multiple armed groups and individuals,

I have heard this statement thrown, but have not seen any good photos, videos or any source material proving it. I suspect this is largely because firearms are banned within the Capitol and you would be insta-arrested if you tried. The Capitol is not an open carry or even a concealed carry area, and as we saw from the one death at the hands of law enforcement, they are not shy about using lethal force on even unarmed individuals when you cross certain lines.

I am also extrapolating from the arrest data that there were clearly almost no armed individuals at all. There have been two firearm arrests. That's two out of hundreds of thousands of individuals and in both cases the individuals had their firearms in their vehicles, not on their person - so they were most definitely not "armed groups and individuals".

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-arres...

I'm genuinely curious, where do you get your news?

What are your information filters that can allow you to believe something like Russian collusion not only was "proved false" but didn't even happen?

Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Richard Pinedo, Alex van der Zwaan, and Konstantin Kilimnik were all indicted, most convicted and imprisoned due to their role in the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents. What do you think happened to these people?

I have to assume you arguing entirely in bad faith. "Couldn't keep the doors closed"? There were hundreds of people shoving to get in, screaming racial slurs at black police officers and calling them traitors saying they deserved to be executed for not arresting the liberal politicians.

Also, that officer who died who you kind of just dance around? The mob ripped a fire extinguisher off the wall and beat his head in.

The guy who had a heart attack died because the weapon he was carrying intending to use against a congressman went off and killed himself instead.

Intending to use against a congressman ? Did he tell that much to you ?

I also love making threats on social media then flying across the country and taking weapons into buildings where they’re not allowed so I can definitely not use them for anything.

I think there’s a legitimate question as to whether you’re just making this up on the spot because you’re angry, or if there’s any actual evidence of this that you’d care to share.

Do I look angry? I am always a perfectly rational internet forum poster.

https://www.al.com/news/2021/01/alabama-man-1-of-4-people-wh...

Other reports from the field indicate he died by “tasing himself in the balls” while “stealing a portrait of Tip O’Neill”, which could probably be verified with a livestream if you want to watch someone die, which I don’t.

So.... nothing in that link says anything about the guy who had a heart attack being shot.

The rest of your comment seems to be rambling nonsense.

Your epistemological standards and justifications are much different than mine, and really speak to the epistemological challenge we humans face in an age with an increasing volume of information.