I have no idea what equivalence you're accusing me of, you seem to have made up a whole story about what I am saying that isn't there.

Edit: OK, I'm not making that equivalence. My use of the word "adjacent" was deliberate and intentional. That's the point of this whole debate.

I think this is overplayed at this point. You must concede one of only two possibilities.

1) The capitol building has all along been an easy soft target that could have been infiltrated by a small contingent of terrorist.

2) The police purposefully stood down and allowed this to happen while doing the minimum to make it seem like they tried.

Neither option is a good look for our country.

Now compound that with using this event as a popular excuse to restrict free speech, when the correct reaction should be to improve security at the capitol for any enemy.

If you think this goes away becuse big tech takes even moderate voices down, you don't understand what's going on.

I worked on Capitol Hill for years. The Capitol is not a soft target. Its security measures are taken very seriously. Multiple agencies are responsible for its protection. Multiple strategies are in play from intelligence ops to deadly force. These agencies handle crowd control for dozens of very large protests every year. They are world experts in preventing violence, terrorism, and rioting. The Capitol is the very center of our government and the most powerful symbol of democracy in the world.

Some things went very wrong. It should not have been possible for a loosely organized mob to breach the perimeter, let alone get inside. There must have been some complicity or even permission. On the other hand, some things went exactly as they should have. Lawmakers were rapidly taken to safety. No VIPs were injured. Bloodshed was kept to a minimum through careful deescalation.

Overall I think we came to within inches of a major tragedy. It was avoided through a mix of competence and incompetence. We were lucky and we should consider ourselves warned.

I dont see reason for people to downvote you: I find it exceptionally hard to believe that the capital building does not have a proper response to a small group of people trying to storm the building.

Here is my theory: the "coup" was such an utter non-threat that those in charge did not want to give an ounce of evidence regarding how they could respond in order to prevent legitimately threatening bad actors from understanding the possibilities.

The side effect of being able to move towards more restricted speech is just icing on the cake.

After seeing thousands of soldiers with machine guns in full military gear with armored vehicles protecting the Capital from Black Lives Matter, your statement sounds ridiculous.

Perhaps a history of burning and looting might have had some influence in that difference.

Sometimes I wonder, and serious question here, when the reporter on TV stands in front of a burning building and exclaims the protest is mostly peaceful, do you see the building in background on fire?

I mean, I see the capitol building being broken into and think "that needs to stop, bring in the military if necessary".

Right wing millitias and groups have history of violence last years in USA. They also talked about their plans openly. It is not like the bombs they brought to capitol were shock this January. It was not first bomb plan.

Also, in videos you see organized trained equipped men in uniforms. That is absolutely something agencies are expected to follow.

> Here is my theory: the "coup" was such an utter non-threat that those in charge did not want to give an ounce of evidence regarding how they could respond in order to prevent legitimately threatening bad actors from understanding the possibilities.

Six people died! How is that an "utter non-threat"? The mental revisionism is out of control. How is it that people are so unwilling to condemn the most obvious kind of political violence imaginable?

You can condemn it, be fearful of it, and be specific with regards to the threat it presents. It presents threats. I assume the specific threat the poster was refuting (which I won’t throw my 2c on here) is that it posed a threat to materializing a new government in the United States, which is typically the top of mind threat when talking about coups. So citing the number of deaths is neither here nor there in assessing the validity that it was a legitimate threat to creating a new government and ending the previous one.

I hadn't thought of that, yet I see the sense in the thought.

However, I don't think providing adequate police presence for a planned protest would have been showing your hand.

"2) The police purposefully stood down and allowed this to happen while doing the minimum to make it seem like they tried."

seems likely that the trumpers gave that order so their mob could get in

These can both be true

Really? Can a weak man lose an arm wrestling match to a stronger opponent and truly say "I let you win?"

Either the authorities were capable of repulsing an hundred unarmed civilians or they were not.

I'm unclear how both can be true, but I'm open to ideas.

Other explanation:

Republicans have mostly posted online, rallied with Trump etc while BLM and friends has been torching cities, looting etc.

Basically the police weren't expecting anything near this from this crowd and it took them by surprise.

Disgusting anyways.

The white supremacists and other violent right wing groups (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc.,) had been planning for a while. In plain view of anyone paying attention. There was plenty of warning. So, the fact that no preparation beyond the waist high barriers was done is surprising, no? https://www.propublica.org/article/capitol-rioters-planned-f...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/trump-ri...

Yes, it was clear security was needed. But this wasn't any of those groups.

That's simply wrong. Representatives of all of those groups were seen breaking into the capitol. The Oath Keepers in particular seem to have had a large and heavily militarized detachment. There is a video of a line of them in full body armor marching up the steps past the throng to enter the building.

Likewise known Proud Boys and 3%'ers were present, etc... This was the Place to Be for all militant right wingers, and those who couldn't be in DC were staging protests elsewhere. IIRC there were violent actions on the same day at both the Oregon and Kansas state houses.

Everyone Knew they were going to be there. Everyone Knew they had the potential to be violent. And Everyone Knew that Trump's rhetoric was inciteful. None of this was a surprise. And it finally boiled over into real violence. There's no excusing or downplaying that. We could absolutely have seen this coming, and lots of people did.

"Oath Keepers in particular seem to have had a large and heavily militarized detachment"

Source video? Larping in camo and a helmet doesn't make you militarized or an oath keeper.

I saw it on twitter, but this article has it too along with a good overview of the subject:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/several-well-know...

You keep dodging. First it was "these groups aren't there" now they're just LARPers in camo and don't matter. People keep shooting down your arguments and you keep moving the goalposts.

Accusing people of doing exactly what you're doing is a well worn and bazar tactic that I'll never understand. Does it work?

You even provided a "quote" of something I never said. Good on you.

You made a statement "Oath Keepers in particular seem to have had a large and heavily militarized detachment". I asked for source video, which you now can't find and instead offer a video that doesn't corroborate your statement. So, who is moving goal posts?

What I am saying is the people causing the violence (including in the video you provided) are crazy larpers and MAGA fanatics, not oath keepers. Oath keepers are typically former military, open carry weapons, and don't look like they just broke out of mom's basement.

I am also saying I haven't seen a video of anyone who looks militarized in either organization, coordinated assault tactics, or armament. Can you cite a source video that demonstrates your statement is even close to true?

> big tech takes even moderate voices down

Can you cite some "moderate voices" that have been taken down by big tech? They're all still up as far as I can see. Trump incited an attack on congress. He got banned. Parler deliberately cultivated an extreme community of violent rhetoric (they really did, have you looked at that site?). They got banned. Who else? Seems like only people reasonably identifiable as extremists are affected.

I remain horrified at the right wing community's ability to rationalize violence. The President directed an attack on Congress last Wednesday to prevent his opponent's certification. And... what people really want to talk about is Parler losing their hosting?

(Edit to note that you refused to answer the question and jumped off on a WHATABOUTBLM?! tangent instead. In fact, contra your hyperbole, no moderate right wing voices have been censored or silenced.)

"Trump incited an attack on congress."

Evidence of Trump telling people to storm the capitol?

"I remain horrified at the right wing community's ability to rationalize violence"

We'll, I'm right of center and I condemn it. Just like I'm sure there is a history of you condemning this entire year of BML and Antifa burning and looting cities across the US.

I remember what Como said on CNN. "who said protests need to be peaceful". Of course CNN is the bastion of right wing extremists... Oh wait....

We have to condemn all political violence.

If you spend a whole year burning and looting a city and the city is still there you weren't very good at it.

I haven't tried, I make things, not destroy other people's things.

Don't get me wrong, there's definitely a double standard at work. I recall every news outlet spending bottles of ink explaining how massive BLM protests somehow weren't spreading covid but now the capitol protests are. However I think there's a fundamental difference between breaking into a Target and looting it and attacking the capitol of the United States. Of particular concern are all of the side details. The detail that a threat assessment was not done for this protest despite knowing about it weeks in advance. The fact the police responded less strongly to this attack than they did to a protest by disabled veterans in wheelchairs and later took selfies with the attackers. The fact that insurgents carrying blue lives matter flags beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The detail that the person speaking to this crowd just a few hours earlier was the president of the United States.

> I recall every news outlet spending bottles of ink explaining how massive BLM protests somehow weren't spreading covid but now the capitol protests are

It's actually been reported that a covid-positive individual was clustered with members of congress during the evacuation. I don't know why you think that isn't correct to report.

It is correct to report. My point was that any large crowd of people is likely to spread covid.