We're still getting groped by the TSA and wrapping up a war from the last time we had a 9/11 scale crisis. We were tricked into spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives invading a nation that had nothing to do with it and we gave some of the less savory government agencies a lot of power which they still have not returned.
I think the public is right to be hesitant to play the knee-jerk reaction game this time around considering how well it turned out last time.
All this "hold on and let's make sure we're not being too unfair to far-right extremists" while they actively recruit and plan more attacks sounds like an under-reaction from a fear of over-reacting.
I think it is right to be worried about the ascendant tech industry being able to quash certain ideas before they have a chance to influence voters at the ballot box.
Just this past 3 months, we've seen true stories about Joe Biden's son banned from posting on social media, anti-Biden news outlets banned from posting, and now the president banned.
I vote straight democrat pretty much every time, so that is where my leanings lie, but I'm not going to shut my eyes as wealth inequality goes over the moon in the past 20 years and consolidated platforms owned by the hyper-wealthy increasingly control what news people even see.
To me, it is entirely inappropriate to be blasé about this point.
Get warrants, subpoenas, etc., and go after those inciting riots/sedition.
This is an absolutely disgusting and disgraceful thing to say.
Far fewer lives were lost, but the impact and implications of this are on par.
Nothing like 9/11 or the OKC bombing has happened in the last 19 years; full stop.
I have lived in DC my whole life, I hate to see this happening in my city, but we can be honest with ourselves.
I remain unconvinced about how close that actually was, nor have I seen a compelling case that it was that close actually made.
Further, before it becomes close to "executing the Vice President", you can bet shots are going to actually be fired. Crowds of rioters behave very differently when gunshots start ringing out.
The people most imminently in danger in that case, as I understand it, were staff in the Speakers Lobby, not members or the Vice President, who were in the chambers.
But as I understand the timeline, the attack, with defenders just on the other side with guns drawn and prepared to fire, on the doors to at least one of the chambers also were ongoing before members had been evacuated from the floor by another exit, so the incident at the Speakers Lobby came very close to being repeated where members were more immediately at risk.
Do you have a source for this? I understand you to be saying that the picture we all saw (of the guns being drawn at a door within one of the chambers) occurred while there were still elected representatives in that chamber?
I’ll try to dig up something; I’ve seen a couple accounts from people in the chamber or galleries that seemed to suggest that (I think specifically the House chamber).
What does "on the United States itself" mean and why does 9/11 meet that standard but not, say, the Pulse nightclub shooting?
On 9/11 there was a plan set in motion to crash a plane in to the Capitol, which only failed because of the bravery of the passengers in that plane. Incidentally, the very same Capitol self described 'patriots' broke into and vandalized last week.
So what made 9/11 have large scale was the (thwarted) plot to crash into the Capitol and the successful attack on the Pentagon? Not the 2600 killed in the WTC?
This seems like a very twisted reading to compare two not-actually-that-similar events.
Rather than engaging in the reasons for why it might be, you choose to insult my reading comprehension. Take care, and hopefully you can be more charitable to those you encounter in-person.
People minimizing this attack and not treating it like a legitimate 9/11 scale crisis for the US are not considering the propaganda win this is for extremist groups domestically and autocratic regimes internationally. Could this be a slippery slope? Sure, but it's not as slippery as the other side of the slope which goes right off a cliff.
There is still plenty of time/space to have debates about how to move forward from here with moderation and privacy on social networks, but for now we are in the middle of an insurrection that needs to be put down.
Also, should another attack take place couldn't platforms knowingly providing services to the capitol attackers find themselves liable for providing material support for terrorists? If I were managing risk at AWS that definitely be a major concern.
My POV, if we wouldn't have a problem doing it to ISIS after an attack on our Capitol, then we shouldn't have problem doing the same to QAnon and these "patriots".