This entire post is about protesting.... so? It was a rhetorical question, meaning that sometimes 'representation' is really not representation at all, and not a comment on BLM. In fact, I agree with much of what BLM is protesting for.

Yes, all protest at some level is about anger over government action/inaction, a direct voice of the people when they feel unheard. But the first "capitol defender" u/lettergram was suggesting that Trump should have his Twitter back to abuse reality, so his loyalists will feel heard. The person you responded to was making the point that these people can be heard, and have been heard. Their point is invalid.

I don't think we disagree as much as it seems.

Postscript: Check that first link to see why I got rebuttal-happy when you compared it to BLM. A lot of bad-faith or otherwise ignorant actors are trying to draw false equivalence to the movements/actions, and the narrative needs to be challenged.

I don't agree that Trump incited insurrection. If you can't link me to a direct quote of his, then your premise in that first link is flawed.

I'm not doing all your research for you. I'll tell you his speech is available online, it has been covered by a number of outlets, one of which highlighting his bullshit is "On the Media" podcast, as well as "Pod Save America".

So, no direct quote from Trump himself. Got it. Pretty much what everyone already knows.

If there were a policy against bad-faith discussions or rhetorical ineptitude, this would have been your last post on this website.

Silence people who disagree with you, I think that's a popular policy these days. I'm still waiting on that quote, though.