Really? How did past revolutions and terrorist attacks get organized? You realize most of world history existed before the Internet, right?

> Really? How did past revolutions and terrorist attacks get organized? You realize most of world history existed before the Internet, right?

Yeah, of course. Broadcasting means one-to-many communication. Before modern technology, those things were organized using other kinds of one-to-many communication, such as in-person meetings, rallies, and through newspapers and other kinds of publications.

Movements aren't organized one-to-one like on a telephone, because that's a far slower way of spreading a message. It's also an unreliable medium, as the children's game "telephone" shows.

Phone trees are a well known and used method to broadcast information via the phone system.

> Phone trees are a well known and used method to broadcast information via the phone system.

And pretty bad at doing it. It's actually pretty funny to imagine someone trying to organize a movement via a phone tree.

In my home town, we had a local group of mostly old folks, largely right-wing, who would have monthly luncheons with local politicians, and the group was literally called the Phone Tree because that’s how they organized. Although in this case the “Phone Tree” was a primitive robodialer owned by the head of the organization and used to disseminate recorded announcements of when the next luncheon was and who would be the guest/s.

So not a phone tree…?

The machine was literally called a "Phone Tree". Presumably because it was intended as an automated replacement for an old-fashioned phone tree. And, back to the root point, telephony can be used to organize political activity, at least in the form of getting all the old gun nuts in town to show up for a luncheon with their state legislator.

A small-scale printing press and a little bit of Common Sense [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense

Unnecessarily combative comment. There's a reason why radio and television stations are among the first things seized in a coup. Broadcast media is crucial.

It’s certainly easier with social media, but before that people used phones and in person meetings.

The idea that this summers riots were at all comparable to an attack on our nation's legislative body as it certified results of an election is repugnant and absurd.

Its easier to point fingers at the other side than take any blame for your own.

The insurrection at the nations capitol is a singular event, one that Republicans need to reckon with on its own terms. Some have done this, and I applaud them. They are proving to be the grown ups in the room.

What makes you think I'm on a side? I see hypocrisy all around. I think the capitol protests should not have happened, and the people who participated in them should be held accountable.

I agree with you that the capitol riots and the summer riots are incomparable. The summer riots were much worse, lasted longer, targeted innocents rather than political institutions, were widely excused and often promulgated by the newsmedia and politicians, are still talked about as if they were just, continually avoid criticism by cowardly saying that such points are a "distraction" in the face of things like the capitol riots, and use dishonest sleights of hand like the changing of language from "riot" to "attack" to gaslight.

Could you give some concrete examples?

I think the scale of events resulting from a statement are taken into consideration. Terrorists have sprung up after being radicalized by what they heard from one politician or another, but we typically won't consider the politician responsible for those actions.

This probably starts going into whataboutism territory, but doesn't this stuff tend to go both ways? I'd postulate we can probably find a few damning quotes made on Fox as well.

I'll note I'm very ignorant on this topic as I haven't actually watched television or any of these networks in years.

Examples are everywhere, you just have to not be in a bubble and be open to seeing it. I could keep going but you tell me, do you need more?

AOC: "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable." [-1]

Slate: "Non-violence is an important tool for protests, but so is violence" [0]

Vox: "Riots are destructive, dangerous, and scary — but can lead to serious social reforms" [1]

Pelosi: "we welcome the presence of these activists" vs "our election was hijacked" [2]

"CNN Promoted Charged Leftist Rioter Who Masqueraded As Reporter Despite No Credentials, Urged Assault On Capitol" [3]

Chris Cuomo: "Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful" [4]

Supercut of news media justifying and excusing riots: [5]

Daily beast and salon writer Arthur Chu calling for explicit murder of people he calls Nazis: [6]

Difference in tone & presentation of NYT covering violent riots: [7]

Sally Kohn, USA today writer: "I don't like violent protests but I understand them" [8]

Kamala Harris: "Protests should not let up"

Maxine Waters "If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store... You get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them."

Nancy Pelosi: "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be soon."

Ayanna Pressley: "There needs to be unrest in the streets"

(I would agree that some of the politicians' quotes are a little weak, but in the name of consistency, these are at least worse than some types of language from Trump that would be called out as violence.)

[-1] https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080

[0] https://twitter.com/slate/status/1268415955937513473?lang=en

[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work

[2] https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/13484392324157521...

[3] https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/cnn-promoted-capitol-r...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAe86my9r7A

[5] https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544

[6] https://twitter.com/Malcolm_fleX48/status/134718628775795917...

[7] https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/13470552229805506...

[8] https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1346927304073744388

More: https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/08/10-times-democrats-urge...

> Examples are everywhere, you just have to not be in a bubble and be open to seeing it. I could keep going but you tell me, do you need more?

If you strip out enough context, you can make any false equivalency you like. For instance: weren't the Allies and Axis in WWII basically the same? After all, they both used guns and bombs to commit violence.

I can't say that I know enough about that part of WWII, but yeah I agree with that statement. Which isn't to say that it applies here. Simply pointing out that stripping out context can lead to false equivalences is lazy, it needs to be shown.

Each of these things certainly has a context that can be gone and read. That's why I included sources rather than not including them. There's also Google.

In addition I'd simply say that whatever your perspective on context is and how it applies to calls to violence and interpretations thereof, that it should be applied equally to all sources from all sides. This doesn't really seem to be what is happening, which is the largest factor in what seems to me a rather clear observation that the newsmedia's portrayal, and those who promote it and give it reach uncritically, are full of shit.

> I can't say that I know enough about that part of WWII, but yeah I agree with that statement. Which isn't to say that it applies here. Simply pointing out that stripping out context can lead to false equivalences is lazy, it needs to be shown.

Well, the key part is that the Axis was centered on the imperial ambitions of a a famous genocidal dictatorship that you've probably heard of. There's pretty much a unanimous consensus that that dictatorship was very, very bad and its allies were not much better.

Regarding the recent violence, here the context:

1. BLM is mainly against the police's pattern disproportionate killing of black people, often unarmed, and racism in general. While there had been looting and rioting, it's worth noting that from the very beginning there's evidence that these protests were actually infiltrated by violent agitators with other aims (e.g. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-man-accused-o... and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/texas-boogaloo...).

2. The capitol attack was literally against the results of a free and fair election, and deliberately attacked some of the actual institutions of American democracy. There's also no evidence of infiltration, though such claims are now being made to deflect blame. And the riots often loudly expressed violent aims (e.g. erecting a literal gallows and chanting "Hang Mike Pence" https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capi...).

It's true. And guess which side was antifa.

The Stalinists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

Notice how none of these entirely out of context quotes are encouraging crowds to overthrow the government to overturn an election.

Also, note that when these people use forceful language, they are talking about fighting for their rights to not be murdered by police. When Trump uses violent rhetoric, he is talking entirely about keeping himself in power.

Context matters.