Insurrection is a very vague word, any kind of violent protest against authorities can be called an insurrection. Funny the summer insurrections don't get to have that label.

The Black Lives Matter protests only get to be called insurrections if their goal was to supplant those authorities or forcefully override their will. Marching to put pressure on authorities to enact reforms is basically the opposite of an insurrection. Without the authorities the protests are pointless.

And look I can only speak for my city since I was there but calling the protests violent is technically true but misleading in the way “there was a fight” is misleading in zero tolerance school policies. Being at the front of the protest was terrifying because the police were itching for any excuse to escalate and purposely obstructing people, grabbing and pushing the crowd daring someone to push back. Tensions are already high and the police acting like schoolyard bullies doesn’t help, and finally some guy finally breaks with a “get your hands off me” they get pulled down to the ground and start getting beaten, people step in to defend the guy and pull the cops off him, more cops rush in and boom — “violence.”

The shit at the Capitol was absolutely moronic and they had basically zero chance of achieving their goal but the intent was there and that’s really what matters.

> The Black Lives Matter protests only get to be called insurrections if their goal was to supplant those authorities or forcefully override their will.

So, you mean like hypothetically taking over 6 blocks of downtown Seattle and declaring it an autonomous zone?

Look I wasn't there and the information about it is extremely two sided. People who liked/supported it said that it was basically a large-scale sit-in like OccupyWallSt which seems to match the photos of it and I think lives firmly on the side of protest. Otherwise more usual protests like street marches, blocking access to government buildings, or occupying streets with cars also become insurrection which doesn't make much sense.

Not even trying to play, if the Capitol shit was actually a sit-in a la #OccupyTheCapitol then I would be here defending their right to protest.

FWIW, I live down the street from where that zone was. It was indeed a large-scale sit-in-like protest, and cropped up in short term response due to SPD's insane tactics of tear-gassing the surrounding neighborhood before pulling out due to pissing everyone off.

I find that everyone who comments about this zone on here is not actually from Seattle, and just firing off the same talking points.

Mmmm, yes, let's compare:

- A group storming the capitol of the US after being fed a steady stream of lies regarding an election result, with the President himself pushing them to go.

versus

- A group protesting after yet-another-person-of-color was murdered, pushing for equality and a check on police brutality.

Totally checks out. ;P

You're comparing the extremest fringe of one protest to the nonviolent core of the other. We have to compare fringe to fringe here.

The extremest fringe of the summer protests was burning cop cars and and a courthouse in one instance. There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone. That is insurrection. Not going to achieve anything though so everyone ignored it at the time. It wasn't any more of a problem than the Capitol riots.

>You're comparing the extremest fringe of one protest to the nonviolent core of the other.

I am not; I'm comparing the movements that led to each situation. You want to compare extremists, but the extremists are not the point - they'll always be there. The intent of the movements that caused these actions to happen are what matters, and it's fairly clear which side each falls on.

Many of those instances of violence in the summer protests were reactionary and driven by police exercising unnecessary force, which has been documented in troves of video.

Those who participated in the DC incident on the 6th were driven by a stream of misinformation, which has _also_ been well documented at this point.

One wanted to believe in conspiracy theories and support a failure of a President, going so far as to listen to him to attempt to overthrow the government. The other one just wants equality.

>There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone.

Yes, I live down the street from it. Having experienced it and lived around it, I would not classify it as anything remotely close to what was seen on January 6th in DC.

I get the impression you're too smart to change your opinion on this. That's not meant sarcastically; smart people are able to rationalize away even the most extreme cognitive dissonance. I don't blame you. Looking at a situation from a viewpoint opposed to one's own is quite literally physiologically painful, and who needs that.

There's also nothing to be gained by doing so. Most likely your family and friends and co-workers, given your area, are of a similar mindset, so there's no social capital to be gained. It's unlikely that it will net you a better job or higher paying salary, or make your life easier in any way.

Seeing other viewpoints can help with compassion, though, and that might be a necessary ingredient for a society. Not that that's your concern: an individual is negligible to the behavior of the collective.

This comment is super weird, and while it's a fun attempt at a subtle insult, it just kind of falls apart.

Why would I ever change my opinion to gain social capital, or make my life easier? I base it off of documented events; we've all lived the same past year whether people want to believe it or not.

It's simply not rationalizing when an individual looks at these two events that are clearly different in buildup, intent, and outcome, and then chooses to not view them the same.

Trying to bait someone with this stuff feels really old school internet, but not in an effective way.

It's not an attempt at a subtle insult. It's not meant to be insulting at all. At most, it's a personal reflection on certainty. I guess maybe it acts as something of a Rorschach test, but that wasn't the intent either.

We could probably have an interesting conversation in person, maybe even a meaningful one; but on the internet that's pretty much impossible. I certainly don't expect to change your mind, or even to convince you there's a possibility you might be wrong. You don't seem to have anything particularly new or insighful to add, so it's unlikely my opinions will shift. So there's not really a point in having a discussion, at least not in a format where we need to type out long comments and do point by point rebuttals.

And in any case other people are already doing the point my point contentious debate thing with you, and it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on anyone so it's a pretty obvious waste of time.

You seem the argumentative sort though so feel free to respond to this and explain why I'm wrong about whatever. I'll be drinking scotch and I do recommend that instead, but whatever you decide have a nice Tuesday night.

The movement that led to the Capitol riot was a misguided but fundamentally patriotic belief that there needs to be more of a focus on ensuring free and fair elections. You can disagree that a protest was needed and you can impugn the motivations of the organisers, but that is what the bulk of the protesters thought they were protesting.

A government installed by the people is a principle that compares on similar footing to equality.

Free and fair elections are important, but there is no evidence to suggest that the 2020 elections were not free and fair.

It was weaponized patriotism, not misguided patriotism.

Ok, so then so was Malheur and the siege of the Seattle police station.

You don’t see a difference between a local police station and your literal federal Capitol building filled with Senators?