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