Nah, they probably just want to let a few criminals off the hook for funsies.

To throw that out and say "Nah let's nuke this guy's life because an anonymous person sent us a screenshot that they claim is him doing something racist" is not an improvement. This is moving in the wrong direction.

The duplicity on the violence issue is both stunning and terrifying.

Stop pretending the violence came from nothing. I have friends with burns on their legs from getting hit by stun grenades while actually peacefully protesting. You won’t believe that, but you can find video after video of police actively attacking peaceful protestors.

All of that said, lets be careful not to boil this down to property damage so we can justify it. 19 people died in those summer riots. The property destruction affected mostly poor areas and minority business owners.

The duplicity is stunning and terrifying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur....

Then there’s collateral damage. Much of the rioting in the last year was criminality in service of a political goal. That is the literal definition of terrorism. These actions create fear in political opponents and aim to achieve political goals outside our legal process. That has a human cost.

But if I had to simplify it, life is a period of time. And time is used by people to acquire or create property. Therefore when that property is stolen or destroyed, it is taking away life.

A more comprehensive opinion: https://fee.org/articles/vandalism-is-violence-destructive-r...

Attempted murder, and arson of occupied structures. Far worse than the capitol riot.

Also, who the violence was directed at. In DC most of the rioters were unarmed and fought with police. In Portland and LA many protestors were armed and fought passing citizens, attacked drivers, etc. Police don't "deserve" to be hit, but they sign up knowing that the job can get rough. Random old ladies protesting the vandalism of their building shouldn't be hit but the justice mobs feel free to hurt anyone.

CHAZ/CHOP: 2 deaths Capital Hill Riot: 5 deaths

Source: I lived 2 blocks away

People here who say chaz wasn't dangerous should really look at how they propped up their own militia/security force and executed minorities.

One night right outside my window, I witnessed a homeless man with a gun to his head, right out in the open, screaming "KILL ME MOTHERF***" to the guy screaming "GIVE ME MY MONEY". I've seen knife fights by both QFC's.

Everyone just normalizes it and like, finds an equilibrium when you live there.

Things I've seen video of includes guys handing out guns to (what appear to be) minors, fights breaking out, and people getting assaulted for recording what is happening there.

Some things are still available though - https://www.bitchute.com/video/1Jr0ILcX9hY/

Social media seems to be doing a pretty good job of trying to pretend these things didn't exist.

The initial few days of george floyd protests were tense, but almost every large city around the country also was.

What you are talking about is something completely different. That's not even cancel culture. It's upholding the law and it requires zero opinions from a random outrage mob, you report the content, the company reviews it and immediately deletes it if it goes against the law. There is no petitioning required to pressure a company because the vast majority of companies delete content like that as soon as they can identify its illegal nature.

Twitch is definitely a slippery slope, especially in distributing soft core porn to underage kids.

However, I'm not sure where you got the "opinion" that an insurrection must be carried out with a firearm? You can do a quick Google search for the definition of the term. Here's one from the Cambridge dictionary

> an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insurrec...

Also, your CNN citation says in the headline that there was a gun found, but then the body of the article contradicts it

> Some of the weapons that were confiscated had been seen being used inside the US Capitol including a baseball bat, a fire extinguisher, a wooden club, a spear, crutches, a flagpole, bear spray, mace, chemical irritants, stolen police shields, a wooden beam, a hockey stick, a stun gun, and knives.

Where're the guns? CNN knows people only read headlines; they're so brazen with their narrative.

After they claimed over and over that Sicknick was killed with a fire extinguisher based on zero evidence for weeks there's no reason to trust the rest of these details in an article from February are true anyway, especially if CNN can't keep the facts straight between the headline and the article body

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/13...

Nothings in your court case says anything about the Capitol building.

In the same sentence you quoted

COUNT TWO On or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, CHRISTOPHER ALBERTS, did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in the United States Capitol and grounds, a restricted building and grounds, without lawful authority to do so."

The reality is in the end, very few will serve jail time (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/30/jan-6-capitol-riot-...):

> Although prosecutors have loaded up their charging documents with language about the existential threat of the insurrection to the republic, the actions of many of the individual rioters often boiled down to trespassing. And judges have wrestled with how aggressively to lump those cases in with those of the more sinister suspects.

> “My bet is a lot of these cases will get resolved and probably without prison time or jail time,” said Erica Hashimoto, a former federal public defender who is now a law professor at Georgetown. "One of the core values of this country is that we can protest if we disagree with our government. Of course, some protests involve criminal acts, but as long as the people who are trying to express their view do not engage in violence, misdemeanors may be more appropriate than felonies.”

> The prospect of dozens of Jan. 6 rioters cutting deals for minor sentences could be hard to explain for the Biden administration, which has characterized the Capitol Hill mob as a uniquely dangerous threat.

If you keep this up we are going to have to ban you. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.

They don't need to be. Hundreds of people physically stormed the Capitol with the explicit intention of overturning a democratic election. What else would you call that but insurrection?

If they failed, it doesn't mean they weren't insurrectionists. It just means they were incompetent insurrectionists. It's not a good look to downplay crime and violence just because the people doing it voted the same way you did.

I would call it a protest or a riot. The vast majority were protesting against the legitimacy of the election results or simply there to rally for their candidate, both of which are legally allowed. That's not "overturning a democratic election" - that's drawing attention to the problem and calling for investigations. The fact that a few people within that crowd may have conspired to do something more shouldn't change the intent of the majority who were there. This is also why almost no one who entered the capitol will face any jail time or charges beyond trespassing.

Keep in mind, there have been numerous past protests at the Capitol in the last decade, mostly from the political left. To claim that this one is somehow worse does not seem fair. Likewise, Democrats have challenged election results numerous times - including the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections. Even right now, during this very election cycle, there is a case where Democrats are challenging election results for a House seat, with Pelosi's support (https://time.com/5950292/iowa-congress-election-rita-hart/).

> It's not a good look to downplay crime and violence just because the people doing it voted the same way you did.

I'm not downplaying anything, but rather describing things as they are. I feel your use of the word "insurrection" is exaggerating things. The only people using the word "insurrection" are activists and biased journalists - not our justice system. How many people have been charged or convicted for "insurrection"? How does that number compare to the number of people at the capitol?

We aren't talking about "the vast majority." I already said this. We're talking about the hundreds of people who physically stormed the Capitol with the explicit intention of overturning a democratic election. The fact that there were thousands of peaceful protesters right outside doesn't erase the hundreds of insurrectionists.

> Keep in mind, there have been numerous past protests at the Capitol in the last decade, mostly from the political left. To claim that this one is somehow worse does not seem fair. Likewise, Democrats have challenged election results numerous times - including the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections. Even right now, during this very election cycle, there is a case where Democrats are challenging election results for a House seat, with Pelosi's support

You're saying that public protests and legally challenging an election in court are the same thing as smashing your way into the Capitol building, attacking cops, beating a policeman to death, and publicly bragging about your plans to murder politicians.

Everything I just said is well-documented with multiple live videos, mostly taken by the people doing it. You can find them in just a few minutes on Google. ("Dawn Bancroft", for example.)

You're consistently talking about what you think should have happened and ignoring the facts of what actually did happen. I don't think there's any further productive discussion to be had here.

None of which are proof of a planned insurrection. Of all the meanings you only picked the ones that fitted your predetermined conclusion.

Believing the "election was stolen" is an opinion that comes up every elections from both sides.

"Marching" most often means marches, which is a peaceful demonstration in itself, and the Capitol is not just the Capitol building, it's also the Capitol Grounds and the surrounding areas.

Fighting is a term often used colloquial non-violent way, as in "fight cancer" and "fighting for civil rights".

In all seriousness, at what point would you call something an insurrection?

Go ahead and define it now, that way in the future when "X" happens you can't reply with "X is bad, but it's not an insurrection". I'm being completely serious, please define insurrection, in your terms, so that in the future I can identify it accurately.

I feel like this has to be the first thing we do with folks who constantly say "X isn't Y". Okay, define how something gets classified as Y.

My definition would be rioting, specifically using escalating violence until success, to attempt to coerce a system into passing laws that it would not otherwise have passed or wanted to pass (up to and including deposing the leader).

I feel like my view loosely fits the Capitol riot, heavily fits the BLM riots, and heavily fits the 1776 insurrection.

I think the BLM protests (funny these are always deemed riots by certain folk, reminds me of how the military uses terminology to dehumanize, such as the word target) escalated to insurrection in one scenario that I know of, namely the CHAZ incident. Ultimately, that insurrection failed, since nothing significant changed.

I would argue folks, for some reason, only deem things X when it's too late. That goes for genocide, insurrection (which is done for many reasons along the entire political and human spectrum), slavery, etc.

If we can't call out such groups and recognize the damage they do, what happens to the next protest?

The comment said BLM riots, which did not happen. In your own words, you are close to realizing why I say it's dehumanizing and meant to impart a meaning that isn't true.

You said: "Mainly because the cause was highjacked by groups that love to break out into violence..."

In other words, you actually do realize they aren't BLM riots. They were BLM protests, that were highjacked by groups outside BLM to result in riots.

So stop conflating riots at a BLM protest with BLM riots. They are not the same thing, and by doing that you attempt to de-legitimize the BLM movement.

I'm honesty not sure why you think I'm not willing to call a riot a riot. I'm just not willing to attribute the riot to BLM, since it doesn't align with their values or leadership whatsoever.

They are not the same thing.

The reason they kept happening is the media, not you, were no willing to call out the violence. They were not willing to out of a fear that they would appear to be disagreeing with the cause.

You have to know that "BLM riots" imparts to those around you a far different message than "riots that broke out at BLM protests". And in an age where folks don't look into things for themselves and rely on trusting others, someone other than me is likely to assume you mean that "BLM was rioting". That's why wording / word choice are so important.

I think the media _did_ call out the violence though, in fact I would say they focused more on that than they did the actual BLM protests (a majority were boring affairs, just folks marching and speaking). The media is more than willing to try and maintain the status quo by focusing on anything but the actual protests, and they do so by focusing on the violence more than anything else. I'm not sure how you came to the exact opposite conclusion.

I feel like they do this to any cause, not just BLM. Doesn't matter if it's a left leaning issue, a right leaning issue, or an issue supported by the majority of Americans. They portray it in whatever way maintains the status quo.

Escalating? 0/10 not at all

Attempt to coerce laws? 2/10 not really

I mostly agree. It doesn’t pass my own definition.

Storming the capitol with weapons, having leaders with knowledge of the layout, and actually spilling blood. The picture of the right in this country by media is generally a caricature of an inbred, uneducated southern hick, so it's easy to pretend that they planned for a serious coup and we're just completely incompetent. But the lack of weapons in any significant quantity, or their use, or even their brandishing in the capitol, suggests that there were never any serious plans for a coup or even for violence.

The fact that "insurrectionists" came within 5 feet of the entrance to the chamber with the politicians they were allegedly targetting and obliviously walked past it more likely shows that there was no serious preparation, given that the layout is easily searchable online.

This is manufactured hysteria by the media, for political goals. It comes from the same place as this twitch policy - we are in the midst of a dirty culture war.

"Oh, please. Attempted murder? They don't give the Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry!"

They broke into the Capitol building, and in to the Senate chambers, while congress was in session.

We're just lucky they didn't get the Gavel of Power too!

Or.. in the real world, we understand how the US political system works, realize there was no real "insurrection," and we rightly call it a bunch of jackasses trespassing.

Your call.

Wasn't an idle threat either.

"Unarmed" is definitely false, per the other comments: the FBI confiscated "a baseball bat, a fire extinguisher, a wooden club, a spear, crutches, a flagpole, bear spray, mace, chemical irritants, stolen police shields, a wooden beam, a hockey stick, a stun gun, and knives."

But several people seem to be arguing that only firearms count. In that case: Christopher Alberts was arrested with a handgun and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds. Grant Moore was found an with unlicensed gun in his vehicle near the Capitol; Lonnie Leroy Coffman, the same, except it was multiple guns and 11 Molotov cocktails. (Source for all: https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arres...)

We can all be thankful he didn't use them, but a person who goes to a protest with Molotovs does not have personal defense in mind.

I find your comment quite one sided and exaggerated.

There was no insurrection on the Capitol because there was no guns, no widespread weapon carry, no significant violence inside and no proof of an organization to actually overthrow the government was shown in the various reports and court cases. The surveillance videos showing the protesters walking in calmly in file following the cordon is the definitive proof of that. In fact the censorship and manipulation of social media is known to cause the formation of various ideological bubbles that acts as positive feedback loops for extremism.

On the other hand we saw waves of violence since last year that were instigated by actual self-proclaimed insurrectionists. News presenting the violence were minimized while news of politicians supporting the protests and news stations downright lying the violence while buildings were burning on the background. This is all due to the censorship and narrative control of big media conglomerates, not actual open conversations.

> There's a spectrum between "cancel culture is bad" vs. "let domestic terrorists and CP sharers gather"

Crimes are not on a spectrum, either someone is guilty or not, there is no in between. And as pointed out by Justice Thomas recently, when organizations become too big they can be subject to regulations as public utilities, which will made them unable to infringe on the first amendment of their users.

> And I don't think there's a slippery slope concern.

Contrary to popular belief, fascism and Nazism did not rise because of free speech, but because of speech suppression and narrative control (read propaganda) along side with a close collaboration with intelligence services that began as early as the 1920s. Given that the more we they censor the more they have power which makes them more and more successful in censorship and narrative control means that we are in a positive feedback loop, which is slippery slope.

> Twitch already bans people for unexplained reasons anyways.

And?

Also I said "significant violence", as in enough to overthrow the government.

Your claims here are like saying that the civil war wasn't an insurrection because the confederacy didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to form a different government.

>Your claims here are like saying that the civil war wasn't an insurrection because the confederacy didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to form a different government.

There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way.

False.

> There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way.

It wasn't a war at first. The South Carolina Declaration of Secession was created and printed with significantly less violence than the insurrection at the capitol...the first shots fired didn't happen for another 4 months. The fact that only 5 people died in the insurrection doesn't mean that the would-be confederates didn't attempt an insurrection, it just means they didn't succeed, and couldn't muster up enough traction to last a single day.

What's false? Both the statements you quoted? I'll provide my reasoning for each.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The first statement:

> The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising.

Here's the definition that pops up when you Google the word:

> a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Or from the Oxford English Dictionary:

> The action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint; with plural, an instance of this, an armed rising, a revolt; an incipient or limited rebellion.

I think this is enough to show that it is often taken to denote a violent uprising.

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

The second statement:

> The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone.

The easiest response for me to make is a request: name one person the protesters killed. There was a lot of false reporting by the mainstream media at the time, so I don't particularly blame anyone for believing the protesters killed people. But it just doesn't seem to actually be the case. You can read an analysis of the violence here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-c...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Please cite some sources showing that the governments of the Weimar Republic – generally formed by conservative and liberal parties and frequently supported by the SPD – used propaganda and censorship to get themselves overthrown by the NSDAP.

All of these are false. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738

"No significant violence"? They murdered a police officer. And badly beat several more. Several of them are on bodycam video.

There is also definitely a slippery slope concern. It isn’t just illegal activities that are being censored on Twitter or Twitch or Facebook or elsewhere. If your opinion/perspective disagrees with progressives on some controversial topic like gender identity or guns or illegal immigration or the coronavirus, you will be censored even though you aren’t breaking any law. Such censorship has been normalized bit by bit over the last four years, and is exactly the slippery slope in action. And since it inhibits the exchange of ideas and free flow of political opinions in a system that depends on it, such censorship is the REAL damage to the fabric of democracy.