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.
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?