Natural causes, obesity, police violence and, maybe, one instance of death that could have been caused by the scuffles which was originally blamed on a fire extinguisher (the story of which was retracted by the NYT just after the vote on impeachment). This is common knowledge at this point.

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

They tried to stop the certification of an election winner using violence and intimidation. That's an insurrection.

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.

The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone (not to mention they were hardly an uprising).

>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.

> The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone.

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.

> False.

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...

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