If pointing an armed and angry mob at the Capitol itself isn't over the line, nothing is. I don't like Facebook and haven't used it in years but this is the right move. Four people are dead today because they listened to Donald Trump, and FB and Twitter bear some responsibility for handing him that megaphone. Stopping him from calling for further violence is the bare minimum they can do here.
Why aren’t we blaming anyone that died at CHAZ/CHOP on BLM?
It’s hard not to see the bending-over-backwards academic justifications for why we shouldn’t be suppressing riots last year as anything other than the pretext and lead up to what’s happening now.
I’m not calling legitimate protesting riots - rather the media was fully complicit with ignoring blatant rioting last year. Buildings were burning and government buildings were being swarmed and destroyed.
Riots needs to be suppressed with law and order - full stop. Unfortunately many seem 6 months late to this concept.
Because tribal affiliation is completely unassailable by logic.
We are all still tribal, barely evolved monkeys, and our manifold cerebral cortex is merely a tool to invent rationalizations for the tribal emotions that well up from our limbic system.
This is, of course, on both sides.
On HN, the effect is even more pronounced, because "I am smart, therefore my opinions are more valid than average" coincides with "I have concocted this justification for my hypocrisy" to grant even greater surety in personal belief.
The LessWrong folks worked pretty hard to inform people of these sort of biases, but the effort thus far has completely failed.
BLM is a response to (repeated) racist murders from the state and general systemic discriminations.
Yesterday's riots were a response to losing a democratic election.
It's hard not to see why one is legitimate and the other isn't.
> rioting is never justified and must be met with police force
Actually, some governments are so oppressive that sometimes rioting is all the citizens have left.
Isn't it what the second amendment is for anyway?
I'd even support yesterday's "revolution" if it was justified and the election was actually stolen.
But falsely calling an election stolen is dangerous. It's the equivalent of a false rape accusation at a country scale.
And oppressive governments do meet riots with police force. Sometimes they straight up kill the people, yet they keep on rioting because it's the only way they can defend their rights.
I think if you look at any of the cities over the past year, there's example after example of spineless mayors, etc. unwilling to protect their citizens and society generally from chaos and petty thieves.
People powerless while they watch everything they worked for literally go up in flames at the hands of criminals. There's no justification for that, and it's a far cry from "justice."
Disrupting law and order - by definition - turns you into a criminal.
I'm not defending any side of the political spectrum, so it's interesting to see how people interpret this argument.
Manifesting for social change never justifies the type of chaos we saw last year, and if you think otherwise, don't complain about what happened to Congress.
> Disrupting law and order - by definition - turns you into a criminal.
That's only accurate if both the law and the ones who enforce it are reasonable and fair.
People feeling powerless is what fuels riots to begin with. I don't condone the looting and destruction, especially when it hits bystanders. But it didn't start that way. The movement against racism did go through peaceful actions to make itself heard. Their demands were pushed back and the discriminations continued so they had to escalate.
They were cornered into that position.
The protesters who invaded the Capitol were not discriminated against. They just lost an election.
No one would've died if they protested peacefully.
You can't equate these protests, just like you can't equate self-defense and murder. The context is important.
What would you do if you were oppressed by your government?
Some governments even make protesting illegal and rig the elections (if they're even having elections at all).
Desperate times call for desperate measures, unfortunately.
Sorry, I forgot to follow up. I'm quite enjoying this exchange.
> Let’s consider that your perception is fallible and possibly wrong. And hypothetically assume your concept of “the oppressed” is off to some degree.
Obviously I'm not always right. But neither is the rest of the world. Neither is the government.
But then what? Should we just let everyone be?
It's a moral dilemma for sure, and I don't think there's a foolproof way around it.
Similarly, you want to allow people to kill in case of self-defense but don't want to allow murder. Or censoring Nazi speech while keeping as much freedom of expression as possible.
You can't say all killings are bad (or good), and you can't say all speech is good (or bad). There's a moral judgement to be made there.
I'm not saying rioting is without risks or consequences. I'm just saying they tend to happen when people run out of alternatives. Then they're justified, and only if the cause is good.
Please, get a grip. The other side goes up in arms when somebody KNEELS. The outrage at the protests earlier this year were obvious, perhaps you weren't reading the news.
When, exactly, did Joe Biden incite CHAZ/CHOP to take over the Capitol Building in order to overthrow lawful election results in a last-ditch attempt to cling to power?
> the media was fully complicit with ignoring blatant rioting last year
Ignoring? They practically endorsed it as a totally reasonable means of change! The fact that the Trump supporters didn't Riot and very few of them entered the Capitol goes to show the vast majority of those Republicans do believe in law in order!
If the situation was reversed, had Trump won and Biden was challenging the election, you can be assured DC would be completely on fire like it was back in May. The Capital Building would be burning right now.
This is whataboutism. Trump organized the rally that became the riot, he told them himself to march to the Capitol. He is responsible for what happened after that.
Yeah I live a few blocks away from where where ANTIFA was supposedly terrorizing and burning. The only danger to the public was the tear gas the police indiscriminately used and drifted into apartments and retirement homes. You are full of it.
The ANTIFA CEO is sitting in his fortified command center underneath the Appalachian Mountains as we speak, cackling and torturing a Trump supporter to death for not calling xir by the proper pronouns. Our joke of a liberal government is doing nothing to eliminate this dangerous threat to our guns and precious, precious strip malls.
I keep seeing 'armed mob' posted everywhere without any evidence. What were they armed with? I watched the whole thing live from many angles and I saw plenty of people doing dumb shit like breaking windows and such. The majority just waltzed in took a tour and walked out. They even obeyed the velvet ropes in the entryway.
edit: looks like at least one person was inside the capitol with a firearm and four others were arrested in DC for open carrying firearms.
This is what I was looking for thanks. It does not specify that the firearm offenses were on the capitol and I know a few of them were from people marching while open carrying off the capitol grounds which is illegal under DC law.
The molotovs is a tidbit I didn't know about thankfully no one actually used them.
Because they weren't arrested attacking the capitol. I just saw confirmation in this thread that at least one person was arrested with a firearm who had entered the capitol so I corrected my original comment.
The gallery list includes:
Firearms to include replica guns and ammunition.
Weapons, to include, but not limited to, Black jack, sling shot, sand club, sandbag, knuckles, electric stun guns, knives of any size including razors and box cutters, martial arts weapons or devices.
Explosives and explosive devices to include, but not limited to, Molotov Cocktails, components of a destructive device, and fireworks.
Mace and pepper spray.
Aerosol containers.
Non-Aerosol spray except for prescribed medical needs.
Battery operated electronic devices to include cellular telephones, electronic keys, cameras, video recorders or any type of recording devices. Electronic medical devices are permitted.
Cans, bottles, food, and food containers, including all liquids.
Creams, lotions, and perfume.
Strollers.
Briefcases, backpacks, and suitcases of any size
It really looks like this guy has a gun holstered on his right hip. But he definitely has a fist full of zip ties and looks prepared for more than a brief tour. Forgive the source, Seth sucks, but the picture is real as far as I know.
"Armed" does not necessarily mean gun-carrying. I saw footage of an individual smashing AP camera gear with a baseball bat, for example. They didn't break those windows with their bare hands.
> They even obeyed the velvet ropes in the entryway.
They did not. There was video of protestors both moving the ropes, and there is video of protestors on the opposite sides of the ropes. Both at least in NBC's coverage. (Unfortunately, they've made their coverage private on YouTube, so I lack a link presently.)
(Sibling comments cover the "armed" aspect well enough.)
I see a cop get pushed over then helped up by someone in a MAGA hat. I also see some scrumming with the police which is assault. I still don't see any weapons or any use of weapons on police. This scene doesn't look all too different than scenes we've been witness to for the last 6 months since June with protestors clashing with police.
Good photo. I hadn't see that one yet. He's definitely armed.
I was right there with you all summer claiming a group throwing water bottles at police wasn't armed and shouldn't be beaten and shot with rubber bullets.
