Perhaps Trump supporters should have burnt down cities and destroyed businesses. Apparently everyone is okay with that, but it's "unacceptable" to protest and occupy the capital in protest. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone.
We ban accounts that set flames like this, regardless of what color the flames are. No more of this please.
https://today.uconn.edu/2020/10/study-2020-protests-shows-di...
So 270 violent protests in that 2 month span then? Not trivial.
If 10,000 people march through a city and one of the 10,000 sprays graffiti on a single store or breaks one window, most would not call that on the whole a "violent protest." How many were in that category and how many had truly widespread violence or more severe destruction? I'd love to see a source capturing that. Anecdotally though, in online discussion I often see people treating it as a given that BLM protests laid waste to whole neighborhoods in multiple cities, which seems more like flat-out misinformation...
It's called an echo chamber, and you should try to escape it if you can.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Good luck.
> It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Please join us in reality when you're ready.
I rest my case. I was suggesting that you take your own advice, instead of throwing stones in glass houses.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There's another form of abuse, too: your comment history looks like you're using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not ok—it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do that. If you want more explanation of why, you can find many via https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
But yes, there is a large and qualitative difference between a riot with property damage and attempting a full on coup d'etat. The latter is a crime against the very heart of society.
To be clear, if the Trump supporters had stood outside Capitol and protested, even violently, it would not have been such a momentuous thing. Crossing the Rubicon indeed.
Then the President told the crowd at the rally to march with him to the capitol to pressure Congress into overturning the election results.
People then marched down to the capitol, broke into it, killed a police officer, and forced congress to evacuate. When asked why, rioters stated they were trying to prevent Congress from certifying the results.
It was a failed attempt at a coup, and a very bad attempt at a coup. It was still an attempt though.
Aside from all those frightening cases, it seems clear that there was a broadly shared goal was to "stop the steal" by preventing Congress from making progress in the peaceful transfer of power to the Biden administration. Maybe most of them had few concrete ideas how they'd accomplish that aim once inside the building, but they nonetheless were aiming to overturn an election and block Biden from becoming President - and if successful that absolutely is a coup.
What mental gymnastics led you to this conclusion? It's obvious that the comment was pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy that pervades this discussion.
What mental gymnastics led you to this conclusion? It's obvious his comment was attempting to justify the insurrection on Capitol Hill.
Absolutely true. The media has hoodwinked the public.
But the real problem, Trump is calling for a coup and the system around that is broken does need to be addressed.
How do you deal what a public to stupid to deal with that? Trump style fool them into thinking a real coup attempt happened?
It's a tug of war over the general population to stupid to believe anything in the media or who stupidly believe everything in the media.
And now, somehow we are in a position private businesses have the power.
Do you see no similarities at all?