Hacker News Reader

Comment by mullingitover | Hacker News Reader

> while censoring the 50% rest of the political spectrum

Let's be clear: moderating/banning the accounts of a man and his supporters who invited tens of thousands of people to the United States Capitol, spent hours lying to them about the results of the election, and then weaponized them in an attempt to overthrow the US government is not a case of Twitter crossing some sort of threshold into tyranny.

A grave crime was committed this week, and the wheels of the legal system are dysfunctional enough that the perpetrator wasn't arrested on the spot but instead allowed continued control of the US military and its nuclear weapon arsenal. Just because Twitter is able to act quickly outside the confines of the legal system doesn't mean we're descending into tech tyranny.

I honestly don't want to hear another word about "leftist violence" or "the radical left" now that the right has unapologetically lined up behind the man who fomented a coup attempt.

View on HN

Ransacking through the capitol like imbeciles was very ill advised, but that’s not how a coup is executed. You need dedicated backers [cause oriented willing to sacrifice] high up in the armed forces as well as the intelligentsia.

Rag tag groups do not execute coups. That’s a willful exaggeration and further evidence of how narratives tilt people’s thinking.

This is the media and social media calling it that -they cannot help it. Are the armed forces classifying as a coup? It’s a ridiculous accusation. More of a coup attempt is the call for impeachment with two weeks left after the previous impeachment failed. It’s honestly sad.

Honestly I feel bad for the people who were duped into doing the ransacking. They thought their leader was telling them the truth.

The fact remains that the President gathered tens of thousands of people and, with a torrent of lies, weaponized them into an attack on the United States. Just because it failed doesn't make it any less grave of a crime.

> The fact remains that the President gathered tens of thousands of people and, with a torrent of lies, weaponized them into an attack on the United States. Just because it failed doesn't make it any less grave of a crime.

I cannot fathom why you keep saying this. Please present some evidence.

If you believe Trumps claims of malfeasance are true then the burden of proof lies with you. These matters were addressed in courts throughout the nation and 60 lawsuits failed to prove them.

Not really. The vast majority were thrown out on procedural grounds.

The left completely controls the MSM at this point. It's unsurprising that large swathes of officials, including judges, are unwilling to investigate their narrative for fear of being branded and extremist of one flavor or another. The right knows this, and so doesn't trust outcomes that aren't transparent. The left knows this too, but has no incentive to correct it, in spite of the damage it's going to cause to our democracy.

I have the feeling we're about to find out in the US precisely how the left can go too far, and how Americans respond to it.

> The vast majority were thrown out on procedural grounds.

You'll be reassured to know they'll still be litigated soon.

Dominion is coming for Sidney Powell over her fabricated claims, and I hope she gets a dignified, humane arrangement with a local homeless shelter after they're done with her.[1]

I encourage everyone to read the entire filing. It's going to be a fun ride, I'm really looking forward to this case being heard in court.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/dominion-sues-sidney-powell-...

I'm not really a fan. But I must say, he asked for a protest, not for them to storm the Capital. He probably wanted to stir it up, but never thought it would go that far. I have not seen any explicit tweets where he asked for that.

The other thing I want to mention (in demonstrating the two standards) is that the dem leadership cheered on protests in the summer with battle like language which turned into far larger and more consequential riots that somehow we dont talk about anymore. Many lost their livelihoods and some their lives. These went on for months, not 6 hours. Those riots by the way were encouraged by dem leadership but somehow have not been penalized on twitter or even critiqued. The unlevel playing field that essentially a cartel is laying out which we see time and time again is what people are getting fed up with and I can sympathize.

mullingitover - You might be correct that the claims were hyperbole. But I don't see a difference between the two sides in falsely justifying a protest that turned into a riot. For instance, the police brutality is not acceptable (and the imagery was terrible), but it was also mostly an astroturf and amplification of reality before an election to rally voters when you actually look at the FBI statistics of racial deaths in the hands of police. Both sides encouraged protests with battle like language. They both turned into destructive riots. One side was penalized.

> But I must say, he asked for a protest, not for them to storm the Capital

He's not completely stupid, at least in the short term. I'll give him that.

The fact is, however, that he made breathtaking, wholly unfounded claims of a vast conspiracy that if you believed them would lead you to believe that a revolution was in order and completely appropriate. Then he turned them loose on the Capitol.

You're just making assertions and hoping that the zeitgeist continues to agree with you.

It's easy for the winning side to trot out a bunch of people that support their position (and if you try suggesting R's are on the same side as Trump supporters, then you're more divorced from reality than I feared). Trump supporters don't care. They want specific concerns addressed.

And frankly, they should be. Every election in a bona fide democracy should be characterized by the winning side steel manning the losing side's objections and addressing them one-by-one until the fraction of the population continuing to object is minuscule enough to ignore.

That didn't happen. Instead objectors got people they didn't trust trotted out before them declaring "There's NO evidence of election fraud" (demonstrably false, there's evidence of election fraud in every election), stonewalling, and running out the clock.

They should have steel-manned and addressed in a very public and forthcoming, unspun manner the more compelling arguments presented. Matt Braynard's [1] work, for example, should have been litigated to hell and back.

Undergoing these challenges is critical to maintaining democracy, but the left was hell-bent on painting a narrative that pursuing election transparency in 2020 (not 2016, mind you; they had quite a different take then when they were mucking with the electoral college themselves [2]) was somehow antidemocratic because all questions had been settled by the people only they were permitted to declare trustworthy.

So what we have now is a huge fraction of the population that feel the election has been stolen:

"Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans say it’s Very Likely the Democrats stole the election, but just as many Democrats (61%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Among unaffiliateds, 29% feel it’s a stolen election; 45% do not." [3]

I don't have much of a dog in this fight. I'm about as pure a libertarian/ancap as you can find. I leaned slightly Trump because I despise war, but I would have been just as happy with Biden and a republican senate. I'm telling you with open eyes (the same eyes I use to attempt to discredit the Q and Lin Wood madness on the right) that you have bought into a false narrative sold to you by the leftist media. You are nowhere in the vicinity of "woke". You are stuck in a bubble that decries other bubbles and you don't even realize it. Worse, it's the most powerful bubble that is causing the most damage to society. It is YOUR bubble that is causing the most damage to democracy in this country.

[1] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_...

[2] https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/17/how-democrats-attempt...

[3] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ele...

> So what we have now is a huge fraction of the population that feel the election has been stolen

Ask yourself, who led these people to believe this.

I've been listening to both sides and I dont even think people understand where this stems from and why some people want answers.

Phil Waldron's testimony is one of them https://youtu.be/rri6flxaXww?t=4924

I'm not watching any more debunked conspiracy theories, thanks. They've had their numerous days in court.

And here is the issue and why the sides cannot understand whats going on.

You sure about that? How many cases were thrown out on their merits vs. procedural grounds?

There is no reason whatsoever to believe this election was stolen beyond unverified fabricated nonsense spread by the loser and his cronies and amplified by social media. Each state has measures in place to ensure a fair election takes place including, canvassing, the recourse of requesting a recount or pursuing litigation.

All these things already happened and it was proven over and over that there was no substantial proof of widespread fraud. If your fellow citizens cannot discern the difference between social media and reality then this does not create an obligation for the opposing side that scales upwards towards infinity with their level of insanity.

Its deeply ironic that before the election around 2/3 of republicans believed our elections were free and fair and now instead of concluding that their objections are grounded in bad faith you believe that the democrats didn't do enough to prove to their opponents that they didn't cheat. You have reversed the burden of proof and I reject your assertion. The burden of proof always lies with he would would assert a crime has been done not upon the accused to prove a negative. The alternative is utter nonsense.

Incidentally if we look at an actual source

https://morningconsult.com/form/tracking-voter-trust-in-elec...

10% of democrats believe we didn't have a fair election, 44% of independents, and a whopping 78% of republicans. On the overall ~2/3 of Americans trust our election was free and fair. The 1/3 will more or less be convinced by nothing as their feelings aren't based on reality.

These people will by and large just have to go through the next 4-16 years of Democratic control thinking the Democrats, the women, and the minorities are stealing their country.

Anyway, my point here is not to defend trump. Just to point out that both sides caused riots over the past 6 months with leaders egging them on and 1 side was penalized.

Show me where both sides' leaders egged on rioters.

Id say the biggest thing was the void of dem leadership even acknowledging the riots. I dont have a rolodex of statements but the theme was encouragement of the protests despite them turning into riots time and time again. Thats specifically the reason they even went on for an entire summer. Can look to twitter trends which were never/rarely censored. Flip side is "walkaway" is not even allowed. Perhaps one example is AOC saying "protests are made to make people uncomfortable" If T said something like that after Jan 6 what would the reaction have been? Any sober person sees the double standard. Dont fight me here I'm just pointing out why so many people are pissed.

Take your fine people on both sides argument somewhere else. One side acknowledged that people had a legitimate reason to protest cops offing black people while specifically discouraging rioting.

Another side told people that their country was being stolen from them and only they could stop it before telling them to go to the capital.

> Another side told people that their country was being stolen from them and only they could stop it before telling them to go to the capital.

Was it or wasn't it being stolen? Do you have a debunking of Matt Braynard's argument? [1]

I presume not, since one hasn't been presented, because the evidence hasn't been examined or litigated, which is why hundreds of thousands of people went to the capital.

What should the American voter do if they believe there's a chance that their election was unfair? Sit it out? Would you?

Stop spreading the "very fine people" misinformation.

[1] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_...

[2] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_...

I invested the time to read the link.

To save others the effort, it's a plea for money to support a vague voter data cross referencing effort. Unsurprisingly no evidence is put forward.

It's grifters all the way down.

It's attitudes represented by this blithe dismissal of a compelling argument that will continue to divide the nation. I guess you think you're going to get something out of it, but this is a scenario that nobody wins.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In the spirit of healthy debate, you could share the evidence you find so compelling. The article linked did not include any evidence or argument that I could find (even after watching the video)

I owe you an apology. I was sure I had posted the article referencing his conclusions video, but I did not, and I ended up wasting your time and compounding my error with an unfounded accusation. That was pretty egregious and rude, and I'm sorry about that.

If you're still inclined, here's his conclusion video. The summary includes links to various sections within the admittedly lengthy video, if it helps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH9ihoLi1NA

I watched the video, and I'll share some context.

I worked in the marketing and ad-tech industries for the better part of a decade. The data linking tools that Matt Braynard used to "enhance" the data available from states are intended for marketing purposes where even a 30% accuracy is sufficient for call, mail, and digital campaigns. They are not suitable for "auditing" an election, as you'll inevitably introduce bad data. Further, linking individuals from different databases is highly error prone - there are more than 500 thousand people in the US with my first and last name. Individuals may choose different writings of their name at different times such as including or excluding Sr./Jr. or including or excluding a middle initial.

The above limitations become apparent in the below hearing on Michael's evidence in the Georgia state legislature. Individuals were clearly misslinked by name, and inferred birthday - simple errors due to removing Sr/Jr. are also present.

https://youtu.be/1U8CuyfcnLs

These linking errors are inevitable in this analysis as the state does not publicly disclose sufficient information to uniquely identify individuals for privacy reasons.

"Take your fine people on both sides argument" I had no idea I was even making that argument or that was a topic of discussion. But I believe your summery of what happened is not exactly accurate.

Vast electoral interference conspiracies are an old tactic at this point. Impeachment is generally a more favoured response than revolution. Neither the conspiracy nor the resolution make sense, but that isn't a big deal in politics.

It is a stupid conspiracy, the gap in the popular vote is overwhelming and Trump was only ever going to get in on electoral college technicalities. But this meme that Trump is the first one to launch serious claims at the electoral system is misinformation. This is a direct mimic of the Democrat response to 2016.

> This is a direct mimic of the Democrat response to 2016.

I recall some arguments in Congress, but to call it a 'direct mimic' is complete nonsense. The election was conceded immediately by the Clinton campaign as soon as it was called by the networks.

If you're attempting to equate the contexts of systemic, on-going race-based manslaughter to someone fabricating a conspiracy theory (while offering no evidence, threatening other elected officials, rallying supporters, etc) then that is - purely in an academic sense - stupid.

If you look at per-police interaction statistics the narrative changes. All kinds of people die during interactions with police.

Now, what we can claim is that historical injustices have led to increased ratios of police interaction by different populations. That’s true. However, per interaction, the police are not more likely to be fatal to one group vs another. That’s a misrepresentation.

See: Simpson’s Paradox.

Given this it should behoove media and leaders to institute root changes that improve the “interaction” frequency.

What does the percentage of fatalities per interaction have to do with justice?

For the same given percentage, they could all be people who were genuine threats, or all people reaching for their wallets in their own garage.

The metric is not measuring what matters.

Okay. Well I just look at the numbers/statistics. What can I say I'm a numbers guy. Can call that stupid I suppose.

I think sometimes we judge events based on the outcomes not on the intent. If one of those people who got inside the building gained access to one of the members of Congress or Vice President Pence and took them hostage or harmed them, would you think that it were closer to a coup attempt? There were reports of how the National Guard seemed to be getting delayed because of not having the approval of, I believe, the President through the Department of Defense, to enter. As a person sitting here in my home, some of it looked rag tag and yet 1) I don't know what happened behind the scenes and 2) rag tag groups can cause a tremendous amount of chaos, e.g., if bombs had gone off outside the RNC or DNC.

For starters, a right-wing coup that kicked off by taking outgoing-VP Pence hostage would be beyond ridiculous. Instead of own goals we'd all be using "Pence-d" as an idiom.

If they'd taken Congresspeople hostage that would have been terrorism not a coup. The mob was totally unprepared, unimaginative, achieved no strategic outcomes and half of them are going to be in jail from now to forever. This is a coup in the same way that the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone was a succession. It is clueless protestors playing around.

Well, if they may have believed that if he didn't certify the election, then Trump would not have been the outgoing President.

Maybe you're right in that the word "coup" is not the most precise one to use, I think what I meant more than anything is that sometimes we see something as less serious violence because the action didn't result in as severe of an outcome as was intended. So maybe not coup, but terrorist attack or insurrection or whatever word portrays the gravitas but aligns better with the meaning of the action.

On a second note, I think we do this a lot in law as well—if I get into a tussle with someone and push them softly and they trip and hit their head and die, I will probably go to prison for much longer than if I repeatedly and angrily punch someone in the face and they don't die. I guess I'm just curious about how that works in our psyche.

> For starters, a right-wing coup that kicked off by taking outgoing-VP Pence hostage would be beyond ridiculous.

Are you aware that Trump through Pence under the bus Wednesday morning for being unwilling to use his (nonexistent) unilateral authority to discard electoral votes? In the (brief) time between Trump's speech and the seditious mob's invasion of the Capitol, there was already some commentary about increased threats to Pence's life as a result of the speech. As far as that mob and its supporters are concerned, Pence is a traitor as much, if not more, than the entire Democratic Party.

There is no "what if" in history, you just cannot argue from that position. There were events and there are facts about those events and participants. That's what matters and it should be investigated, tried in court and punished accordingly.

I'm confused as I didn't think I was arguing for a "what if" of history. I was just trying to say that not only are we criminally liable for the outcomes we cause but also the intentions we have and just because something doesn't have an illegal outcome doesn't mean it didn't have an illegal intention, e.g., murder vs. attempted murder.

Okay, then you are attributing an intent to harm or take hostages government officials to undetermined members of Capitol takeover gang, is that correct?

I'm saying I have no idea what their intentions were but that in terms of the law, intentions matter and I believe law enforcement should investigate to determine what they intended to do.

100% agreed. But before that let's not assume anything that is criminally and even capital punishable.

I agree. I leave it up to the professionals in the respective fields to figure out what all happened and which laws were broken.

When Trump called the national guard to deal with rioters during the summer it was globally criticized. The military do not have the training to deal with rioting citizens. They do not have the right equipment to deal with rioting citizens. They do not have the right organizational structure to deal with rioting citizens. The result of sending the military against your own citizen is always unnecessary violence and death.

Feel free to complain about the delays in requesting additional police from nearby cities, or the inability of the few thousands police officers for not be able to secure the building and the people inside. Complain that they did not have a good plan and assessment of the situation. But please, do not complain that they did not send the military. It is never a good idea unless the other side also have military gear and military training operated by a military organization.

Would anyone here be happier of the military was used against the rioters in the capital and a few hundred or thousand people died from machine fire?

> Would anyone here be happier of the military was used against the rioters in the capital and a few hundred or thousand people died from machine fire?

No, I would be happier if they hadn't been lied to for months and then invited to the capitol and incited to do an attack on congress in the first place.

> When Trump called the national guard to deal with rioters during the summer it was globally criticized.

At least from what I recall, it was criticized because the President was ordering the national guard into a state, whereas I'm pretty sure it's the state's decision whether it wants to deploy its national guard or not, not the President's.

> The military do not have the training to deal with rioting citizens. They do not have the right equipment to deal with rioting citizens. They do not have the right organizational structure to deal with rioting citizens. The result of sending the military against your own citizen is always unnecessary violence and death.

I don't have a military or law-enforcement background so I don't know if they have the skills or equipment or not. You seem to speak with utmost certainty on this so I assume you may know more than me, but with the anonymity of the internet, I have no idea.

I don't know why the national guard seemed to be delayed, I don't know if that were because someone thought they weren't the right ones to do the job or if it would be too much of an escalation, or adversely, they thought they would do a really good job at protecting and not harming people. I have no idea.

What I was trying to say is that I don't know what the plans were, what the coordination was behind the scenes, and how few of us actually know the full scope of actions that were planned or intended and that just because a plan fails doesn't mean it didn't break the law in a serious way.

Ultimately the capital police were distracted by multiple pipe bombs at the RNC/DNC headquarters, The FBI seized a van full of guns. The woman who was shot served 6 years in the DC air national guard, and directly trained on riot control in the DC metro area.

This was an organized attempt to assault a joint-session of the newly elected congress discharging their duty to certify the election results for the Executive branch of government.

Had the rioters reached the house or senate floor the US could have found itself without a legislative branch to legitimize the next president.

They did reach the floor. Some topless dude with horns and a fur cape pranced about the dais.

And guess what? We're fine.

You're pulling together a handful of facts from a massive event composed of trillions of facts and weaving them into a conspiracy. It was what it appeared to be. A rally that got out of hand.

So this is just a rally that got out of hand, harmless.

I wonder - would you stand up for them if the crowd was a BLM crowd, and the outcomes the same? Would you stand up for them if it were a Muslim crowd, and the outcomes the same?

If you would then that's admirable and consistent, so fair enough

I don't understand why you think I'm standing up for any of them.

With all due respect, your comments today have been a textbook example of concern trolling.

A few of my favorite things that were brought to the capital. Zip ties, several guns, 11 molotov cocktails, 2 pipe bombs.

Guliani also asked Tuberville to object to every state which if acted on would have required at least 11 days of 12 hour sessions with an armed angry mob outside.

When they finally attacked it took hours to authorize the national guard to defend the capital giving the mob maximum time to terrorize congress.

It we examine the possible failure modes in this situation we can imagine.

- The mob could have slaughtered burned or blew up our congress or enough to frighten the rest into compliance.

- The mob could have destroyed the physical copy of the ballots delaying the matter giving the mob more time to intimidate legislators further.

- The legislature might have lost heart over 11 days of being terrorized by the mob outside and come to some compromise like allowing congress to vote on the matter one delegation one vote allowing the republicans to pick the next president.

This would have only required all of the republican party and 6 democrats in the house to join to enact. They would simply have had to vote with the republicans to reject 36 states worth of EC votes in order to throw the election to the house.

It is foolish to suppose this couldn't possibly have succeeded just because they are very very incompetent. They could never have enacted a traditional coup because the military was never on their side. This could actually have worked if our congress had lost heart.

This was absolutely an attempted coup and we would be stupid to treat it as less.

Turns out all you need for a coup is about 70 lightly armed boomers and a few zip ties.

An ISIS technical has more firepower than this. Oooooh 11 molotovs.... more than that were used in a number of demos this past summer...

It’s a willful exaggeration and narrative driving.

Comparing the rioters' equipment to ISIS and other criminals doesn't make them any less troublesome, or their cause more sympathetic.

Equipment is equipment. It can only do so much regardless who has it. As I said more molotovs were thrown during the past summer’s sometimes peaceful sometimes violent demos.

80 Cubans would be a better choice, but if circumstances are right, 70 people is plenty to make good on threats such as lynching the vice president.

Just because they chose a bumbling buffoon as savior figure doesn't mean they can be dismissed as harmless.

I thought the savior figure was the guy with horns and a fur cape prancing about on the dais?

Glad they got him. We were THIS close to the end of the US, I tell ya'.

Still “80” only works when there’s a strongman/woman who rules by iron fist and it’s a powderkeg ready to blow. He or she is surrounded by enemies biding their time. That’s the only scenario where this “may” work.

Hard core seditionists who, when they entered the Speaker of the House’s office, decided the priority was taking selfies.

They were assault zip ties, though.

All of that fantastical story could have happened and still would not have had a diff government. You need consent from a number of powerful stakeholders including the armed forces Supreme Court and all kinds of ancillary players [banks, heavy industry, etc.]

Forcing people under duress doesn’t hold. If you walk up to a bank teller and force them to transfer a million dollars to your account while you brandish a gun, will not be a legitimate transfer and will be reversed when order is restored.

Real life is not like playing cops and robbers. It’s slightly more sophisticated than that but the media is frothing at the mouth with wild exaggeration when it fits their narrative. The CHAZ was hip and cool for all I know.

I cannot fathom how people would think a rag tag coup is realistic in any way. It does not happen that way. Successful coups have powerful interests in the background willing to bite it if it comes to that.

All of the republicans in senate and house and 6 democratic reps could have opted to throw out any number of votes they please leaving no party with the majority of the electoral college vote which would constitutionally required us to hold a vote in the house to decide the next president which would almost certainly result in Trump being re-elected.

Arguably this would be obviously against the spirit of the law but its not clear that 5 supreme court justices would have found that argument persuasive.

If the court and congress comply there is no need to convince the armed forces let alone banks and industry.

For the record the CHAZ was actually nonviolent during the day. Guns should have never been allowed. The shooting happened because drug addicts were fleeing to CHAZ with their stolen car that looked similar to the car that tried to pull a drive by earlier that night and the retards shot them.

Some parts of Seattle aren't really safe at night in the best circumstances.

If it fails it was just a joke, but if it succeeds it was serious...

We were a few fuckups away from a pile of dead congressional representatives. Don't kid yourself.

> high up in the armed Command-in-Chief not high enough?

Do you mean all he needed to do was set up a con-call with the generals? Holy idiocy, did he fuck it up!

> A grave crime was committed this week

Like in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests

And 2018. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/protests-buil...

Just trying to be clear, are you saying these events were justified, or that the attack on the US Capitol was justified?

They are obviously pointing out the hypocrisy and bias with which the left spins narratives.

Here's a pointed question for you: Which was worse and by what measure, the BLM/Antifa riots of last year or the capitol building riot?

> Here's a pointed question for you: Which was worse and by what measure, the BLM/Antifa riots of last year or the capitol building riot?

I'm gonna say that the mob attack on the United States' entire line of succession over false claims of fraud is worse than overwhelmingly peaceful protests over the murder of an unarmed, compliant man in police custody.

I see it's graduated from "mostly peaceful" to "overwhelmingly peaceful". The craziest part of your spin is that by applying it, you're greatly increasing the odds of actually getting it.

> Polls estimate between 15 million and 26 million people participated in the United States, making these protests potentially the largest movement in terms of participation in U.S. history.[1]

If 15+ million people were rioting, we wouldn't have a single structure left standing in the country. A fraction of a percent of the protesters were bad actors, and nobody is defending them so I will leave you to abuse that strawman in peace.

100% of the people who invaded the US Capitol were rioters.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_...

Kamala Harris literally paid for their defense.

Entire books were written in their defense, one infamous title being "In defense of looting".

MSM talking heads were besides themselves defending the rioters. For months!

> 100% of the people who invaded the US Capitol were rioters.

This is so blatantly twisted that I am forced to believe you're being intentionally deceptive. Everyone knows a tiny fraction of the protesters went into the capitol building.

The maximum damage of those riots is a handful of people killed and businesses burned down. The maximum damage in the capital invasion is the loss of our democracy and way of life.

Have to consider some of the officers killed during the BLM protests were killed by alt-right terrorists.

You're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing the results of the former (which you have painted in an incredibly rosy light) to the potential outcomes of the latter.

If we look at the potential outcomes of the BLM/Antifa riots, there's no reason to believe that they couldn't have destroyed our democracy.

Or, if we compare the actual outcomes, it's not quite as rosy for your apparently preferred riots: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706651

I suspect you understand that you are doing this, and that you are comfortable with the charade. More and more people are beginning to see through the kind of spin you and others present, however, and are coming to resent you powerfully for it.

It's okay when the left does it but it's a national crisis when the right does it. Pointing out the hypocrisy.

I don't recall the time when armed insurrectionists with guns, bombs, and zip ties attempted to execute the Vice President when the left did it, can you share some links?

You're narrowing the criteria to match this specific event and asking for an exact replica the left, of which there are none. We see through your rhetoric.

Last summer was replete with examples of violence from the left. Far more deadly and destructive than seen at the capitol building riot.

Overwhelmingly peaceful, massive, justified protests with scattered violence, versus highly targeted political violence instigated by the highest-ranking public official and based on an unvarnished lie. These things are the same to you?

If you think it was scattered and not organized you haven't been paying attention. 95 % of black lives matter protests were peaceful. There were 10600 demonstration events which leaves us with 500 riots. A massive number.

Results:

- Worsening of race relations

- Billions of dollars in damage

- Numerous stores and businesses, predominantly owned by black and latino Americans, destroyed. Those people, the very same we were told the riots were for, had their lives ruined in the name of social justice. Or do you think insurance reimburses all the damage and in a timely fashion? Years of hard work ruined. We know from past riots it takes decades for neighborhoods to recover.

- Almost 50 people died, can't recall the exact number. I think 47

- 9 million extra Trump votes and a doubling of his latino and black vote

Where did you get the 10,600 number and the percentage that were peaceful?

Where is the proof that damaging riots were deliberately organized. I mostly saw white people looting under the cover of black people marching.

Where is the proof that it was primarily minority owned businesses that were damaged? Why would it take decades for these businesses to file a claim with their insurance and replace their merchandise and windows?

> Where did you get the 10,600 number and the percentage that were peaceful

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi... cmd + f 'NATIONWIDE DEMONSTRATIONS'

> Where is the proof that damaging riots were deliberately organized.

You don't sustain riots for months without organizing.

> Why would it take decades for these businesses to file a claim with their insurance and replace their merchandise and windows?

Not their insurance but the economic damage. That's what happened after the 1960s riots. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40056402?seq=1

> Where is the proof that it was primarily minority owned businesses that were damaged?

Because the riots were mostly in low-income neighborhoods.

https://www.startribune.com/riots-arson-leave-minnesota-comm...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/minneapolis-protests-b...

https://www.businessinsider.com/black-owned-businesses-put-u...

If this is a crime then there should be an investigation in progress and some court orders made to prevent more criminal activity. Not an abrupt decision by... We don't even know who exactly made that decision.

If we want to nationalize all the major web services so they are forced to operate as government agencies with all the constitutional protections that go along with that, it's certainly an idea. I wouldn't have imagined in 2021 we'd have conservatives advocating for seizing the means of production of the nation's Tweets.

So far we know these companies made the decision to ban the President:

- Twitter

- Google

- Youtube

- Reddit

- Tiktok (ironic that he'd be banned by Tiktok before he banned it himself)

- Instagram

- Snapchat

- Spotify

- Shopify

- Twitch

- Pinterest

I would love to know if YCombinator has formally banned him from the Hacker News community.

Occupying a government building for a few hours to disrupt a ceremonial activity isn't an attempt to "overthrow the US government". The capitol isn't a game of Capture the Flag - you don't get power just by standing there. At most, the occupational of the capitol was equivalent to a sort of political panty raid. Silly, yes. Meaningful, no.

You have bought into a hysterical narrative, at least as fantastic as whatever insane narrative the QAnon people have bought into.

> You have bought into a hysterical narrative, at least as fantastic as whatever insane narrative the QAnon people have bought into.

I'm just stating facts. The claims Trump has made about election fraud, hundreds of times over the course of two months, are lies. He used the people who believed those lies to attack the Capitol as they deliberated on the transfer of power.

Please elaborate on what's hysterical about my assessment of these facts.

You literally responded to zero words in the parent's comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com