So long as those people feel that they don't have a voice, they will earnestly believe they are victims of an oppressive dictatorship.
From their perspective, they're fighting for liberty the same as the Boston Tea Party did way back when.
Blame those people, not the people trying to figure out maybe-too-late how to stop their victims from burning the whole country down.
Why aren't you blaming anyone for anything? Do you not think what's happening is bad?
We need to be talking about ways to get everyone to cool down and take a time out.
Instead all I see is efforts to blame, cancel, belittle, and disparage lots of people well beyond Trump and the people actually at the Capitol building. I see lots of careless talk that puts 70 million Americans in the category of "not worth listening to -- ever!". How well do you think that is going to work out?
Lots of people seem to think that the unrest is wholly due to the election results, but the political polarization pre-dates Trump by many years.
How these people feel when they are committing violence in the streets, (and especially in the capitol), is no more relevant to our response than the weather being 'clear' or 'partly cloudy'.
Maybe I need to explain it another way:
Is it relevant how a BLM rioter feels when he's looting a store?
Sure, the black grandma who's at the peaceful BLM protest in the morning? How she feels is important. I definitely have a tendency to listen to that type of protester.
The armed BLM protesters that come only in the dark of night to loot and burn? No. How they feel is irrelevant to my response to them.
Same with these self proclaimed 'patriots'. The ones at unarmed peaceful protests matter. But, quick question for you: How many do you see at unarmed peaceful protests? That pretty much tells you all you need to know.
I'm only ashamed I that I had to see the Capitol fall to realize that how these violent people feel shouldn't matter.
Remember, currently the left are impeaching the president with 9 days left (literally taking any future office from him). Worse, some elected officials are saying the republicans involved in challenging the election integrity (which is constitutional and unrelated), aided in causing the “insurrection”.
They feel they’re being backed into a corner.
He does not deserve any of those privileges.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/impeached-president-lose-b...
Do you know how long I've sat and listened to minority groups complain about being backed into a corner and having no voice?
To my knowledge, none have ever gathered thousands of believers to attack the capitol in an attempt to thwart the implementation of the constitutional order.
Given the number of groups that are backed in a corner in the US, given the number of groups that have no voice in the US, those are tenuous excuses at best.
You want change? Do it the proper way like everyone else has to. Peaceful demonstrations that bring attention so that you can educate the population about your cause. Shortcuts like appealing to arms bring quick results but are doomed to failure long term.
What do you do with a group of people claiming they don't have a voice under those circumstances? What do you do when they're acting out violent insurrectionist fantasies under those circumstances?
We’ve got elections up the wazoo at every level of government including positions we just plain shouldn’t be electing at all; and most States have some form of ballot initiative. Both major parties and most of the minor ones are more or less a free for all as to who can join and vote for representatives and policies there.
In other words, everyone has a voice. Some are louder, some are quieter, but feeling like you’re not being heard? That’s the sort of namby-pamby crap you can expect from a college campus full of kids that haven’t figured out their life yet. If college kids stormed the Capitol, you think we should excuse their actions and shouldn’t charge them with insurrection because they’ve mistaken the Capitol for Boston Harbor and 2021 for 1773? Then why should we tolerate it from anyone else simply because they backed the losing candidate?
If you watched the process from October 2020 through January 5th 2021, you saw a fairly thorough stress test of our system of elections from voting, vote collections, ballot tracking, ballot verification, suits in courts of law, the counting process, the canvassing process, the re-canvassing and re-counting process in some cases, the certification of votes, the appointment of electors through Safe Harbor Day, the actual meeting of the electors to cast their votes and finally the final counting of the electors votes by Congress.
Whatever you think of our system, it is thorough, and even Trump appointed judges that gave his campaign their day in court weren’t buying this moat and bailey bullshit the President’s lawyers walked in with. Even during the process of the counting in Congress, objections were raised, and summarily shot down, a process entirely completed by elected representatives.
Now we will complete the transition of power. It may not be as peaceful as before, but the President’s powers have an expiration date. If Biden can’t be sworn in till midnight a week after normal for some unforeseen reason, Trump’s Presidency still expires at a fixed time and a fixed date, not when the next President is sworn in, but at Noon, EST, January 20th 2021.
Insurrectionists can fight for their liberty in a Court of Law. Hopefully they find one with more sympathy than I possess for them.
As an average citizen, it's our lot in life to be ruled over by the rich an powerful. It's always been that way, and the more I see of our "democracy" the more I believe it will stay that way.
What is your expectation? What do you mean by "voice"?
I think it's poignant that the Russian opposition to Putin is up in arms about Twitter banning Trump. Because de-platforming (web, TV and radio) is how the loss of freedom of speech started in Russia after Yeltsin resigned and Putin started getting rid of voices critical of him.
Now, if every bakery in town refused to do a gay cake - that would be a problem.
Can't conservatives go make their own video hosting platform? We’ve already seen how willing they are to take their ball to their own, private little country club when things get too hot for them. Crying “monopoly” doesn’t ring true here.
What’s the “free market” argument that says a private business should be forced to host hate speech, for free? What’s even the legal argument that YouTube is a monopoly, when DoJ has taken exactly zero action towards breaking it up?
Edit: light rephrasing
Can't %group% go make %something%.
Forget conservatives. Anyone who makes their living making video is doing so based on YouTube's whim. If they kick you off, even by mistake as has happened multiple times, you have no recourse. That's what makes them a monopoly. That is why they need to be treated as a utility.
Again, DoJ has done fuck all to break them up, so, why are they considered a monopoly? And why should a private business that isn't a monopoly be forced to host (edit: or link to) anything they don't want to?
Whether I believe this or not, it's a fair argument to use against conservatives here, because that's what they say all the time.
I am not blaming YouTube. In fact, good on them for beating everyone to the punch. Nonetheless, they are in a situation where they are the only game in town and should either act like that or be made to act that way. I mean, if the Edison electric company (they only local power provider) decided to kick me off their grid cause my views don't match theirs or for whatever reason, I'd be screwed. That's why they are treated as a utility, and not just another private company.
> DoJ has done fuck all to break them up
There is no disagreement here - I am just giving you my opinion on the way things should be©. DoJ should be more aggressive, but they are hamstrung by laws written in the days of robber barons. They couldn't even break up Microsoft 20 years ago when it was clear that monopoly position abuses took place on a regular basis.
> it's a fair argument to use against conservatives here
I'll concede this point. However, the well known "first they came for the %group% and I didn't care cause I wasn't a member" applies here. Cause when they come to demonetize you, ain't nobody gonna be around to help.
As far as Youtube being "the only game in town," that's not relevant as long as they're legally not considered a monopoly.
Edit: Also, why should Youtube unilaterally decide it's a monopoly and start being nice? At what amount of market share is a company required to put the kid gloves on?
Again, I'm more playing Devil's advocate here, but these are the arguments you'll hear from right wingers all the time.
which is a completely legitimate position to be in.