However, this display of authoritarianism by the gov is chilling and should not be allowed: this is the start of fascism, plan and simple.
As another poster says here. It's the design of these social platforms that pose risks and harm, both to individuals and society. After all, people become depressed and upset using social media. So something's amiss.
At best this is something like the Reichstagsbrand. Rationally a completely inconsequential event, but politically exploited for another round of increasing totalitarianism.
There was literally a mass rally, hours before the event, where the President and his cronies whipped a mob into a frenzy with lies about fraudulent voting systems and conspiracies to steal the election as the culmination of MONTHS of similar disinformation. They encouraged supporters to take Congress via “trial by combat” in order to prevent the legally elected President from being confirmed.
An attempt to block the legal transfer of power in order to illegally maintain your own is clearly an attempt to overthrow a legitimate government: a coup.
They left their weapons outside the Capitol. People planning to overthrow a government do not leave their weapons at the door.
Yes it failed, yes it was poorly organized, but that doesn't matter. If I try to hold up a bank using a water pistol instead of a gun while dressed as a clown I'm still attempting a bank robbery.
If the standard is that low then the US has coups semi-regularly. As in, maybe annually. It should realistically be more often than that, except most violent protesters protest government actions by targeting random businesses rather than the government (eg, Occupy Wall-street as opposed to Occupy the Offices of the People Handing Out The Bailouts).
The fact that Trump told/signalled people to go to the US Capital building can be construed as giving direction, would be put it under the "self-coup" (autogolpe) category:
> Naunihal Singh of the U.S. Naval War College and author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups, wrote that the attack on the Capitol was "an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government" and "sedition" but not a coup because Trump did not order the military "to seize power on his behalf".[461][462] The Coup D'état Project of the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Illinois, which tracks coups and coup attempts globally, classified the attack on the Capitol as an "attempted dissident coup" which the center defines as an unsuccessful coup attempt "initiated by a small group of discontents" such as "ex-military leaders, religious leaders, former government leaders, members of a legislature/parliament, and civilians" (but not police or the military). The Cline Center stated that the "organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition" by displacing Congress met this definition.[463][464] Some political scientists identified the attack as an attempted self-coup, in which the head of government attempts to strong-arm the other branches of government to entrench power.[465] Academic Fiona Hill, a former member of Trump's National Security Council, described the attack, and Trump's actions in the months leading up to it, as an attempted self-coup.[466]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_St...
That’s a description of the Beer Hall Putsch, just for comparison to the events in Washington.
There is plenty of evidence that the people who invaded congress wanted to overthrow the election results and keep Trump as President, that many refused to believe that Trump had even lost, and some appeared to be “heavily armed” (though given America’s gun fetish, I don’t know what that means): https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-trump-supporters-1806e...
Who is more dangerous to freedom. Those rioting idiots who broke existing law and will all go to jail or those making far more of their threat then is remotely reasonable to change law and remove rights?
Heavily armed. I believed that in the aftermath too. Also believed weapons of mass destruction at the time. Pretty angry about both when the evidence came in and it turned out to be deliberate lies to sway public opinion to do unpopular and terrible things.
Not with-in the Capital building, but many were carrying outside (in violation of DC law AFAICT):
> Video footage reviewed by prosecutors also suggests Munchel and his mother carried weapons while in Washington, DC — despite the district's strict gun laws — and abandoned them only before they got into the building.
> "We're going straight to federal prison if we go in there with weapons," Eisenhart told Munchel before they entered the Capitol building, according to prosecutors.
> "We can put 'em in the backpacks," Eisenhart then said, before stashing "tactical bags" outside the building, according to prosecutors.
* https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-han...
> None brought cable ties with them […]
At least one seems to have:
> Brock was arrested Sunday in Texas after being photographed on the Senate floor during the deadly riot wearing a helmet and heavy vest and carrying plastic zip-tie handcuffs. The 53-year-old is charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.
* https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-fort-worth-texas-e1...
I am reminded of Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
I think a lot of the mob were useful idiots and are being manipulated via populism by those with an actual clue. Georgia just passed the voter restrictions under the popular 'support' of these folks.
>> Brock was arrested Sunday in Texas after being photographed on the Senate floor during the deadly riot wearing a helmet and heavy vest and carrying plastic zip-tie handcuffs
That he did not bring to the riot. Zip ties he picked up when they were left unattended by police. Unattended. Really.
See how that fact, that reputable news sources have corrected, but very quietly, completely changes things? Came with intent to imprison vs well, not that. Possibly making sure they could not be used against fellow rioters? Totally different motive whatever it is. Vastly less organised and malevolent. Vastly lower fear. Vastly lower threat.
Yep and all the other Cherry picked info quoted shows they disarmed before mounting an "armed" insurrection. Yes they're idiots. On a grand scale. And they're going to jail for it. And Saddam also did not have weapons of mass destruction despite all those news reports claiming, confirming and reconfirming he was an imminent threat.
If you're thinking about going straight to prison for entering a building with weapons you clearly are not mounting an armed coup. (And yes, you're probably a monumental fool).
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Who is coming out ahead in power and money here? For good sake don't put on Republican vs Democrat blinders. Bush jr and Obama were indistinguishable on this kind of thing.
Start with: a scarier story gets more clicks and bigger ratings. Then go from there to see the effect of Law changes and who is getting more power in the fbi, cia, nsa etc. Is there something else going on that this needs to be a distraction? Maybe the wealth gain of Bezos & co in a massive crisis where many people are getting poorer? That's a huge story whatever you make of it. Massively bigger than some idiots who are going to jail for rioting in the Capitol. Are there others you can think of that are also bigger and more important?
The Putsch included actual military figures like General Ludendorff.
Hitler tried to win over Kahr (Staatskommissar with dictatorial powers), Colonel Seisser and and General Lossow.
Kahr, however had his own plan with Seisser and Lossow to install a nationalist dictatorship without Hitler and refused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
I don't think these events are comparable, since fortunately all U.S. military figures condemned the capitol event.
Congress is just shaking down social media for lobbying bucks again. And the social media companies actually want the regulatory capture. It's all a show.
Eventually big social will write some legislation for congress to pass, congress-critters get paid and get to say they did something while big social media gets further entrenched.
Meanwhile, Biden's DHS announces that they will be working closely with technology and social media companies to preemptively snatch up potential "domestic terrorists". I think the consequences are clear. I think many people are in denial however.