Just because they were hapless and unsuccessful doesn't mean they aren't guilty of an attempted murder of American constitutional democracy.
Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty.
Or when protestors broke into the Supreme Court to overturn the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, no one compared it to the civil war. How hyperbolic can we get?
And yet, hyperbole like yours is not only tolerated by mainstream news sources, it is parroted by elected officials, other news outlets, and regular people. It's absolutely insane.
[1] By all measures, Raz the warlord's occupation of chaz qualifies as having been, for a few days, the sovereign government of that area. They enforced a law, punished criminals, taxed people, and provided safety, all the while preventing other forces from doing the very same. This meets any reasonable definition of sovereignty.
Bad faith false equivalencies like yours? Couldn't agree more!
Protestors disrupted Kavanaugh's hearing, they didn't try to overturn his confirmation after the fact. And even had they attempted to (not even sure what this looks like since GOP controlled the presidency and the Senate), that is far cry from attempting to overthrow the democratically-elected leader of our country with tacit and explicit support from government officials, weapons, and much malicious intent.
And comparing Jan. 6 to CHAZ is honestly a total joke not even worth acknowledging further.
On the other hand, God forbid you express concerns over the summer of violence we saw in 2020, because then you're just exagerating.
I am frankly exasperated at continuously having to keep track of not only what I ought to feel but also what level of passion I need to express my thoughts with in order to be taken in good faith.
I am willing to take it in good faith that you honestly believe Jan 6 is basically the worst thing to happen since the civil war. I don't really get how you can say that, but I don't think you're being disingenuous, or even malicious, in your statement of equivalence.
Unfortunately, since I don't see it the same way and don't feel Jan 6 is as bad as you make it out to be, I am apparently not only misguided or hyperbolic (what I believe you are) but -- as you've claimed -- a government abolitionist who lacks integrity.
You don't need to be in the streets protesting for shit, I don't need you calling your reps to ask them to support an independent commission. But I do need it to not be compared to situations that are not laughably benign by comparison.
> I am willing to take it in good faith that you honestly believe Jan 6 is basically the worst thing to happen since the civil war.
I didn't say that and I don't believe it. I reread my words, I don't feel I communicated such a sweeping conclusion / assessment.
> I am apparently... a government abolitionist who lacks integrity.
I attacked your argument, you've made it an attack on you. I don't know you, but that comparison was whack, be it bad faith, naivety, or ignorance. In my opinion, of course, however misguided, hyperbolic, or otherwise.
You are primarily trying to refute the the argument by throwing as many derisive marks as possible at it, a joke, whack, naivety etc etc and demanding it not even be considered.
From intention there was plenty in the Chax situation that you really don't want to have your name associated with.
From results, same story.
I was specific about what I found to be bad faith: drawing a false equivalency between Jan. 6 - an attack on our system of governance as a whole, supported by politicians - to those other examples. Yes, I used derisive adjectives, because I find the comparison worthy of derision.
> From intention there was plenty in the Chax situation that you really don't want to have your name associated with.
You won't find me defending CHAZ, like you seem to assume I will. Their intentions were far more benign than Jan. 6, but not benign or harmless, nor should many of the individuals involved be considered blameless. But there was certainly less intent to harm in CHAZ, and absolutely less intent to challenge our system of governance.
I used testy words, but they didn't detract from the point I felt it quite clear: minimizing the significance of Jan. 6 through equivocating it with CHAZ or Kavanaugh protests is an argument made in bad faith, naivety, or ignorance.
> You won't find me defending CHAZ, like you seem to assume I will.
This is exactly what you're doing here, you saw the claim and came running. You're just having to back-peddle now that someone is calling you on what you're doing.
Also, it's funny how intention is the only thing you are grabbing hold of and bringing up. Is that because of literally everything else about the CHAZ situation and the riots and the destruction of property that surrounded it are completely indefensible and infinitely worse?
Is the only reason "Intention" even becomes something you care about because it's the one thing you could try and twist into X is worse than Y?
Please read my comment again. I said "more benign" (than Jan. 6), but literally also said "not benign." I found CHAZ very troubling in both idea and practice. But it doesn't hold a candle to breaking into the Capitol to disrupt our system of governance, possibly murder congresspersons (and the VP), and install their preferred president. CHAZ was bad, but orders of magnitude less so.
And since that's all you thought was worth responding to, I think that's my exit in this conversation.
> But I do need it to not be compared to situations that are not laughably benign by comparison.
> I don't know you, but that comparison was whack, be it bad faith, naivety, or ignorance. In my opinion, of course, however misguided, hyperbolic, or otherwise.
You said what you said ^ and no hand waving about "oooh I didnt mean it like that" will change that.
> And since that's all you thought was worth responding to,
That's all you've given to respond to. All you've done is hysterically scream "False equivalence" and make weak claims of "Intention", which I've already pointed out are bunk when compared alongside the obvious intention of CHAZ.
> I think that's my exit in this conversation.
Yes I think that's about your only option at this point.
Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order.
Unlike Jan. 6, which sought to enforce the President's stated desire to overturn his electoral defeat, a desire in which the insurrectionists were joined by a substantial number of lawmakers, and sought to coerce or remove key opponents (most critically the Vice President acting as President of the Senate, under a theory that electoral votes could be arbitrarily discarded by whoever was serving in that position, which the President and his allies endorsed and advocated but the VP had publicly rejected.)
Okay but five people died because the American government did nothing.