Words have meanings, and using the words inaccurate/the wrong meanings is saying one thing but meaning another, and the word for that is lying.
Words have meanings, and using the words inaccurate/the wrong meanings is saying one thing but meaning another, and the word for that is lying.
What was the civil war about? States rights. What rights, specifically? The right of states to allow their citizens to practice slavery. Therefore, the civil war was about slavery.
What was jan 6 about? It was about an attempt to undermine the government. An attempt to undermine what, specifically? The election process. Why did they seek to undermine the election process? So that the mob could extra-judicially install a leader of their preference. Another word for this is coup d'etat.
AFAIK, in common use the word coup involves the military taking control of the government.
That is one common kind of coup, but distinguished from the broader category. That's why the phrase “military coup” exists to distinguish the kind of coup where the military (or some part of it) is the main actor in seizing control outside of normal bounds.
> The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.
Or to use Wikipedia’s definition
> A coup d'état (French for "blow of state"), often shortened to coup in English (also known as an overthrow), is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal seizure of power by a political faction, rebel group, military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.
Yes, the military can be involved in a coup, but the essential definition does not require their involvement. Different terms might be applied if the military is involved, and based on whether or not the military is the primary driver (as in Myanmar) or is backing one side.
Jan 6th was about a small number of ignorant people who bought into a bunch of lies. A protest that got out of control. One that was far, far less violent, with far fewer casualties than dozens of protests that happened around the country the prior year. All mobs are bad, all riots are bad. Unfortunately different partisans have been trying to blow up the implications of one riot while downplaying all the others.
Yet the GOP is sidelining and smearing the few among them who actually want to hold the insurrectionists accountable.
If they were able to successfully break into that room while Congress was still in there, what do you think would’ve happened? They would’ve invited them over for tea?
I don’t like engaging in speculation but I think it’s pretty obvious we would’ve had more casualties.
And stuff is still coming out about Trump. A mysterious seven hour gap in the White House communications logs. A Federal judge ruling that it's "more likely than not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct Congress" attempting to overturn the election results. He called it a "coup in search of a legal theory." Yes, that's not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but it's also not nothing.
You're right that it was far less violent, and had far fewer casualties, but it wasn't just a riot, nor were there just a small number of ignorant people involved. To think that at this point, or to dismiss all concerns as partisan hyperbole, is kind of ridiculous.
No, attempted coup (specifically, attempted self-coup) is much more accurate.
> Words have meanings
Yes, they do. And the precise political science terms for the coordinated attempts by the 45th President and his allies to extend his powers beyond their lawful duration by extralegal means is “self-coup” or “auto-coup” (in the original French, “autogolpe”), which is a form of coup carried out by or on behalf of the existing leader.
> and using the words inaccurate/the wrong meanings is saying one thing but meaning another, and the word for that is lying.
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing when you explicitly refuse to use the correct term in attempt to minimize the act.