On the other hand, I'm amazed by how easily people are handwaving away what was a hairs breath from the murder and kidnapping of multiple elected officials, not to mention constitutional crisis/breakdown.
> TV and Twitter that told them there was an "insurrection"
It meets the definition though. There seems to be a lack of willingness to acknowledge an attempted coup as a coup, or a failed insurrection as an insurrection. And I get why. It's terrifying to acknowledge that. It's uncomfortable to realize how close we came to really bad things (and admittedly, hard to quantify how close we came. Trying to figure out what would have happened if Pence rejected the results, or if he was killed on the 6th is difficult. Many things could have happened).
> it doesn't take Russians or Chinese
Erm, Russians are 100% implicated in stoking civil unrest and conspiracies that built towards the events of the 6th. The Chinese may be, but I don't know. The problem is that people refuse to acknowledge that and take the threat seriously, which is how we got here.
I tend to call a failed murder attempted murder. I think the distinction is important due to the difference in outcomes. One someone is dead the other does not result in death.
I think insurrection and coups are similar. One you have a toppled government the other you do not.
Things aren't that bad. I really small number of people did something stupid. The country is divided and has some healing to do but it's not over yet.
Right, and attempted murder is still the same sort of thing as murder, just without the success. Claiming that a failed insurrection was "nothing of the sort happening" is wrong. It absolutely was something of the sort.
> Things aren't that bad
I didn't say they were. I said we were very close to them being very bad. There's a big difference.
Which elected officials were a hairs breath from being murdered, exactly?
Seems like mostly just Mike Pence. Who was apparently (if you believe the angry mobs chants) going to be hung by the same people that elected him. Not exactly what I normally think of when I hear "coup" or "violent insurrection".
And at the same time, how different is that from people on the other end of the spectrum erecting a guillotine outside of Jeff Bezos' house?
The Vice President of the United States was at risk of being murdered by a mob at the capitol, a mob that failed to recognize a free and fair election, a mob encouraged by the sitting president by a host of lies.
And that doesn't have a tinge of "coup" to you?
Can you explain your logic, and how often you hang on /pol/?
1. I don't actually believe the VP was at much risk at all of being murdered, just like I don't believe Jeff Bezos was at much risk of being decapitated. This is probably the weakest part of my stance, as obviously I do not psychically know the intentions of the rioters at the capitol – maybe they really did have murder in their hearts. But my gut tells me that none of the people there actually would've hung Mike Pence if they'd gotten their hands on him. I certainly don't believe they would've done so to anyone else.
2. Murder does not a coup make. A coup requires an attempt to seize the levers of power. Usually by the military. AFAICT, there was no evidence of either military support or any plan to actually seize any power. If murdering politicians is a coup, does that mean the assassination of JFK was an attempted coup?
3. I don't disagree that Trump was galvanizing his base with lies.
> going to be hung by the same people that elected him. Not exactly what I normally think of when I hear "coup" or "violent insurrection".
Right, because he violated the trumpian cult of personality. How is that not scarier: murder someone unless he violated his oath to the constitution in order to keep an authoritarian leaning election-losing person in power.
Killing government officials to result in a transfer of power. It's a sudden, violent, illegal seizure of government power. That's a coup.
Why is this "insurrection" vs "hooliganism" distinction important to the larger point about free speech? Is there some rule that AWS can/should kick people off its service for one but not the other?
It seems like you just disagree with the majority opinion, and are describing the people who hold it as "giving up on their ideals" because they don't share yours.
> Nobody was going to kidnap and murder anyone. And there wasn't constitutional breakdown - nothing broke down.
This is contrary to what some of the people who were in the capitol claimed in advance, and their recorded actions, and their equipment. Seeking out particular officials (Pence and Pelosi), having previously made threats to harm them, with equipment to do so. What about that makes you so certain that no one was going to be killed? So certain that you're willing to reject it outright without even considering the evidence? That rings much more of preconceptions than objective analysis of the evidence.
> but nobody tried to change the constitutional government of the US
The intent of the people who attacked the capitol was to prevent constitutionally mandated transfer of power.
> Pelosi's desk, or steals Pelosi's podium, and now he's the king of the USA and we are all his loyal subjects? There's literally no imaginable way one could perform an actual coup - i.e. take the power into one's own hands
That's not what anyone is suggesting. This wasn't a coup to make baked alaska president, but to keep Trump in power. That's still a coup though. And I think centering your objection to "coup" on that makes it pretty transparent that your argument isn't particularly strong. So yes, stop talking nonsense and get on the same page as everyone else, participate in the discussion others are having, or bow out, but playing semantic games doesn't make you look good, and isn't interesting.
> You mean like being shown a picture of the horned guy in the Capitol, as opposed to actual war
No, but then you knew that already. I'd encourage you to read up on the HN guielines, because you're currently breaking them. And on that I'll disengage, because it's clear you aren't interested in a good faith discussion.
> TV and Twitter that told them there was an "insurrection"
It meets the definition though. There seems to be a lack of willingness to acknowledge an attempted coup as a coup, or a failed insurrection as an insurrection. And I get why. It's terrifying to acknowledge that. It's uncomfortable to realize how close we came to really bad things (and admittedly, hard to quantify how close we came. Trying to figure out what would have happened if Pence rejected the results, or if he was killed on the 6th is difficult. Many things could have happened).
> it doesn't take Russians or Chinese
Erm, Russians are 100% implicated in stoking civil unrest and conspiracies that built towards the events of the 6th. The Chinese may be, but I don't know. The problem is that people refuse to acknowledge that and take the threat seriously, which is how we got here.