Funny, I’m pretty sure it just did, as it has for the last 4 years of abject defeats the judiciary has been handing out to Trump. Good luck with your lynching fantasies, sounds like you’ll need it to get through the next 4 years.
> I never compared jumping off cliffs and breaking into Congress.
You’re not a child, I think, so I can’t scare you with made up stories about what happens when you lie. But seriously, it’s not good for you, or those around you.
> So now your position is that it’s okay to occupy a capitol building as long as you don’t break windows, break into representatives offices, and/or some small percentage of them have weapons on them?
No, but it’s the bare essentials to stick to if you don’t want to be taken for an insurrectionist.
> Was it immoral when BLM occupied and damaged the Ohio capitol?
Yes! Whoever thought that was a good idea is a goddamn punk. Although, they weren’t trying to change the outcome of an election; that’s a pretty significant difference. There’s few things in a democracy worse than interfering with its election, I’m sure you agree, except maybe literally blowing it up.
> your argument that we ought to condemn the actions of the trump supporters because the rest of society has done so is not a rational argument.
I’m not arguing that at all, I’m just telling you what the rest of the society is doing; that pressure you feel to change your opinion is coming entirely from within yourself.
> was it immoral when the women’s March protesters took the capitol?
I’m not sure, let me check: did they break windows and doors to gain entry into the capitol building? Did they break into representatives’ offices? Were there weapons and detaining tools found on their persons?
> Why not pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who came to DC to protest but had nothing to do with the storming of the capitol?
Because they didn’t break into congress? There’s a special type of attention you deserve when you form a mob and storm national legislatures (as seen on TV!), and neither the peaceful protesters from the Trump rally or BLM did that.
That actually is a pretty good argument. I have indeed been playing fast and loose with the terminology; yes, it wasn’t a military coup, but it is still an unprecedented attack on the federal government, a riot.
> I find it odd that no one on the Democratic side is stopping to think what a civil war in which one side has disarmed themselves because they think weapons are evil and the other already is ideologically aligned with most of the police and military would look like.
That, my friend, would be a senseless massacre. You find it odd that most Americans don’t spend their daily lives worrying about getting literally murdered by Republicans? Why? Should they?
It’s possible you’re underestimating the sheer practical and symbolic significance of the building they broke into (and the people who work there). Which, actually, is kind of the whole problem. Can you provide an example of an evidence that would make this a coup for you?
Now you’re just helplessly denying. I just want to remind you that you’re free to change your opinion, no one will think less of you if you do. I’ve done it before, it can be pretty exciting to turn your world around and re-evaluate things every now and then.
Yes, the definition of tolerance in a society is often a function of its existing social consensus. So if your social consensus is flawed, tolerance of it is also flawed. But when the consensus in question is something like “you shouldn’t mob up and storm the legislature because you lost an election,” yes, the paradox of tolerance applies, unironically.
Despite the often exaggerated claims of singular victimhood, I actually do realize that the current right-wing rage does come from real suffering, and sympathize to an extent. What makes me wonder is that extent to which this rage is directed at the new wave of black civil rights movement; they both have roots in economic or cultural marginalization of certain populations, and from what I can tell, they’re not competing for some common resource. Which, in my mind (and many others similarly puzzled), leaves racist hate as a likely candidate.
Point being, if your goal was genuinely to bring awareness to and address some real suffering in your community, you’d just do that; get out on the street, break a few windows, punch a cop, petition for legislation, like BLM does. That’s called civil disobedience. “Insurrection” starts when you try to override and overrule the very fabric of the system, like the federal legislature.
> “If there is ever armed conflict between urban areas vs everyone else, "everyone else" in the U.S. will win overwhelmingly.”
I remember back in third grade when kids would argue about how their dad would beat the others’. As I grew up, I realized that that’s not how conflicts work, and certainly not how they’re won.
That’s an interesting take, but I was making a different point. Corporations will always do what’s necessary to thrive, and what they need to thrive is largely a function of what society demands. If the corporations are taking down their nationalist trappings, then it’s because we no longer demand them. As far as my globalist politics is concerned, that’s good and well.