I can understand why you think the way you do and the way you construct your arguments, unlike some others in this thread, makes me believe you're genuine.
But I hope you can see that there are a large number of people who see a physical assault on the peaceful transition of power as a threat to the continuance of our government. An existential threat.
We are never going to change our minds on this and you have no right to ask us to overlook it because that's sort of like asking us to ignore an arsonist who we know set a fire, who has proclaimed the desire to set fires.
Violence was used to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Violence was used to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Violence was used to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.
How can you possibly ask people to look past this? With a straight face?
You're one of those people, I suspect, who gets tripped up on literal definitions of things. It doesn't matter what, specifically, is an attempted coup and what isn't. People will use imprecise terminology and if you want to talk politics you may just have to grow up about that fact.
Violence was used to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.
Haidt's work gets trotted out a lot, but it was prior to the fascist turn of the Republican party. Now Republicans live in a mostly imagined political reality.
This is the problem with concepts of polarization: when one side is completely corrupt, reporting on that corruption (that is, observing basic reality) becomes a political act easily described as 'biased.'