Catalyst375 t1_ixc8ohk wrote on November 22, 2022 at 10:33 AM

Reply to comment by BlooperHero in Delaware man sentenced for joining US Capitol riots while on Tinder date by Freexscsa

The former weren't even riots, as you said. Characterizing the latter as

>a terrorist attack against their own nation in an attempt to destroy said nation so that they can install as dictator

is pretty hard to justify unless you're referring specifically to groups like the Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, etc. They're absolutely interested in acting as you describe given the opportunity. The majority of the people there, though, were gullible idiots following along with the mob--malicious and deserving of punishment, but not on par with actual terrorists.

When the primary consequence of the event was significant vandalism, calling it an insurrection seems like a pretty big stretch. Aside from the obvious implications for the intelligence of the American electorate the fact that people believed something Donald Trump said has, I'm honestly more concerned that capitol security was pathetic enough that the building was breached in the first place. A single "insurrectionist" was killed by security; if that's how the government handles an insurrection, we might have problems beyond the insurrection itself.

BlooperHero t1_ixc9bwq wrote on November 22, 2022 at 10:42 AM

That was the plain, unembellished description. The biased one was "riot."

I don't have to justify a plain, factual description. It's literally just what happened. I would never say they are "on par" with terrorists--they are literally, objectively, actual terrorists. It's only wild because the truth is wild, and that is most certainly not my fault.

You are not entitled to your own facts. You may not disagree with the facts. There are no alternative facts. These facts do not care about your feelings. Etc.

Catalyst375 t1_ixcd02v wrote on November 22, 2022 at 11:28 AM

>That was the plain, unembellished description. The biased one was "riot."

Ah yes, they were all there to literally "destroy the nation." My bad.

>I don't have to justify a plain, factual description. It's literally just what happened. I would never say they are "on par" with terrorists--they are literally, objectively, actual terrorists. It's only wild because the truth is wild, and that is most certainly not my fault.

You're right. You wouldn't have to justify an objective, factual description. I'd advise looking up the definition of terrorism: the guy they have planting homemade bombs by the convention buildings is a terrorist; the people who yelled really loud and then wandered around breaking things were not. If you think those two examples are the same, and that the latter belongs in the category that organizations and people like ISIS, LRA, The Order, Kaczynski, and McVeigh fall into, then I think you have fundamental misunderstandings about what terrorism is.

I don't know about you, but I think the security response to action taken by those groups would have been very different than what happened on the 6th. The government response was surprisingly gentle for being faced with hundreds of terrorists storming the Capitol, all of whom had the intent of annihilating the entire country. Miraculously, we survived in spite of it.

>You are not entitled to your own facts. You may not disagree with the facts. There are no alternative facts. These facts do not care about your feelings. Etc.

I agree wholeheartedly!

BlooperHero t1_ixce63j wrote on November 22, 2022 at 11:42 AM

Yes. They were. Literally.

That's what happened. Why are you so dedicated to lying about? I'm not going to suddenly forget what happened, sorry.