> Two wrongs don't make a right. (Heck they're even different classifications of wrongs and not remotely comparable given that they're very different.)
Yes. Only one of "invading Capitol buildings to disrupt election confirmation while chanting 'Hang Mike Pence'" and "arson against private company and their vehicles" is actually attempting to overturn an election.
But both can be described by the comment I quoted, modulo s/left/right/
> It'd start by Europeans not egging on Americans to be complicit with or actively commit violence against other people's property.
what direct cost to individuals did Jan 6 cause? did anybody in Jan 6 loop individual citizens in and destroy their property to force alignment? no you say? this is literal terrorism because the entire point is to force an outcome using fear and violence and they should be dealt with according to US terrorism law.
> what direct cost to individuals did Jan 6 cause? did anybody in Jan 6 loop individual citizens in and destroy their property to force alignment?
Other than the funeral costs[0], the medical bills for injuries[1][2], journalists had equipment damaged[2][a] and stolen[3], various people had to increase security due to being doxxed[4], statues within the Capitol buildings were damaged[5], and the Speaker of the House had her laptop stolen[6] (more important due to her position than the device).
You may consider "$30 million"[7] to be peanuts, though that's without the cost of actually policing the event which was over 10x that[8]. The victims by and large, were not so rich as to be able to ignore such costs — even including the representatives (though most of the harm wasn't to their person, just their offices), though for this caveat about mere physical enumerable cost rather than political intimidation I am mainly talking about the journalists who had their stuff destroyed and the police who were injured.
And the FBI still doesn't know who planted the pipe bombs (plural!)[b].
> no you say?
What, exactly, do you think about 1500 people were convicted for doing? And they were convicted, even though Trump then pardoned them[9].
Why did you think Trump was impeached twice?
Why did you think Colorado, Maine, and Illinois tried to block Trump from being on the ballot?
Why, given Trump's record that included him not caring about people chanting to hang his own Vice President[10][11][12], do you think the Republican party allowed him back on their ticket if not for their members being intimidated by these riots?
> this is literal terrorism because the entire point is to force an outcome using fear and violence and they should be dealt with according to US terrorism law.
Yes, the Jan 6 attacks were in fact terrorism.
The fact you're trying to downplay that while being upset about property damage… is, unfortunately, very human.
I say "unfortunately", because that means it's hard to resolve. I can't just tell you to be reasonable, because reason is not how you got to your current state — that's very, very, dangerous, but I can't simply talk you out of this, and that means there's a huge chance you're going to escalate this and then be surprised by the response, which you don't see coming because you can't put yourself in other's shoes and see how you look from their point of view, how you're making enemies out of fellow citizens and making them fear for their lives and want to use against you the very force you say is fine when your own side does it.
Step back. Chill. Meet some people on the other side of the aisle. Share a beer and watch some sports or something. Whatever it is you Americans do for fun. Make friends, before this gets any worse.
Doing that might even prevent it getting worse.
Hopefully.
But here's a question for you: when you get to reading this paragraph, had you read any of these citations and considered them, or did you start drafting your reply performing what is called "arguments-as-soldiers" and disregarding anything that didn't fit your world view?
> But here's a question for you: when you get to reading this paragraph, had you read any of these citations and considered them, or did you start drafting your reply performing what is called "arguments-as-soldiers" and disregarding anything that didn't fit your world view?
TL;DR: 30 million dollars of enumerable damages, ~1500 convictions.
Yes. Only one of "invading Capitol buildings to disrupt election confirmation while chanting 'Hang Mike Pence'" and "arson against private company and their vehicles" is actually attempting to overturn an election.
But both can be described by the comment I quoted, modulo s/left/right/
> It'd start by Europeans not egging on Americans to be complicit with or actively commit violence against other people's property.
I'm literally saying to chill and not escalate. Calling for you to not wind each other up. Musk, however: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ydddy3qzgo