Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#721

Post by gwright » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:27 AM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #418

zarkov99 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone if not an attempt at insurrection? Come on, can we have some intellectual honesty here? Both situations sucked, the people involved sucked, their reasoning sucked and they should all go to jail so that sane people can get back to their lives in peace. We are being forced into building absurd logical houses of cards just so we do not concede an inch to the other sid…

Equating a bunch of dumb activists taking over six city blocks to an attempt to overturn the election of POTUS is "intellectual honesty"? Look, I'll agree that everyone involved with both CHAZ and the Capitol Riots needs to go to jail. That includes Donald Trump, though. He was the one trying an end-run around the US electoral process in order to hold on to power for four more years.

Who is "equating"? They are different but both bad. No reason to excuse either of them in any way. No need to decide which one is worth prosecuting and which one isn't.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#722

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:27 AM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #477

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They took far right terrorism seriously in the 1870s. They more or less stamped out the (original) KKK while simultaneously giving the south the requisite autonomy to enact Jim Crow. Obviously Jim Crow doesn't square with our modern view but at the time the lack of some systemic way to keep the black people down was a serious grievance that a lot of people had. The government cracked down on the extremists who were s…

> he government never takes people's grievances seriously until there's a "real" threat of extremists getting off the porch I haven't noticed any gay-marriage terrorists on their porches, and yet here we are. Women-for-equal-pay have not been observed cleaning and oiling their rifles menacingly, and yet the law was mended in their favor. And I don't think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US, but their p…

[deleted]

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#723

Post by SulfurHexaFluri » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:30 AM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #560

tomcam wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By explicitly telling people to “be peaceful“?

Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability. It's not fooling anyone but the brain dead and comatose.

Even his mid event video was the same. A quick "you need to go home" sandwiched between minutes of babel about how he thinks they are doing the right thing and that he loves them.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#724

Post by RobRivera » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #651

wdn wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you see how much wealth the politicians, especially the one holding important position, you see why they want the job for a merely $200,000 a year. Clinton and Obama got very wealth after their presidency. Pelosi wealth goes up many fold for becoming speaker of the house. Not only their wealth go up, everyone around them got a lot wealthier too.

Why are you not mentioning any Republicans?

clearly because of political astroturfing.

there I explicitly stated what you are insinuating with your simple question.

his/her point still stands; famous politicians gain wealth from said fame. can we stay on track here?

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#725

Post by wernercd » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #669

wavefunction wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you not mentioning any Republicans?

Because there is plenty coverage of Republican sleaze. The mistake is in thinking one set of politicians is “doing the right thing”. Additionally, as of tomorrow the Republicans are irrelevant when it comes to the selecting a party to lobby. Democrats control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Keep their coffers lined and you keep the regulation at bay.

Except Democrats are promising regulation, taxes and the like.

IE the mistaken thought that Democrats won't remove 230 - despite Obama, Biden, etc all saying they want to remove it (if for different reasons than Trump, etc)

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-presid...

And with promises of Paris Accord, Green New Steal and removal of stuff like the Keystone Pipeline...

It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#726

Post by Renaud » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #678

ruanmed wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe be telling people for weeks that the election was a fraud (without providing proof, and presenting "bogus" proof), that he actually had won, and saying the result would not be accepted? P.S.: I'm not american and never have been to USA.

If "telling people that the election was a fraud" is equivalent to encouraging insurrection, you'd need to convict everyone who pushed the Trump/Russia narrative for years. So basically every leftist media entity and person and many of the politicians too. Hell, we can go back to 2000, butterfly ballots, Diebold voting machines, and so on and so forth. People are allowed to question election integrity.

>People are allowed to question election integrity.

Of course they are but at what standard of evidence do they hold themselves to to accept that it might not be true in the end?

You can question anything you want but there is a point where being a doubtless unwavering sceptic biased toward a particular cause will make you slip into cynicism and denial.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#727

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:57 AM UTC

esyir wrote: post #690

Pfhreak wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small number of protestors made it over some waist high barricades and nearly made it to the white house lawn. They were arrested. Trump himself said he wasn't whisked to a bunker. If you don't see a categorical difference between the two events, I'd recommend checking your biases.

Sounds pretty similar to me. Both sides involved an attempted violent incursion into a core zone of the government. On bias checks, I'd probably just ask you to do the same first. Hell, I'm not even American. One was met with celebration, I recall reddit threads on the top of all celebrating trumps weakness retreating to the bunker. Conversely, looking at msm rw response, they're not too happy with the capitol riots,…

[deleted]

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#728

Post by Renaud » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:59 AM UTC

jonnyone wrote: post #637

jiofih wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check your own biases. He was telling a huge crowd that the election was stolen, he would show proof the same day (we are still waiting), and they “will not stand down”. What else is needed to make that case? (non-US person here)

Like it or not, Trump is allowed to dispute the results of the election. He's also allowed to do so openly and to a crowd. Language like "will not stand down" is obviously in reference to the "fight" for his "case" and falls in line exactly with the language he had been using at previous rallies and on Twitter. Was he "inciting" a riot then? I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary…

I think we can at least agree that despite his double-speak, the fact that he has been stirring his crowd to act on the 'steal' is not inconsequential.

It seems unlikely that he would not have been briefed on the plots that were being organised and the dangers of feeding this crowd that rhetoric.

He has a large responsibility in inciting the level of denial that have led to his supporters to intimidate or threaten officials, many from his own party no less. Allowing this to go for weeks without disavowing or distancing himself publicly has only embolden a crowd that believed in the legitimacy of their actions because the president would not say otherwise.

Maybe we can be generous and say that things got out of hand but that would only show some lack of responsible judgement on his part and I'm not sure it's not somehow even worse.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#729

Post by ardy42 » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #519

ardy42 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really? How did past revolutions and terrorist attacks get organized? You realize most of world history existed before the Internet, right? Yeah, of course. Broadcasting means one-to-many communication. Before modern technology, those things were organized using other kinds of one-to-many communication, such as in-person meetings, rallies, and through newspapers and other kinds of publications. Movements aren't org…

Phone trees are a well known and used method to broadcast information via the phone system.

> Phone trees are a well known and used method to broadcast information via the phone system.

And pretty bad at doing it. It's actually pretty funny to imagine someone trying to organize a movement via a phone tree.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#730

Post by TeeMassive » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 6:22 AM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #560

tomcam wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By explicitly telling people to “be peaceful“?

Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability. It's not fooling anyone but the brain dead and comatose.

> Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability.

I'm sorry to say it, but you're a textbook example of what a confirmation bias is. You ignore what doesn't fit your conclusion and fill the holes with what you the same conclusion.

The proof that this is BS is simple, if it was "clear" he called for the storming of the Capitol, it would have been "clear" for everyone and more security measures would have been taken and news organization would were digging actively for this kind of stuff would have jumped on that story. But they didn't, because there was no call by Trump except in the head of those who want it to be true after the fact.