January 6th insurrection thread...
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
striker42
Well-known member
I have no doubt a lot of people were caught up in the moment. Mobs forming from otherwise ordinary people has been a recurring theme throughout history. It's pretty basic human psychology.
Last summer you had agitators turning protests into riots and looting but the vast majority of the mobs were ordinary people caught up in what was going on. Some agitators break into a store and start looting, a few opportunist join in, the next thing you know you see Denise from accounting running out of the store with an arm full of designer handbags.
You don't have a riot like we saw at the Capitol that has everyone in on it. It's just too many people. You'd end up with countless leaks. As Ben Franklin said (IIRC), three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
Instead, you might have a small group of people who are trying to start the riot to either cover their actions or because they just genuinely want wholesale violence. Without ordinary people getting caught up in the moment, you don't have riots like that.
That's not to say the ordinary people aren't culpable for their actions. I'm sure there were people who melted away when the crowd turned nasty and things got out of hand. That shows is entirely possible to make the decision not to join in.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
sure...but unfortunately for everyone involved their presence on that date at that location in and of itself reflects a degree of premeditation...not in all the particulars...but in intent to effect a result (show displeasure at Congress certifying the electoral college or perhaps worse intimidate Pence and/or Congress into not certifying the results)...best case they are anti-democratic protesters (some deluded into believing the Big Lie some not) or worst case insurrectionists
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
I think you underestimate people's ability to self-delude. I would bet 95%+ in that crowd believed Trump was elected and the election was stolen from him. The ability to accept and adverse result is sorely lacking in this country.
57Brave
Well-known member
to think those people didnt know wahat they wee showing up for is silly.
To be polite
What other event was scheduled that day ? Was it a day of commemoration
It was advertised as such
They knew exactly why they were there
and if they didn't, well, sucks to be that ignorant
" one lies with dogs one will get fleas"
i think Abraham Lincoln said that
To be polite
What other event was scheduled that day ? Was it a day of commemoration
It was advertised as such
They knew exactly why they were there
and if they didn't, well, sucks to be that ignorant
" one lies with dogs one will get fleas"
i think Abraham Lincoln said that
57Brave
Well-known member
as in they were there for a rally ... please
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i don't underestimate it...i'm reading a book on Vichy France...history is full of examples of mass delusions...indulging in such delusions tends to bring very bad outcomes both for the individuals and wider society
i'll add a corollary: indulging the people who indulge in such delusions is very dangerous for the rest of us
in some ways January 6 gives us a chance to draw some lines
Last edited:
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
That's why they were so heavily armed.
Resisting audit was the big tell.
You just don’t want to acknowledge that.
It’s been well documented in numerous countries that mail in voting is ripe for fraud. You even noted it many times before the election. But now that this is being questioned after you are silent because you got your oranage man out.
You just don’t want to acknowledge that.
It’s been well documented in numerous countries that mail in voting is ripe for fraud. You even noted it many times before the election. But now that this is being questioned after you are silent because you got your oranage man out.
striker42
Well-known member
I agree that indulging in this delusion does not excuse their behavior. Believing the system reached the wrong conclusion or even a belief that the system was usurped does not justify destruction of the system. It justifies advocating to change the system but peaceful advocating to change the system is perfectly acceptable.
I will indulge anyone in a peaceful protest. If you want to protest believing that democrat lizard people stole the election. Go right ahead. I draw the line at violence. I will not indulge anyone in rioting whether it's over legitimate problems or pure fantasy.
striker42
Well-known member
If you think thousands of people showed up with a secret plan to attack the Capitol and this plan was kept so much of a secret that the mayor of DC didn't even think additional security was needed, you have a problem.
There were certainly people there looking to a chance to attack (those planting bombs or carrying zip cuffs). But the vast majority of the crowd were just self-deluded people showing up for a rally. The perfect group to be turned into a rioting mob by those looking for trouble.
sturg33
I
Are there ever instances when violence would be justified?
Say, hypothetically, Trump lost but refused to step down (like so many idiots on this board thought he might), what kind of citizen response should occur if the military obeyed his orders?
striker42
Well-known member
It's an interesting question. The practical answer would be it's justified when your side is the winning side.
Philosophically, I'll say the first to break the system through use of force dissolves the obligation of others to operate within the system.
Our political system isn't perfect. No system designed and run by man is going to be perfect. Sometimes the system can yield imperfect results. I would analogize it to playing a Monopoly. Sometimes people cheat but that doesn't destroy the game that's being played. Turning over the board does.
If you think someone is cheating, it's not justification to turn over the board. However, if someone else does turn the board over, you have no obligation to try to keep playing.
57Brave
Well-known member
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
People can hold whatever beliefs or delusions they want and act on them however they like as long as it is lawful.
However, the rest of us don't have to be passive observers. And imo we should as a matter of policy be fairly tough in our response when laws get broken as they were on January 6. The fact that the lawbreaking coincides with social pathologies such as conspiracy theories and mass delusions is an argument in my book for a tougher law enforcement response. Those things are aggravating not mitigating considerations as far as I'm concerned. Sentencing should take into account postings on social media that indicate allegiance to conspiracy theories or delusional thinking that might have contributed to violent activity. And of course, that goes double for social media postings that indicate allegiance to extremist ideologies such as white supremacy or mussolini-ism or similar isms.
We have a Republic. We should waste any of our kindness on those who would overturn it.
However, the rest of us don't have to be passive observers. And imo we should as a matter of policy be fairly tough in our response when laws get broken as they were on January 6. The fact that the lawbreaking coincides with social pathologies such as conspiracy theories and mass delusions is an argument in my book for a tougher law enforcement response. Those things are aggravating not mitigating considerations as far as I'm concerned. Sentencing should take into account postings on social media that indicate allegiance to conspiracy theories or delusional thinking that might have contributed to violent activity. And of course, that goes double for social media postings that indicate allegiance to extremist ideologies such as white supremacy or mussolini-ism or similar isms.
We have a Republic. We should waste any of our kindness on those who would overturn it.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
An FBI warning of potential violence reached the U.S. Capitol Police on the eve of the Jan. 6 attack, but top leaders testified during a Senate hearing Tuesday that they did not see it.
Steven A. Sund, who was chief of the Capitol Police at the time the assault by the pro-Trump mob was underway, said the warning had reached headquarters. But Sund and the then-House and Senate sergeants-at-arms testified that they did not see the report, which warned that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and wage “war.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/23/capitol-riot-hearing-live-updates/
We have a whole group of people who no longer are willing to accept election results when they go against their candidate. It is not a problem to be minimized. And it is made worse by a big group of Republikaner © elected officials who even now won't come out and say credibly accused creepy joe beat very poorly chosen one fair and square. All of the House leadership, except for Liz Cheney, won't come out and say this simple fact. They continue to be complicit in the Big Lie.
Steven A. Sund, who was chief of the Capitol Police at the time the assault by the pro-Trump mob was underway, said the warning had reached headquarters. But Sund and the then-House and Senate sergeants-at-arms testified that they did not see the report, which warned that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and wage “war.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/23/capitol-riot-hearing-live-updates/
We have a whole group of people who no longer are willing to accept election results when they go against their candidate. It is not a problem to be minimized. And it is made worse by a big group of Republikaner © elected officials who even now won't come out and say credibly accused creepy joe beat very poorly chosen one fair and square. All of the House leadership, except for Liz Cheney, won't come out and say this simple fact. They continue to be complicit in the Big Lie.
Last edited: