[throwaway346434]

This event is highly comparable to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

- Attempted coup - Radicalized and misinformed supporters (majority) with an extremist, armed element (minority) - Extremely dangerous moment for free and fair elections in the west

What would the world have looked like if in 1923, the disaffected germans who took part in that were identified en masse; and serious efforts were made to re-integrate them to society while addressing the systemic issues they faced?

Instead, we ended up doing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification several years later after a lot of death.

I think there is a very good argument for identification and holding people to account. There also needs to be very, very robust adherence to due process - AI identification is not proof, and a suitable alibi should be step 1 in invalidating it.

[zozbot234]

The sad thing is precisely that no-one cares about "re-integrating" proponents of right-leaning views "to society". Everyone is talking about forcibly deplatforming them all out of society which, even if successful, will only make them far more marginalized and far more open to dangerous, violent extremism. Is this really what we need? We've had enough divisiveness already, so why not try a more constructive approach?

[ianai]

That is decidedly opposite of how I see the immediate political inertia. It might help to revisit previous times the democrats took over all three legislative branches. They’re not unified ever and dissent is assured. Meaning there are conservative wings which will welcome and work with the far right even after this. If you’re referencing the deplatforming going on from corporate entities that’s a whole another phenomenon and legally forced.

Edit-if you’re referencing just how people treat one another 1-1 in culture, well, the forever trumpers just need to learn to treat people like people again. Apologizing helps, but simply being friendly and polite goes a long way.

[scsilver]

They can start by not spreading covid to our grandparents.

[avl999]

> The sad thing is precisely that no-one cares about "re-integrating" proponents of right-leaning views "to society".

Are you arguing violent extremism and trying to overthrow the government is synonymous with "right-leaning views"?

No one is deplatforming Mitch McConnell, Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, John Thune and many others all of whom with "right leaning views", even further to the right the president.

Your argument is a strawman. It's like when twitter bans jihadist leaders, going out and saying "why are muslims being deplatformed?". Which is not true.

[itronitron]

I think a lot of people care about re-integrating those with right-leaning views to society. It is important for them to express their own concerns in their own words instead of just joining in various egomaniacs' power fantasies.

As much as they hate the far left, I believe that progressives such as Bernie and AOC are actually far better for them, and everyone they know, than the current GOP leadership.

[salawat]

>I think a lot of people care about re-integrating those with right-leaning views to society.

Ah, so right-leaning views disqualify you from society now? You have to be re-integrated?

Have you spoken what you wrote out loud? Do you not understand the message that sends?

>It is important for them to express their own concerns in their own words instead of just joining in various egomaniacs' power fantasies.

>As much as they hate the far left, I believe that progressives such as Bernie and AOC are actually far better for them, and everyone they know, than the current GOP leadership.

Wow. The self-referential inconsistency is strong with this one. If you truly don't grok that what you're asserting the right needs re-education to address, and the same devotion you're putting into Bernie and AOC are two sides of the same coin, you seriously need to reflect.

1) Causes. Not people. 2) Just because they don't like the stuff your team or tribe likes doesn't make them any less of a human being. 3) You win no friends and convince no one by demonizing that which they look up to, then copy pasting in what you like and telling them they're sick for liking what they like. Yes, society is full of people who spend a great deal of energy doing just that; but it doesn't mean everyone knows what they are doing when they are doing it. The beauty is that things just generally work out in spite of it because people don't build up enough momentum to destabilize the overarching social structure. It's like Brownian motion writ large. In the case when you're doing it correctly, you must have put in the effort to understand what it is you're replacing first, why it ended up there, then making your entire pitch readily communicable, and being willing to live and let live genuinely. 4) It has taken really immersing myself in both liberal and conservative communities to realize how insane most people are, and how little work the average person puts into thinking out the consequences of policy direction. I'm amazed anything manages to stay working at all.

[zo1]

Are you saying people with "right-leaning view" need to be "re-integrated" into society? What are they, crazy serial killers or something?

Here's a crazy thought. How about we do nothing and just arrest anyone that breaks laws, right or left.

[michaelt]

Obviously, the vast majority of people with right-leaning views weren't even at the Capitol.

But if you believe the rioters were part of an attempted coup, trying to overthrow democracy and install Trump as a dictator while setting bombs to kill their opponents, that seems pretty crazy to me.

Of course, some people might argue it wasn't an attempted coup, just a mob of high-spirited protesters. Much like sports fans or anti-globalisation protesters will sometimes set a cop car on fire or smash up a starbucks, just in this case it was the capitol building instead of a starbucks. (personally I think this is dangerously naive; my impression is 'stop the steal' people are sincere and unironic in their beliefs)

[jaspax]

The actual behavior of the protesters seems to match your third paragraph much more than your second paragraph. They got into the capitol building and then... just kind of wandered around. Took some selfies. Stole some memorabilia. Nothing about their behavior suggests that there was an organized plan to actually take over the USG, or that they protesters themselves had any idea what to do after they broke in.

[itronitron]

They didn't just wander around the capitol building...

https://youtu.be/lhjRXO72v1s

[colejohnson66]

Some have suggested that they wanted to burn the ballot boxes in an attempt to prevent counting them. The problem is that, even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. The counting is just a formality and they can declare a winner without them. They already know who won.

[cforrester]

It seems misguided to suggest that deplatforming is not a constructive approach. Platforms which are tolerant of extremism enable extremists to more-easily connect with each other, develop more-unified messaging, and reach non-radicalized people at much lower social and financial costs. In effect, providing a platform for extremism is a divisive act.

[shuntress]

>Everyone is talking about forcibly deplatforming them

Expulsion can be appropriate for dealing with people who harm society.

It should be used with caution but does have its place.

De-integrating (so to speak) may sometimes be a required first step before effective "re-integrating" can occur.

[rebuilder]

I don't see a way for expulsion to happen. Segregation in some sense, maybe. But that usually runs into the anti-insurrection problem where suppression becomes repression and breeds contempt, strengthening the factions being suppressed.

[wpietri]

I don't think anybody has proposed forcibly deplatforming everybody with "right-leaning views", so that sounds like a straw man. If, as you seem to suggest, divisiveness is your primary concern, it would seem to make a lot of sense to deplatform the small number of people very eager to create it through lies, organized violence, and overthrow of the government.

[anovikov]

Maybe the assumption is that they can't be integrated or valuable in any way, goal is to neutralise them. I'm a bit split on this but it doesn't sound all to wrong to me.

In any case, mass democracy is on the way out, everywhere. It is just not compatible with the post-industrial society and will be progressively less so in the future. Question is about a particular way in which it will happen (anything from outright dictatorship to some form of democracy with prequalification)...

[pvarangot]

The argument from the other side is that this proponents of right-leaning views wouldn't be violent except because they are being exalted by fascist propaganda from right wing leaders. I myself think it's a good move from Amazon but I don't think it's not polically motivated. The Capitol being stormed is not good for business because of many reasons, it was a line in the sand.

[zo1]

Thank you for the info, I never knew about those two events!

> "From 1945 to 1950, the Allied powers detained over 400,000 Germans in internment camps in extrajudicial fashion in the name of denazification."

[willyt]

Also political scientists from eminent universities in the US and Britain were heavily involved in the renewal of democracy in Germany. With the Germans they designed a system that is more democratic than those that existed in their own countries. The system is designed to operate as a coalition government. No one party can dominate, but because of the coalition system mainstream centrist views get properly represented while extremists get some presence in the Bundestag but are unlikely to be needed to form a coalition and will never be in a position to dominate it, like they have done in the US.

It’s worked out pretty well for the Germans, wouldn’t you say?

The US is a two party state. So extremists just need to infiltrate one party to corrupt the system, especially if the other party is not providing competent opposition.

Currently the security of democracy in the US, and therefore the balance of power between Russia, China and the US which is the basis of world peace in so much as it exists today, rests in the constitutional procedures of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party as much as it does in the US constitution, who sets those rules? Do Americans memorise them in school?