[greesil]

I genuinely can't tell which side you're taking about, one, or the other, or both. I feel like there are crazy people everywhere, ranging from the hyper woke to honest to god nazis. But one group decided to storm congress (which I still haven't wrapped my head around, I'm mentally living in the beforefor times) and by supporting the rule of law I must now be on the side that's not that, even if I have to share the bus with the nutters who believe in "censoring" and thought policing.

[chordalkeyboard]

> But one group decided to storm congress (which I still haven't wrapped my head around, I'm mentally living in the beforefor times)

Before 2018?

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1047935416182235136

[greesil]

Protests inside the Capitol building are actually surprisingly frequent. But why did the events of January 6th result in Congress evacuating their chambers, and moved to defensible positions? Something was different this time?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/35-times-capito...

[chordalkeyboard]

The US Capitol Police handled the situation weirdly and it got out of hand. I'm not sure why they let protestors across barriers and declined assistance from neighboring agencies. Some people read a conspiracy into these events. I just know this wasn't even close to the first time people were upset at congress and demonstrated inside forbidden areas. Nor was it the first time large peaceful demonstrations were marred by a few acts of violence.

These people are upset because they perceive that different standards are being applied to the same actions because of the politics of the actors involved. I don't think this is going to go away as a result of us clutching our pearls at the horrific violation of our sacred legislative building.

[greesil]

I have read many an article with words like "hallowed halls" and "sacred ground". It's just a building, and with enough dollars it can be cleaned up and repaired. What I keep coming back to was the intent to overturn an election with force by disrupting a critical vote on the election that was in progress. That's not clutching at pearls, that's a threat to democracy and the rule of law.

[chordalkeyboard]

> the intent to overturn an election with force by disrupting a critical vote on the election that was in progress.

what is the evidence of this intent?

[Gibbon1]

You're never going to undo terrorizing congressmen and killing a federal agent.

This isn't getting walked back.

[greesil]

Congress seems to be taking it somewhat personally, for some reason that I can't possibly fathom.