[titzer]

I missed the part where BLM advocated overthrowing democracy. At worst they advocated to defund police and held obnoxious signs. And despite the right wing narrative, the people carrying signs and doing sit ins were not the ones rioting and looting, but rather getting their ass beat by police.

[zionic]

What do you call CHAZ? Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?

[titzer]

You mean that thing[1]

> The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership. Protesters united behind three main demands:

> 1. cut Seattle's $409 million police budget by 50 percent,

> 2. shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities, and

> 3. ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes.

Is that what you meant?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone

[CivBase]

None of those points take away from it being "a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government".

If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified? I certainly don't think so.

[titzer]

> If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified?

I don't think anyone should be screaming to melt down the government or set up their own, but let's be clear there is a difference in both degree and kind from BLM to the Capitol Insurrection: BLM protestors were driven by actual instances of racism--dozens, if not hundreds of people killed by police--and fundamentally wanted accountability for that blatant police misconduct, and Capitol Insurrectionists were driven by nothing more than lies and wanted to assassinate the legislative branch and install a dictator. We both know that "more transparency" and a "more verifiable" election system isn't going to make the crazies go away. They rejected election results outright because there must have been fraud.

[tomcam]

Do you mind if I self organize some people to take over the place you live?

[dragonwriter]

> What do you call CHAZ?

The popular view of it, especially on the Right? A fiction deliberately constructed by right-wing media (notably Fox News) and the Trump Administration.

> Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM

BLM isn’t a single, unified organization, so “fully supported by BLM” isn’t a meaningful phrase. The protests which spawned what was briefly called (by unknown persons) CHAZ before being renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest specifically to emphatically repudiate the implication of seditious intent were organized in part by activists identifying with the BLM movement.

> and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?

Nope. Fairly good discussion here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/15/dont-liste...

[monoideism]

OK, but what about attacking a federal courthouse for several weeks straight in Portland? All cases had to be moved to another site in a neighboring state. I don't think they should be charged with sedition, but it clearly fits the statute, which states:

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire [...] to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States"

Using violent attacks and arson to force a federal courthouse to close down would seem to fit that definition.

While it's true that the reason the mob attacked the Capitol was arguably worse, both antifa and the Trump mob attacked federal buildings and tried to harm those guarding them.

Also, regarding your source: our media has sadly divided into two, so no resource you list will convince anyone.

Either they already read the resource, and so already agree with you, or they don't read it and know better than to trust it, since it's a partisan source.

We would all do better to stop encouraging open partisanship among the media, and reward non-partisan perspectives. NB: this doesn't have to mean non-opinionated perspectives, although those should be clearly labeled as editorials (now, editorials have blended with news).

[tomcam]

The founders of BLM are “trained Marxists“ in their own words. By definition, they advocate overthrowing democracy. That’s what Marxism is all about.