[herewegoagain2]

1) Because there was just a single "capitol incident", and several BLM riots.

2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?

3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?

[ardy42]

> 1) Because there was just a single "capitol incident", and several BLM riots.

No, there wasn't just a single incident. Just to give some examples off the top of my head: large groups of III%ers participated in both the Capitol Attack and Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and the BLM counter-protests were arguably part of the same phenomenon (and one of them shot three people in Kenosha).

> 2) So you seriously believe all violence at BLM riots was solely because of false flag white supremacists? Really?

That's a sloppy reading of what I said. I merely pointed out a fact that makes attribution of violence that occurred at the protests difficult.

> 3) Bullshit. Riots are not "democratic process" either - it's people rejecting the established laws (like property rights) and proceeding to do their own thing. I mean they installed an "autonomous zone", how is that not an attack on democracy?

It's pretty obvious that it wasn't an "attack on democracy" because they made reform demands to elected officials and were cooperating with the government:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/seattle-autonomous-zon...

> The protest zone has increasingly functioned with the tacit blessing of the city. Harold Scoggins, the fire chief, was there on Wednesday, chatting with protesters, helping set up a call with the Police Department and making sure the area had portable toilets and sanitation services....

> The demonstrators have also been trying to figure it out, with various factions voicing different priorities. A list of three demands was posted prominently on a wall: one, defund the Police Department; two, fund community health; and three, drop all criminal charges against protesters.

In comparison, the capitol attackers setup a gallows and were chanting things like "Hang Mike Pence," because he wouldn't unconstitutionally override the election (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capi..., https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/15/mike-pence-cl...). The sloppy false equivalences to deflect away from that are getting old.

[herewegoagain2]

1) The Kenosha shooting was self defense. And if you arbitrarily lump things together, you can probably find an arbitrary number of victims. BLM is connected to socialism, so I guess you could count the 100 million dead in the Chinese Culture revolution and so on.

2) In the same vein, there seems to be only one actual victim of protester violence at the capitol, and that one also looks more like an accident (got hit in the head with a thrown item, which is of course a stupidly dangerous attack, but also common at BLM riots)

3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.

Also, there are videos from the capitol of security staff chatting with the protesters. So I guess they were also cooperating, and hence, by your logic, democratic.

Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.

[ardy42]

> 1) The Kenosha shooting was self defense.

We'll see about that when he goes to trial.

> And if you arbitrarily lump things together, you can probably find an arbitrary number of victims.

Which is what you're doing. Why arbitrarily lump together BLM and looters, when it could make more sense to consider them different groups that happen to be in the same area reacting in their own ways to the same circumstances?

> 3) That's not CHAZ cooperating with authorities, but authorities cooperating with CHAZ. Just because "your people" welcomed the secession, doesn't make it any more democratic.

The point is it's not a succession if you continue to recognize the government by calling on it to reform.

> Anyway, let's end here. There really is no point. It is just always interesting how warped people's perceptions can be.

Yep.