[edmcnulty101]

BLM protests took over an area of Seattle called the CHAZ...and stopped all government activities there for days, even the police left.

Still a protest...

Interruption of government activities does not make an insurrection.

The January 6th protest was not even close to a violent overthrow of the government.

[the_gastropod]

And failing to move your car for street sweepers is an interruption of government activities, and therefore equivalent to Jan. 6th too, right?

The Jan 6th—let’s call them participants—were there to overturn the results of the election. That is an important detail you seem to be trying to “both sides!” your way out of.

[edmcnulty101]

I'm saying an interruption of govt activity is NOT an 'insurrection'.

So failure to move to your car for a street sweeper is also not an insurrection.

It feels crazy we're even having this discussion.

Don't tell any of the media this example though, they will have 4 talking heads debate if Trump or AOC not moving their car for a street sweeper was an insurrection, and tons of ideologues getting angry and supporting it.

[the_gastropod]

I completely understand your point. My point is: it's false equivalency. One example of "interrupting government services" is not necessarily equivalent to another example of "interrupting government services". Very specifically, one of these groups was interrupting the democratic election process. That bears a hell of a lot more weight than the other examples.

[edmcnulty101]

I think a real insurrection meets different criteria than 'interrupting government activities' by an unarmed, disorganized mob of protestors.

Its subjective and most people's interpretation of the events predictably falls along party lines.

We're arguing the semantics of 'insurrection'.

I think there would not be a shadow of a doubt if a real insurrection occured.

This event was closer to blocking a street sweeper than a real true insurrection.