[SamoyedFurFluff]

I would disagree that there is a side that doesn’t believe in American values. American values are instead being interpreted in disagreeing ways, and are being applied to different circumstances. (For example, the sovereign citizen movement clearly at least attempts to take on aspects of the American constitution, and interprets them very differently to the court system.)

[fivea]

> I would disagree that there is a side that doesn’t believe in American values.

As an outsider, one of the US's core values is democracy and the democratic process.

Given the current push to undermine it, and the recent coup attempt intended to overthrow a democratically elected representative to install an authoritarian despot, and given the current level of support given to this dictatorial push, I have to say that from an outsider's perspective one side of America's political establishment clearly does not believe in American values.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

My understanding is that one group literally believes that the President was elected undemocratically, and are trying to correct for the mass fraud that was used to install the current President illegitimately. In that view, the coup attempt is in fact an attempt to overthrow an undemocratically installed despot, and follows along with an American ideal of representation in the government.

Now, I don’t personally believe this. But I also think sovereign citizens are stupid. I still think both sovereign citizens and “big lie” proponents are trying to interpret and apply American values, even if I think they’re misguided. I hope to be able to convince “big lie” proponents to understand my worldview in that the current President was legitimately elected, but first I think it’s important to understand their position.

[fivea]

> My understanding is that one group literally believes that the President was elected undemocratically, and are trying to correct for the mass fraud that was used to install the current President illegitimately.

That blend of belief is shared by a subset of militants, but that's the result of the years-long propaganda campaign devised by the militant group's leadership in preparation for the election campaign.

We're talking about a política group which dedicated itself simultaneously to sabotage the election campaign by attacking voting methods believed to be disproportionally and massively favoured by other candidates , and included the preparation of a coup to overthrow the political regime to continue holding power.

The myth about fraudulent elections, which preceded the election by over a year, was made up by the militant group's leadership, and we should not interpret it as a reasonable and natural excuse to push a self-serving myth.

[jollybean]

Indeed I'm inclined to agree, however, may of those folks literally believe the election was stolen.

Which is false of course, but consider how you would react if there were serious election irregularities, and your current PM/President was effectively a pretender?

A lot of people angry about the election are, at least superficially, acting in 'good faith'. They think they are fighting 'for democracy'.

Don't discount how segregated US information clearing is - I was visiting a family member today and heard some of their Facebook feed videos, it was totally shocking. This person does not absorb any kind of mainstream news information.

All day every day, they hear misinformation about vaccines and the election, so it becomes easier to understand how they believe nonsense.

One particular video, from an Irish Politician and MD no less, made claims that Omicron was 'just the flu' etc. and deferred to both the Irish government and Medical System for legitimacy. It was a very convincing video that I suggest most regular people would be moved by it, even though to a keen observer it was clear they were lying.

Indeed, the very article upon which we are commenting is hard to parse, to the point where in the interest of Public Good I wish all of these articles had some kind of translation for us plebes, at least during a pandemic where in it's a 'war of information'.

[readflaggedcomm]

Consider that the information you get could be one-sided because the major platforms ban dissenting views (in cooperation with partisan NGOs identifying it).

[fivea]

> Consider that the information you get could be one-sided because the major platforms ban dissenting views (in cooperation with partisan NGOs identifying it).

Could you please explain how exactly the recent coup attempt intended to overthrow a democratically elected representative to install an authoritarian despot is not profoundly anti-democratic and thus anti-american, or how the coup was just a reflection of a "one-sided" coverage by the media? Regardless of how dissenting your view is, a coup to overthrow a democratically elected representative is still a coup.