[hackerfromthefu]

How about 'attempt to undermine the government'? That is much more accurate than coup.

Words have meanings, and using the words inaccurate/the wrong meanings is saying one thing but meaning another, and the word for that is lying.

[jetpks]

This is the same verbal gymnastics confederate sympathizers use when trying to say that the civil war was about "states rights." All you have to do is follow the logic to its conclusion.

What was the civil war about? States rights. What rights, specifically? The right of states to allow their citizens to practice slavery. Therefore, the civil war was about slavery.

What was jan 6 about? It was about an attempt to undermine the government. An attempt to undermine what, specifically? The election process. Why did they seek to undermine the election process? So that the mob could extra-judicially install a leader of their preference. Another word for this is coup d'etat.

[StanislavPetrov]

>What was jan 6 about?

Jan 6th was about a small number of ignorant people who bought into a bunch of lies. A protest that got out of control. One that was far, far less violent, with far fewer casualties than dozens of protests that happened around the country the prior year. All mobs are bad, all riots are bad. Unfortunately different partisans have been trying to blow up the implications of one riot while downplaying all the others.

[krapp]

People involved have already been charged with seditious conspiracy. Sympathizers were found among the Capitol Police, members of the government openly supported a coup. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may either be impeached or have to resign over his wife's pro-insurrectionist texts to Trump's chief of staff. There were plans. There were conspiracies. We have the receipts.

And stuff is still coming out about Trump. A mysterious seven hour gap in the White House communications logs. A Federal judge ruling that it's "more likely than not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct Congress" attempting to overturn the election results. He called it a "coup in search of a legal theory." Yes, that's not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but it's also not nothing.

You're right that it was far less violent, and had far fewer casualties, but it wasn't just a riot, nor were there just a small number of ignorant people involved. To think that at this point, or to dismiss all concerns as partisan hyperbole, is kind of ridiculous.

[whateveracct]

It was a little more than some randos protesting. That was a sideshow. There were actual members of our government trying to overturn election results.

[Forgeties79]

> All mobs are bad, all riots are bad.

Yet the GOP is sidelining and smearing the few among them who actually want to hold the insurrectionists accountable.

[StanislavPetrov]

Insurrection is an absurdly inaccurate and hyperbolic term to refer to this crowd of misfits and deluded group of people. If you tried to destroy the planet by jumping up and down nobody intelligent would describe your antics as attempted planetary destruction no matter how devout your intent.

[Forgeties79]

A mob that left multiple people dead and did widespread property damage/theft in an effort to overturn a democratic election after being egged on by the outgoing President, calling to hang the Vice President and “stop the steal,” rises to the level of insurrection. They literally attacked the Capitol, they were barely held off from getting their hands on Congress.

If they were able to successfully break into that room while Congress was still in there, what do you think would’ve happened? They would’ve invited them over for tea?

I don’t like engaging in speculation but I think it’s pretty obvious we would’ve had more casualties.

[hackerfromthefu]

I can see where you're coming from.

AFAIK, in common use the word coup involves the military taking control of the government.

[dragonwriter]

> AFAIK, in common use the word coup involves the military taking control of the government.

That is one common kind of coup, but distinguished from the broader category. That's why the phrase “military coup” exists to distinguish the kind of coup where the military (or some part of it) is the main actor in seizing control outside of normal bounds.

[ashtonkem]

You’re using a much more narrow definition of what a coup d’état means.

> The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

Or to use Wikipedia’s definition

> A coup d'état (French for "blow of state"), often shortened to coup in English (also known as an overthrow), is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal seizure of power by a political faction, rebel group, military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.

Yes, the military can be involved in a coup, but the essential definition does not require their involvement. Different terms might be applied if the military is involved, and based on whether or not the military is the primary driver (as in Myanmar) or is backing one side.

[dragonwriter]

> How about 'attempt to undermine the government'? That is much more accurate than coup.

No, attempted coup (specifically, attempted self-coup) is much more accurate.

> Words have meanings

Yes, they do. And the precise political science terms for the coordinated attempts by the 45th President and his allies to extend his powers beyond their lawful duration by extralegal means is “self-coup” or “auto-coup” (in the original French, “autogolpe”), which is a form of coup carried out by or on behalf of the existing leader.

> and using the words inaccurate/the wrong meanings is saying one thing but meaning another, and the word for that is lying.

Yes, that is exactly what you are doing when you explicitly refuse to use the correct term in attempt to minimize the act.

[verve_rat]

Just because it wasn't a very good or well organised coup attempt doesn't mean it wasn't a coup attempt.