[matheusmoreira]

I mean people's speech. Whether their speech is "fake" or not is up to me to determine. I don't want any ministries of truth determining that for me. Especially not one manned by these partisan judges.

And "this" as in a protest? Like countless others before? Whatever. You're not gonna call it a coup, right? Even the Wikipedia article you cited doesn't call it one.

[croes]

The don't call it protest either.

They call it attack and invasion.

The reason why it isn't called a coup is be cause they failed.

And it's not the ministry of truth but multiple independent sources in and outside Brazil.

At a certain point something is obviously fake. And if it's spreading violence it reached the limit of free speech.

[matheusmoreira]

> attack and invasion

Aren't all protests? I don't remember many protests that didn't involve closing down roads, burning things down and whatnot. Protests that don't do things like that are usually so irrelevant they don't get Wikipedia articles written about them.

> The reason why it isn't called a coup is be cause they failed.

It's not called a coup because it wasn't one. A coup attempt would be the military seizing power by force. You know, the people with guns and tanks. A successful coup would be the military trying and succeeding.

There's simply no way you can claim a bunch of people, many of them elderly, equipped with bibles and flags, amounts to a coup attempt.

> And it's not the ministry of truth but multiple independent sources in and outside Brazil.

None of which have the power to censor anything. As it should be.

> At a certain point something is obviously fake.

If it's so obviously fake, then you don't need any censorship either. The fakeness will be self-evident.

[croes]

>Aren't all protests? I don't remember many protests that didn't involve closing down roads, burning things down and whatnot. Protests that don't do things like that are usually so irrelevant they don't get Wikipedia articles written about them.

Most protests are peaceful and even the violent one rarely invade government buildings. Whole different level.

>It's not called a coup because it wasn't one. A coup attempt would be the military seizing power by force. You know, the people with guns and tanks. A successful coup would be the military trying and succeeding.

It doesn't have to be the military. Most coups are by the military but it's not a necessity

>There's simply no way you can claim a bunch of people, many of them elderly, equipped with bibles and flags, amounts to a coup attempt.

No, but for a bunch of people who throw pickaxes and hammers at the police I can.

>None of which have the power to censor anything. As it should be.

That's the road to tyranny. Lies spread faster than the truth.

>If it's so obviously fake, then you don't need any censorship either. The fakeness will be self-evident.

Sadly some people fall for obvious fakes. Just look at all the flat earthers.

[matheusmoreira]

> Most protests are peaceful and even the violent one rarely invade government buildings.

Nah. Occupying Brasília buildings is basically the standard brazilian protest at this point. Happened in 2016 as well, and they too insisted the country was suffering a coup, Probably more examples I can't remember off the top of my head.

> It doesn't have to be the military. Most coups are by the military but it's not a necessity.

In this case it absolutely needs to be the military. Because there's no way you can convince me that a bunch of people with bibles and flags tried to seize power in the brazilian capital.

> That's the road to tyranny. Lies spread faster than the truth.

Lies according to whom? You? This judge-king? Yeah, I'll decide for myself, thank you very much. I'm gonna look at the stuff and I'll reach my own conclusions. I don't need or want the judge's help.

> Sadly some people fall for obvious fakes. Just look at all the flat earthers.

Yeah, and? What are we supposed to do about it? "Help" them think correctly? Put the "right" thoughts into their heads? Send them to a forced reeducation camp? The mere thought of someone being that self-righteous is offensive to me. Even if they're right.

The existence of flat earthers is literally not an argument. I think it's illogical but if they want to believe it then it's their problem. It would be incredibly presumptuous of me to try to put the "correct" thoughts into their minds. If they can't be convinced by the study of physics, we're just gonna have to leave them alone and move on with our lives.

If someone can be duped by propaganda into becoming violent in favor of some cause, then democracy is justified in defending itself. Not a second before. And you don't get to "prevent" such things by censoring the speech that led to it either. Any government that steps over that line is a dictatorship.