Assuming you mean the claims about the “mostly peaceful protests”–that is a factually accurate statement, and thus not comparable at all.
The big lie in that case was in taking isolated violent incidents, exaggerating them, and then making it sound like that was every single protest—that cities were under attack. The big lie here—in the OP, not from you—is to try and argue that the Capitol riot and insurrection were actually a non-violent protest—that no actual attack occurred. It was just a “normal tourist visit.”
Your argument, on the other hand, is a “both sides” argument. These are an attempt to defend something that is so bad you can’t directly defend it. So instead you do so by comparing it to something else to make it seem less bad.
And the thing you are minimizing was a terrorist attack on the US government to install their leader as president. It was people in open rebellion against the United States of America.
There is a huge, huge world of difference here. This was an attempt to overthrow our government. No amount of saying “but the other side” can defend it. This isn’t some political one-upmanship game. An attack on the US Congress is an attack on democracy itself.
Also there’s just no way to spin this “What about the George Floyd protests?!” as a good faith argument.
It’s not like there are any Republican senators arguing we need to get a Jan 6th investigation started ASAP, and an investigation of the protests. It’s purely a deflection attempt and they don’t actually care about what happened in either case.
But, they’re scrambling for any possible excuse to sweep this under the rug.
I mean, you had Senator Roy Blunt claiming that it’s “too early” for such an investigation and we “don’t know enough yet” for such an investigation to start.
Wut?!
Seems like a great time to have the department of redundancy department do an investigation to gather information and make a recommendation as to whether an investigation should be done.
I don’t see the relevance of any of this. No two things are exactly alike.
It’s hard to know the percentage of people who entered the capitol peacefully vs the percentage who fought their way in. Personally I suspect that the former group is by far larger, because despite 4 1/2 months and an enormous amount of effort, only a few hundred people have been arrested and most of those charged with things like trespassing.
I don’t think looking at the ratio of footage is at all meaningful, since whatever the ratio of actual events, it’s obvious that the more sensational violent parts are going to dominate the media. No one is interested in video of people walking peacefully into the capitol.
The point of the comparison is not to directly compare the January 6 riot with the George Floyd riots, as many posters here have treated it. Rather, the comparison to of the focus in characterizing one versus characterising the other, and the extent to which such characterizations amount to a “Big Lie”.
Whatever the percentages, the George Floyd riots were a hugely violent deal. They caused $1B to $2B in insurable losses (possibly more). That’s a big high impact deal. But people who are sympathetic to the broader aims of the protests prefer to constantly emphasize the non-violent percentages, because they are sympathetic to the cause and don’t want the violence to dominate the image of these protests.
By that same process, people who are sympathetic to the broader cause espoused by the January 6 rioters don’t want the violence to dominate the impage of those protests.
FTR, I myself am not sympathetic to that broader cause, and think the Trump stolen election claims are bogus. But once you buy into that claim, then focusing on the mostly peaceful protesters is not unlike characterizing the George Floyd protests as mostly peaceful. Technically accurate, but not necessarily meaningful in context.
How about focusing on this: the aims of the George Floyd protests (reduce police mistreatment of black people) are positive, noble, and in keeping with the best traditions of America, while the aims of the Jan 6 insurrection were to overturn a lawful election and do violence to public officials (i.e. "hang Mike Pence), which are the opposite of positive, noble, and in keeping with the best traditions of America?
I think an investigation should be delayed for at least 50 years. That way, tempers will have cooled – or else exploded and burned the whole country down.
Oh, I don’t know. All of your posts are exactly alike. But I agree about their relevance.
No it isn’t. That percentage is zero. Whether they injured anyone or broke anything, if they were there at all they were protesting the peaceful transfer of power, and even just following the crowd into the Capitol after barricades had been broken is a not-peaceful action.
I know I’m going to take a lot of heat for this but I don’t totally agree. From a high-level view one could say that both were demonstrations and riots to confront perceived injustices. I think some of the conservatives’ dismay at the violence over the summer is justifiable.
That said, there are major differences when one looks at the details. To me the biggest difference is pondering the answer to this question: Would Chauvin have been convicted of anything if there had been no violent protests?
That’s kind of the point. You’re fine with just assuming that the aims of the January 6 riot was to hang Mike Pence or something similar because a few out of tens of thousands of rioters expressed such sentiments, but you wouldn’t be nearly as happy with assigning such aims to the George Floyd riots despite the actions of many rioters.
Leaving that aside, sometimes things can be discussed in more than one context. The need to protect people from violent protestors is also a valid context. Seeking to deflect attention away from the violence of the mostly peaceful protestors when the context is about the suffering of people harmed by the rioters is also invalid.
What am I assuming? We have lots of factual information about the lead-up/preparations to Jan 6 and what happened that morning – everything that I’m aware of points to intentions to use force/threat of force to “persuade” lawmakers to overturn the election results.
I’m not going to comment on whether it’s justifiable, because I don’t think it matters in the context of what I was saying.
To make it more explicit, I would not personally be against an investigation of the George Floyd protests. As long as it has similar subpoena rules to at least reduce the chance of it becoming a circus. Heck, investigate police brutality along the way.
What’s cynical and obviously partisan OTOH, is in the context of a Jan 6th commission for Republican leaders to be deflecting to “What about the summer protests?”. Right now we’re talking about the insurrection, and the fact that the best argument they can think of for not starting an investigation immediately is “whatabout” speaks volumes.
The George Floyd protests happened in states all across America. If the governments of those states and cities want to hold hearings on those individual protests, let them. “States rights” yeah?
The January 6 riot happened on our federal property and our federal representatives are asking for a federal investigation. That event has no relation to the multitude of police brutality protests that happened across the country. Congress is talking about THIS EVENT only.
Why do you ignore part of what iiandyiiii said? Why did you just skip over “to overturn a lawful election” and focus on “do violence to public officials”? I think it’s because it undermines your attempts to draw a false equivalence here.
You’re trying to make this appear to be no big deal, like some protesters waved some signs, nothing more.
And yet here are people literally engaging in siege warfare against the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, while the legislature, and the Vice President of the United States, are engaged in the performance of their constitutionally mandated duties.
I don’t want to hear any more whatabout this and whatabout that. There’s no comparison. It’s beyond disingenuous to compare the Capitol riot to the summer protests, it’s actually an attempt to justify an attempt to violently prevent the government of the United States from peacefully transitioning from one administration to the next, as the Constitution requires.
And yet it’s “conservatives” who always loudly proclaim their allegiance to and reverence for the Constitution.
And even if it was okay to say ‘well, what about the summer protests’. I don’t think you’ll find any dem leaders that would say ‘well, if you’re going to start prosecuting those guys, then forget the whole thing’. Remember, not only were the summer protest turned riots not meant as a direct attack on the government, but they certainly didn’t go into it with the mindset that the government would stand with them.
If, leading up to Jan 6, the government told the people planning to storm the building that they WILL be arrested and they WILL be charged and they will not be pardoned and they will likely see jail time (instead of encouraging them), I think there would have been a considerably smaller turnout.
But “intentions” on the part of how many people? A few Proud Boys emailing each other doesn’t characterize a crowd of ten thousand people most of whom were completely unafilliated with them (or anyone else). Unless you’re specifically looking to make that characterization.