• SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t believe you’ve honestly thought through this idea that protestors who caused admittedly significant property damage and disruption are worse than protestors who intended to overthrow the government.

    I find paraphrasing arguments helps you see if they make sense. Think about making that argument in court. “Sure the defendant intended to sabotage the election, but these other guys trashed a car and occupied a park! That’s definitely worse!”

    • doingless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not bought in to this train of thought but I know many who are. I would say that I don’t think most people on the right think the protest was an attempt to overthrow the government though. They think it was a protest of what they perceived to be a stolen election. Obviously there were people involved with more nefarious intent though.

      I know exactly one person who was there (that I know of), she’s a sweet retired little old lady who bought into the stolen election rhetoric and just went there to protest. Which is protected speech and shouldn’t be demonized as a blanket as if everyone there wanted to overthrow the govt.

      Attempting to overthrow the govt doesn’t actually pale to what happened in Seattle but the level of violence involved actually did.