Yes. Both groups deserve mockery for their insane behavior. If you didn't know, the "Summer of Love" is a mocking name for the BLM riots because of the incredible amount of violence at those protests. The MAGA coup is a tongue-in-cheek way to refer to the idiots running through the capital thinking they could stop an election.
BLM did not riot in seattle. First hand can attest to that. There were hooligans who did on the first night, after the BLM protest. They were put down violently by the police, who continued to be violent against peaceful protestors n the following days until the east precinct was vacated. The police leaving restored peace. A few days later the chop finally became dangerous at night. Still, the SPD were actively antagonists, protestors lost eyes, many other injuries from spd were reported and over 100 incidents of reported and confirmed police brutality in just a few days. The fact it was peaceful as soon as the police left the east precinct says it all
Oh it was peaceful when no one was stopping “protestors” from breaking whatever laws whenever they wanted? I’m shocked.
The CHOP experienced four shootings in 10 days. A 16-year-old and a 19-year-old died in the shootings, and four other people were shot, including a 14-year-old boy.
Thank goodness the police weren’t around - it was important and necessary for those people to die.
Seattle right now just reminds me of a tragedy of the commons example or like a nice car gifted to a teenager. Beautiful but not being taken care of by functional responsible adults.
Straw arguments aside, my point is you can't say "BLM rioted" (at least in Seattle where I have 1st person experience). BLM held protests during the day and the marches were peaceful. BLM did not run the CHOP, they had speakers there, but did not run it. Saying "BLM rioted" is propaganda and seeks to draw a false equivalence. It's commonly lost that the experience in Seattle is very different from what happened in Portland. In Seattle the police moved in and cracked skulls for a week, so I agree "not being taken care of by functional responsible adults."
Sorry to call a response straw arguments, but nothing of what I have said is refuted by acknowledging violence occurred in the CHOP. Though, that is not without its own nuance.
As a first person account, and not as talking point, this was just not the case. The police responded with an aggregate violence that was greater than the night-time-post-protest issues that were happening - the CHOP brought immediate relief and was pretty close to a festival atmosphere for its entire first week (again, not as a talking point, as observed - the CHOP was in our commute path to work and we traversed it daily).
I don't want to toss talking points back and forth. An important difference of perspective is the role of the police presence. In Seattle, the police were largely inflaming the situation (1) and their departure defused it (for some time until, other problems cropped up). This is an important difference compared to the narrative that the police were doing too little (they were doing quite a lot).
"Without working with protesters to understand their goals and work toward mutually agreeable solutions, the department continued to make tactical decisions that did not de-escalate the situation,” the report says."
Coming from 'k5', a very conservative viewpoint, saying "did not de-escalate" is another way of saying they were doing nothing to help things, but make them worse. The after-action report of the police response that the article is reporting on largely found low incidents of police brutality (a controversial finding), but the police in a number of ways could have avoided antagonizing the crowd.
*Which is all to say, in Seattle, had the police protected the protests & protestors, it would have all been different.
Come on man, “straw man” and “false equivalence” in the same response to me?
People were ultimately shot and killed in CHOP - and not that long in to its existence.
You walked in CHOP on your work commute - presumably in day time light hours and it was festival like? I find that believable.
But crowds change at night. I can say the same thing when I walk on James and 3rd during the day. It’s a shitshow but it’s mostly drunk and high homeless people. At night and in the dark I’m definitely not walking there.
Anyways I’m new to seattle. A liberal group in a liberal city in a liberal state befouling it’s own nest isn’t inspiring to me. I guess it is to you but to reach their own.
"From June 1 to June 8, protesters and police in riot gear face off near SPD’s East Precinct headquarters. Seattle’s mayor would announce a temporary ban on tear gas, but the situation had already developed into a tinderbox."
"Tammy Morales: If police had just let people, who were protesting police brutality by the way, take up space and use their deescalation training instead of using tear gas and flash-bangs, things wouldn’t have escalated."
"Elizabeth Turnbull: I was one of those people who felt the feeling of acid in my lungs and the pain in my eyes, running with all these people in the dark, because we’re closing our eyes."
So yes, Seattle went from a warzone on Capitol hill that went on for a solid week to calm. That calm lasted for a full week - day & night. Eventually the CHOP did become unsafe at night, after that first week -due to an influx of homeless & campers.
There is an open controversy as well whether the police made the CHOP more dangerous by funneling gangs and dangerous people into it: "Activists claim that police allowed the violence to seep in by being absent from streets surrounding the CHOP." https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/seattle-chop-zone-police...
Ergo, week 2, the CHOP became essentially a homeless encampment, infiltrated by gangs and was less a protest zone at that point. Even with that going on, the level of violence observed there is still not strongly different than the average level of violence otherwise seen through-out Seattle in normal times. This is in contrast to dozens of daily injuries as police rioted against protestors.
Week 2! That’s nothing! The site degenerated so quickly because it attracted people who did not want to obey laws - criminals, gangs, and homeless as you say. That’s just entropy.
That’s such rapid decomposition. I hope the original message of CHOP was worth those more than average amount of deaths.
As far as I know, only MAGA morons were killed in the protests, and largely got what they deserved. There was some fake news about a police officer getting killed with a fire extinguisher, but it turned out that it was a death from natural causes and there was no fire extinguisher attack at all. Most of the people arrested for entering the capital had been waved in by police holding the doors open, and the ones who didn't plead guilty are largely getting acquitted of trespassing charges. As far as I know, almost nobody arrested for Jan 6 had an assault or battery charge, despite how zealous the prosecution of those people has been.
They had no organisation, clear goal, or strategy. Real attempted coups - or "uprisings" if you're sympathetic - are much different.
They involve much larger and more organised masses of people, police being neutralised (either they support the coup, or asked to stand down, or pro-coup paramilitaries have rendered them a non-issue) and close coordination with the leader they are attempting to install. Aid by a more powerful outside force is also very, very common.
So I think attempted coup is a very grandiose term for a bunch of amateurs who were allowed to wander in, posed for photos, stole a podium, and put their feet on a desk. They didn't have the support of police, military, civil service, media, the government, or any foreign government.
I agree, once they beat enough law enforcement officers with their weapons and smashed their way into the rotunda, there's even a video where one of them says "what now?" and they start smoking weed. Planning wasn't their strong point.
But none of the things you listed are required to be a coup. I don't think you understand:
> coups - or "uprisings" if you're sympathetic
These are not synonymous. Jan 6 was a violent "uprising" whether you're sympathetic or not. The simple fact that they accomplished nothing means it wasn't a coup.
I'm just pointing out differing terms for the same thing.
If a media outlet supports a coup or an attempted coup, they will tend to call it an "uprising", "revolution" or similar. "Coups" are used when the coverage is negative.
Likewise, uprisings and revolutions get rid of "regimes", while coups overthrow "democratically elected governments". Exactly how democratic either the aforementioned "regime" or "elected government" actually is doesn't seem to factor into things.
MAGA coup on Jan 6
Do you really need to use such insanely partisan terminology? It's so blatant I can't tell if it was made tongue-in-cheek or not.