The Capitol has never before been breached in this way (unless you are counting the war of 1812) so even if it's impossible to say whether more people are unhinged, clearly, more people are physically attacking the government than ever before. And more people are absolutely threatening their political opponents than ever before. But let's not both-sides this: Republicans are not currently complaining about getting death threats for not supporting impeachment, and neither are Democrats. But people on all sides of the political divide, including election officials and judges put in place by Republicans , are getting threatened by Trump's minions for not supporting his deranged attempts at overthrowing the election results.
You're a bit hung up on it being the first time this precise action has taken place. You could also say BLM occupying part of a city and declaring it a new sovereign territory was the 'first time' that happened (I don't actually know if that's the case, but it's just an example of what I mean). Well so what? So what if something is a brand new action or a repeat of something crazy done before, I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean by that to say that it's a sign of definite escalation? If that's all you mean then I would agree. But then I would ask you right back whether you would agree that the BLM riots and occupying also constituted a new kind of escalation from what America is used to. If you agree to that proposition, then I would propose further than once the violent overthrow of established systems begins escalating on one side it's going to escalate on the other side too. Yeah, yeah, I know, you can use the whataboutism or both-sidism response. That's sort of a catchall, I feel, which eliminates any possibility to put things in their proper context. Even if we agree fully that the Trump supporters have gone to new depths, it doesn't contradict that premise to also admit that they got the cue from the BLM example set for them by their opponents. And I personally have little doubt that the one is at minimum related to the other. For the record I don't think either were good, and again for the record, we can note that no one on either side has been jumping at the chance to denounce the actions taken from those on 'their side'. Liberals here or on my social media (they are more conscientious here) at minimum wouldn't denounce BLM occupying a city, and at times I heard many people outright rallying to the cause. With the Trumpists no one here is rallying to them, but likewise they are carefully avoiding denouncing it. I see a trend here, and if any amicable agreement is to be found I think the double standard is really going to have to go.
I've called it stupid, misguided, and a lot of other pejoratives? But I'm also remembering that there is this thing called "civil disobedience" which obviously many of them "crossed the line" on, but many is not
most. Much like "we" were getting called out for denouncing
the rioters at BLM protests, as some on here wanted to read "rioters" as "protesters" in general. They need to bear in mind that not everyone who found themselves wandering around on Capital Hill did anything to warrant outright denouncement, much like those "useful idiots" I kept complaining about at the Portland riots where peaceful protesters would simply stand around in the street and watch as the rioters went about doing "their thing" at the Federal Buildings there.
The people who went there with malicious intent need to be caught, and they need to have the book thrown at them. (I've also pretty much said the same before) But as we're in a nation of laws and you can't draft and enforce laws after the fact, "new legislation" isn't going to make what happened un-happen, it isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, or heal the injuries of others by some miraculous means. But new "targeted legislation" has all kinds of ways that it can go very badly wrong, especially when it is being pushed by people who seem to more fixated on scoring political points against their
political enemies rather than trying to restore sanity to government.
But to get back to where I started and why outright denouncement isn't happening: There is a place for
peaceful civil disobedience, and that
can mean trespass,
but those people better be ready for jail time. I can respect people who do that and don't whine when they get charged.
Which is why there is some nuance to be had here: Some of the people who went into Capital Hill last week weren't destroying things. They weren't there to threaten people, they did go with intent to
protest and part of that objective likely included getting arrested/charged for doing non-violent and non-destructive things. It just turned out that not everyone they were with had the same intentions.
