The US could have been (and definitely was) pretty dumb and malevolent and yet still been smarter and more benevolent than all the other dumb malevolent countries out there, at some time or another. — Pfhorrest

Than all the other malevolent countries. True. But what about Britain, Australia, Canada? America may have had more wealth than these countries, but were they benevolent? They did demand their pound of flesh from Britain for loans that kept Britain on rations after the war.

Edit: American exceptionalism, what is it?

Well, there was the great generation, the folks who fought and won in WW2. — Olivier5

Those guys basically saved the world. — Olivier5

Not them alone though. Ironically the USSR was part of it too. Are they part of the guys that saved the world? But let’s say you’re right. It’s a very short period over the span of American history.

I never read Heideggar but he might be gone too. — BitconnectCarlos

Considering that you haven’t read Heideggar why then do you think he should be gone.

That’s an odd statement in a discussion about Fascism.

a nation which was one the smartest and most benevolent on Earth — Olivier5

Is it possible that was never really true, only a belief or hope? And if it was like that, then when?

The mob of the street is now well entrenched to US politics. — ssu

You’re probably right here. It’s possibly similar in Europe. I’m not sure about that. To combat this I think the average person has to be more proactive in politics. But they’re also locked out of that process. The battle with daily life saps them. Which works well for politicians. Obviously violence doesn’t work because it frightens people. Insecurity is a powerful deterrent to challenging the system. Who can begin this process, where does the best ground lie? But whatever, people have to get more active. But activated by what? By issues or potential leaders or their personal situation? The poor can’t fight, the middle classes feel threatened by all sides. The young could do it but they seem to be unaware of history and politics.

What do you think?

Let’s make sure we get every word right while our Capitol building was just mobbed and desecrated. That’s what really matters right now. — Xtrix

Right, like calling an injury a murder without evidence.

So you feel a need to keep informing me of that?

Grow up.

Oh, I see. You disagree with me.

That's what they meant. — Wheatley

Well that’s what they should have said.

You come after me every time. Is there a reason for this?

The cop was posing. — Wheatley

Right.

This was on StreetlghtX’s post “ Cops are taking selfies with the terrorists.”

Big difference.

Well it seems like the reported death of a police officer has been declared inaccurate. Now do you get the point.

I'm getting tired of your selective sensitivity — Baden

Here we go again. Sensitivity about using words accurately?

Maybe you should learn a little about "free speech." — tim wood

Well you’re entitled to your point of view.

Maybe you can clarify? — tim wood

There’s nothing to clarify. Anyone is entitled to their point of view, otherwise why free speech.

It's OK if we don't like each other all the time, especially re politics. — Baden

Well if we can’t do it rationally on a philosophy forum then why judge those on the street?

The disgust levelled at those violent cosplayers ought to be separated from the celebration of a symbol of power and bloody oppression. — StreetlightX

Exactly. They went for the source of power and corruption.

What? I said it wasn't a coup. — Baden

I was’t meaning you there. It was in reference to the word “murder”. What’s the point in using that word when you agree that it’s a trial that decides that?

I don’t understand the rush to use hyperbole and the pleasure people seem to get on this forum by using it. It doesn’t make things clearer. So why?

Technically, you're correct, of course, we can't say it was murder for sure until someone is convicted in a court of law. — Baden

So why say it? Why use words like “coup” or “putsch”?

Edit: so the point is what?

A failed attempt at a putsch - certianly more so than a coup or 'insurrection' - is, I think, probably the most appropriate way to speak of it. — StreetlightX

I don’t think it’s even that.

Where should a protest end, how far should it go? What’s the point of a protest that requires permission to protest against the very authority that hands out the permission? What does it take to make change, and who’s right or wrong? Can change come from elections? What does real change mean?

All over the world people are protesting against their governments or their actions. Whatever the issue the consistency is people taking to the streets because of their dissatisfaction. All over the world people feel that governments are no longer representing their interests.

If you support Antifa protests then you must support BLM and consequently you must also support the Capitol Building invasion. If what makes one more legitimate than the other is the level of violence or the things they stand for, then you delegitimise all protests and reduce them to permission granted by the authorities which weakens them until they’re just empty gestures.

Governments treat the people like fools. Not only do they deprive them of jobs, income, health and security but they deprive them of dignity. How are people meant to fight back? How long before they come for you and there’s no longer room for effective resistance?

Yes, it might have been just an accident. The police officer could have been attempting to head the fire extinguisher thinking it was a soccer ball. I'm going with presuming the most likely scenario. — Baden

Apparently on this OP we can use words as loosely as we like. The story of the fire extinguisher comes from a Twitter story, not the most reliable source for anything. Without evidence how can we say murder? Maybe it might have been but we don’t know that yet, unless there’s been an update from a reliable source. The “most likely scenario” is not how justice works, not yet anyway.

Maybe not murder though.

Murdered? Cause of death confirmed?

45% of Republican supporters stand by Trump's coup attempt. — fdrake

This is not entirely true, but it’s how things are done these days.. 45% of interviewed Republicans said they support the protestors. They did not say they supported “a coup”. Does anyone really believe these people were attempting a coup? That’s what the media have called it, even an insurrection. It was a violent protest carried out by people who believed they were wronged. That’s not a coup. Where’s the evidence of a coup? That these people intended to remove the government? How exactly?

Drop the act of being objective or truly interested in any way. Just jump right to the complete rationalization of what happened yesterday. Spare yourself the mental gymnastics. — Xtrix

I’m surprised you found it necessary to pick out my posts (naturally you left out the resolution to my questions) so that you could then make your accusation. I’m interested in this a great deal, just not from your perspective. But I get that this is an OP where you can legitimately behave in a way that would be unacceptable on other OPs. Still, what was your point?

All I hear and read about is the sanctimonious idea that what has been happening is not America, but it is America.

America behaves as if it’s the only country that has free elections and it’s all such a tragedy for Democracy. Somehow they can’t see who and what they are. It’s a lie that’s crumbling. All they possess is power. Maybe it can be saved, maybe not. But doing the same thing over and over leads to the same thing.

I think "terrorism" in general is a pretty shitty term that no criminal code should have. It's a political term to paint opponents in a certain light. — Benkei

Yes, the authorities can define anyone they want as a terrorist, from any side of politics, and therefore harass, convict them and remove them.

But the purpose here is to draw attention to people who claim as a matter of right under freedom to do what they want; and to the harm they do, potentially to be sure, but too often as a matter of fact. — tim wood

The problem is, I think, that you’re using two meanings of freedom. Is, in your opinion, the freedom to do what you want related to Kant’s idea? It seems to me this second freedom is so meaningless that there’s no way to use it in the context of your OP.

It certainly satisfies condition (B), given that Pence was there, and I assume also satisfies condition (C). — Michael

Yes, I agree.

Edit: however (there’s always a however) how many times have laws been broken by people who sought to change things? Authorities are very good at asking us to use reason, remain calm, follow the law, demonising the protestors, digging into the private lives of people who challenge them, and claiming the moral high ground.

any restricted building

Is it a restricted building?

So unjust, when it could have been — Wayfarer

Is it because he’s smoking, or squinting, or just looking, what?

unlawfully storming the Capitol building? — Pfhorrest

How do you define that? What law are you referring to?

Obviously the people. These people shook up the system. I don’t have to like them to see that.
— Brett

But what is 'the people' in this case. I always get itchy when 'the people' are mentioned, because it is usually an appropriation by a small group who claims to represent them, — Tobias

You’ve taken that line out of context. The line was in response to frank who asked whose side I was on.

Who's side are you on?
— frank

Obviously the people. These people shook up the system. I don’t have to like them to see that. — Brett

By the people I mean:

Left or right it’s the people against a heartless system. — Brett

[

8) In order to act morally, one must be free to act.
9) Duty is the obligation to act in accordance with morality.
10) Realization of purpose under morality is the highest aim of mankind.
11) It follows, then, that moral actions are the only actions of moral worth, that they fall under duty, and that to act in accordance with them requires freedom, and that to the extent that freedom is diminished, the individual is not free. — tim wood

Yes, absolutely.

Why not?

Edit: is there something I’m missing in the video?

What I was getting at is are there circumstances someone might harm themselves without hurting others? Like someone without any family commits suicidal?

lmao incredible — Maw

Can you explain that?