Gotcha, I do appreciate you taking the time to reply seriously. My issue with your definition is that means the only thing you'll deem an insurrection is a revolution (basically a successful insurrection).

I think the BLM protests (funny these are always deemed riots by certain folk, reminds me of how the military uses terminology to dehumanize, such as the word target) escalated to insurrection in one scenario that I know of, namely the CHAZ incident. Ultimately, that insurrection failed, since nothing significant changed.

I would argue folks, for some reason, only deem things X when it's too late. That goes for genocide, insurrection (which is done for many reasons along the entire political and human spectrum), slavery, etc.

The BLM protests did at times turn to riots. I don't say that to dehumanize anyone but there was violence and destruction. Mainly because the cause was highjacked by groups that love to break out into violence, such as Antifa.

If we can't call out such groups and recognize the damage they do, what happens to the next protest?

I'm not sure what you mean, where am I unwilling to call out a group?

The comment said BLM riots, which did not happen. In your own words, you are close to realizing why I say it's dehumanizing and meant to impart a meaning that isn't true.

You said: "Mainly because the cause was highjacked by groups that love to break out into violence..."

In other words, you actually do realize they aren't BLM riots. They were BLM protests, that were highjacked by groups outside BLM to result in riots.

So stop conflating riots at a BLM protest with BLM riots. They are not the same thing, and by doing that you attempt to de-legitimize the BLM movement.

I'm honesty not sure why you think I'm not willing to call a riot a riot. I'm just not willing to attribute the riot to BLM, since it doesn't align with their values or leadership whatsoever.

I call riots that happened at BLM protests "BLM riots".

They are not the same thing.

The reason they kept happening is the media, not you, were no willing to call out the violence. They were not willing to out of a fear that they would appear to be disagreeing with the cause.

Then you're willfully engaging in disinformation and dishonesty. If we can't agree to call things what they are, how can we hope to have any sort of discussion?

You have to know that "BLM riots" imparts to those around you a far different message than "riots that broke out at BLM protests". And in an age where folks don't look into things for themselves and rely on trusting others, someone other than me is likely to assume you mean that "BLM was rioting". That's why wording / word choice are so important.

I think the media _did_ call out the violence though, in fact I would say they focused more on that than they did the actual BLM protests (a majority were boring affairs, just folks marching and speaking). The media is more than willing to try and maintain the status quo by focusing on anything but the actual protests, and they do so by focusing on the violence more than anything else. I'm not sure how you came to the exact opposite conclusion.

I feel like they do this to any cause, not just BLM. Doesn't matter if it's a left leaning issue, a right leaning issue, or an issue supported by the majority of Americans. They portray it in whatever way maintains the status quo.

The footage of the people that actually got into the Senate seems to disprove this painting of the events. I didn't see anyone attempting to abolish the government or whatever. Rather, it was a few people taking pictures and standing around. I dont support them but I'm not going to lie about the footage and claim it was anything close to an unarmed insurrection

Violent? 2/10 maybe

Escalating? 0/10 not at all

Attempt to coerce laws? 2/10 not really

I mostly agree. It doesn’t pass my own definition.

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738