Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dangerous Words Matter
Have you noticed how the word choice and hyperbole of the Left has ramped up since the January 6 incident? And have you noticed how weak the protest has been from the Republicans to refuse to accept language like “insurrection” and “coup”? I don’t
know about you, but I feel deeply the dangers of this language, and I predict that not only will it worsen and intensify, but we are all personally going to be vulnerable to these attacks and the actions that may follow them.
Sen. Chuck Schumer established the lexicon to describe this event:
On 6 January, presumptive Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the Capitol protesters ‘rioters and insurrectionists, goons and thugs, domestic terrorists.’ The US left-leaning mainstream media echoes the narrative, running stories claiming that the president was up to nothing short of a coup and that he ‘should be criminally indicted for inciting insurrection.’
For this discussion (at least initially) I’m not going to talk about President Trump’s role in this event, except to establish my basic beliefs: He didn’t intend to incite violence; a small group of protestors got carried away and others were drawn into the drama; there was no intention to incite an insurrection, nor take over the government. You are free to disagree, but I think it’s more valuable to look at the hyperbole used by the Left and the reason it is so threatening to our country, although the language is intended, in part to shame and discredit Trump. Professor Joseph Siracusa, a US politics expert from Curtin University, Australia made the following comments:
‘They want him arrested, they want him shamed, and they want to attack all of his supporters,’ Siracusa notes. ‘In short, they want to cancel his career. And Twitter people have followed suit. You know, they cancelled his Twitter account, which had 88 million followers. They cancelled his Facebook account. So what they’re trying to do is to destroy his legacy.’
But there’s much more going on here than destroying Trump’s future. One writer stated the following regarding the goals of the Left:
What they are doing is methodically intentional, and the reason is crystal clear. They want to paint a dark, ominous picture of the American political landscape, one that firmly places anyone who questioned the 2020 election or even supported former President Donald Trump as not just political adversaries, but enemies and even outlaws who want to overthrow a democratically elected government.
It’s worth noting that where the most extreme language used against the Right in the past were words like Nazi and evil—words that describe ideas and philosophies—but now we are hearing words like insurrectionists, coup, outlaws and thugs—words that are identified with brutality and violent action. We are no longer simply nasty people; we are literally a physical threat to the country and to democracy.
The same writer points out his concerns for this rhetoric:
If they can paint the right as insurrectionists and coup plotters, they can then justify any method to stop and/or punish the insurrection and coup plotting. If you think they’d never do it, consider all the ways the world has changed because of a virus with a 99.87% survival rate. This is why it’s so important to push back against that narrative. Indeed, what happened that day was stupid, tragic, and completely unnecessary, but it was NOT an insurrection, nor was it a coup attempt. It wasn’t even close.
The media made a half-hearted and feeble effort to explain how their language escalated in their description of January 6. And then there was this comment from the AP:
News organizations have been careful not to use words like rebellion, revolt or uprising, which could cast those who stormed the Capitol in a heroic light, he said.
In its coverage, the Times has called it a ‘mob attack,’ ‘deadly riot’ and ‘violent assault,’ and said Trump supporters ‘laid siege’ to the Capitol. The Post has talked of a ‘horde of rioters’ and ‘terrifying attack.’
‘It’s hard to overstate what happened,’ said Al Tompkins, a faculty member at the journalism think tank Poynter Institute.
Seriously? Are none of these descriptions “overstated”? Does Mr. Tompkins think that the “attack” was so horrendous that there is no way to exaggerate what happened or its implications?
Then NPR provided an assessment of their coverage:
At 3:44 p.m., Managing Editor for Enterprise and Planning Gerry Holmes issued a newsroom-wide directive to call them ‘pro-Trump extremists’ not ‘domestic terrorists.’ This was the first decision that steered the language away from ‘protest.’ A half-hour later, he expanded that language to authorize the use of ‘mob’ and ‘insurrection. Two hours later, ‘rioters’ was added to the list.
I wonder what Mr. Holmes learned in a one-half hour that justified his insisting the protestors be called extremists and not terrorists, to deciding that the appropriate language was “mob” or “insurrection.”
He didn’t. He probably was following the Leftists and the rest of the media to figure out how extreme he could be. He discovered that he could call the event just about anything that he wished.
* * * *
So what can we learn from all this word-smithing and hyperbole? First, it’s clear that once the media and legislators mostly agreed among themselves that they could use extreme language, they did just that. In part, it was an attack on President Trump. But more than that, they wanted to make sure that Trump’s followers—in fact, anyone on the political Right–would be tarred with the ugliest, violent, and dangerous descriptors possible. We are all dangerous—guilt by association. We all have the potential of being thrown in jail, just like those who were arrested on January 6, and were held indefinitely. Not only our words will make us vulnerable, but our “reputations” as insurrectionists and leaders of coups.
And what are the Republicans doing? They chose to vote for awarding the Capitol Police medals for their response to January 6, in a bill that included the “insurrection language.” Few people refused to vote against the bill:
Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert said he opposed the bill because it mentioned ‘armed insurrectionists,’ although the legislation itself made no mention of ‘armed’ rioters.
‘I was concerned about language preceding the honoring of the Capitol Police because some of it was neither true nor accurate, including saying we had an armed insurrection,’ Gohmert said. ‘Because we found out, no one that came in the Capitol was armed. So rather than having false information being voted for, I preferred to have a build [sic] that honored the Capitol Police without having false statements in it. That’s why I took that out and honored the police.’
I’m glad the Capitol Police stepped in, in spite of being ill-informed in advance about the potential dangers of stepping in. But I have one question for the Republicans who voted for the medals bill and kept silent—
Who will protect the nation, when the Left finally decides the next time there’s a crisis, to call those on the Right insurrectionists?
What will you do then?
Published in Politics
That’s an interesting premise, @bryangstephens, for a number of reasons. First, if we are not human beings, then they have the right to treat us in any way they choose, without regret. Second, if we do not value ourselves as human beings, better yet, as valuable human beings (maybe that’s redundant) we do not understand the disdain with which they see us and treat us. We comply with their demands, because we deserve no better. I have to think this one over.
That is how I see it, psychologically .
Conservatives and Trump Supporters are not synonymous.
There are four different groups of conservatives and three different groups of Trump supporters.
First, there are NT’s and NAT’s who are conservatives, but not Trump supporters.
Second, there are Trump supporters who liked his policies but do not support his behavior since the election and 1/6.
Third, there are some Trump supporters who feel that what happened on 1/6 was a good thing, or at least an unbad thing.
Fourth, there are Trump supporters who are somewhere between the second and third groups.
So different sorts supported Trump for different reasons. Hardly surprising as the majority started out supporting almost any of the other Republicans. Trump got more votes than anyone ever so its impossible to lump them in simple categories. Then there are some who simply can’t figure much out, are also diverse, but mostly Democrats and anti Trump.
I agree with @iwalton, Gary. Besides, I see no benefit from creating all these divisions, since in reality, they only divide us further instead of bringing us together.
No kidding.
But I was not making them so. Not sure why you needed to even comment on it.
Much simpler: (1) Those who think that the Democrats are making wrongful use of Jan 6 (whether or not one regards it as a fiasco) and (2) those who don’t seem to mind or even endorse that misuse.
Works for me!
Thank you for the clarification. Works for me.
If you think the Democrats make any distinction at all between these groups I think you are being naive.
How about this: (1) there are Republican and Democrat patriots who want to insure that no mob ever breaches the Capitol again, and tries to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and (2) there are a few Republicans who are seeking to whitewash and excuse the violent attacks on law enforcement and people like Trump, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks and Andy Biggs who are seeking to memory hole this horrible, horrible day. Please count me in the first group.
I hope that Trump, Gosar, Brooks and Biggs are subpoenaed and put under oath as to their behavior.
Okay. Clarified. You are in the pro-misuse group.
Yes: hysterical is an accurate description of their reactions. No one but the police were armed in that group. The only person killed was an unarmed veteran woman. But the Democrats and the Media (they are not two separate groups) are successfully creating a complete lie about this event.
I think that you are wrong on four counts. First, Ashli Babbitt was killed as she was crawling through the last opening where she could assault member’s of congress. Her death, while regrettable, was caused by her actions. See the 28 minute point of this 40 minute documentary film. https://ricochet.com/995335/a-40-minute-documentary-of-what-happened-at-the-capitol-on-january-6-2021-from-the-new-york-times/
Second, there were rioters who died at the event. One in particular dies when she got crushed by other rioters, and the police were unable to reach her due to the riot. I forget what point that was in this 40 minute film. https://ricochet.com/995335/a-40-minute-documentary-of-what-happened-at-the-capitol-on-january-6-2021-from-the-new-york-times/
Third, Brian Sicknick died the next day after having two seizures, after being sprayed with some sort of anti-bear spray. Another four officers have committed suicide after depression caused or worsened by their hours of medieval combat with the rioters.
Fourth, while the rioters were not armed with guns, they were armed with poles and bear spray. They also took officer’s guns from them, and crushed an officer’s head in a doorway.
Actually I am in the Pro=Truth, and Anti-Whitewash group. I want this riot to be fully investigated, and the defendants to be prosecuted and punished for their first disruption of the peaceful transfer of power in American history. Otherwise, the next time they try this, they will look back on 1/6/20 as a training exercise, just as the Beer Hall Putsch turned out to be a training exercise for the Brown Shirts.
FIFY.
I can go with your additions as they were presumed by me.
But I think that the items crossed out must be considered by the judge in sentencing. A person who burns down an unoccupied church should be treated more harshly than a person who burns down an unoccupied business. A person who starts a fist fight in a church should be treated more harshly than a person who starts a fist fight in a bar. A person who destroys property in a church should be treated more harshly than a person who destroys property of similar value elsewhere.
Hmm. So the Capitol is a Temple.
Well, Jesus was crucified in part for wanting to cleanse the temple. I wonder who profaned the temple more?
Ah no. But the Capitol is not just another government building. This is why the 9/11 hijackers wanted to blow it up.
Please provide the acceptable target list for those who want to protest on behalf of free, fair, and auditable elections.