It's a bit of a reputation risk, yes. We should be glad some people are willing to take it. "Democracy dies in darkness" or something.
But in general, I think "buy our product if you want to try to overthrow democracy" is just in general, a bad business strategy.
FB tries to moderate the violent comments, Parler did not.
But its clear the reason they're treated different is because Parler took a black and white stance and FB is a value judgement and much harder to criticize.
Parler is just very explicit about this intention, where as Facebook wants you to believe something different but actually only behaves differently as little as needs to maintain the illusion.
In this case, I respect Parler slightly more because at least they're upfront about it. Both are scum and both should go, but at least one is honest about their intentions.
Parler also happens to cater to a common enemy with no political ties or PR appeal, where as Facebook gives you the illusion of being the good guy, all while making money off the same people Parler wants to cater to.
To me, it looks like they selectively moderate the views that give them bad press (ISIS) and enjoy the massive engagement that comes from the conflict.
I'm well aware that the MAGA thing was well beyond a vandalizing mob. But that wasn't an organized coup either.
If you let this become an "existential risk" that overrides all other concerns, you'll find yourself agreeing to some things a previous iteration of yourself would find unpalatable. Worse yet, you may come to regret it in 10 or 20 years.
What are your requirements for an "organized coup?" It seems to me that Parler hosted a bunch of discussion (one might call "organization") about how exactly to storm the capitol (and also refused to remove that discussion when Google/Apple/Amazon asked them to).
Usually a coup d’etat interrupts TV broadcasts immediately. Was there a plan at all?
Edit: the insurrection didn’t even have snipers to try and kill retreating congressbeings. I don’t think it even qualifies as a terrorist act. The gravity of the situation (an election that’s really within a statistical margin of error - if the goal was to ascertain the preferences of a plurality) makes it more than mere vandalism, but emotions are running way too high here.
The political climate may make the “terrorism” label stick. But there was nothing to it remotely resembling a coup.
On the other hand, intent is usually a factor in determining a crime. If someone attempts to murder another person, they still commit the crime of attempted murder, regardless whether the murder was actually successful. So I'm not really convinced by the argument: "it wasn't a coup because it wasn't successful/sophisticated."
Wikipedia defines a coup as
> [The] removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup d'état successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.[1] A coup attempt may refer to a coup in the works or an unsuccessful coup.[1]."
The storm on the capitol fits Wikipedia's definition of an attempted coup:
1. It was an (admittedly incompetent) attempt at removing the existing government from power. (Capitol stormers wanted to force Pence to "declare" Trump as president, as well as capture or kill senators and representatives.)
2. The capitol storm was violent. Five people died, including a police officer.
3. The capitol storm was illegal and unconstitutional. Many stormers have been charged with crimes by the federal government.
4. The stormers wanted to seize power on behalf of the far-right/MAGA political faction.
It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's definition has not changed since the Jan. 6th events [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
If Pence had somehow used ritual features of the rulebook and declared the electoral college invalid, then this would have been a coup (or "self-coup") by the Republican Party. Pence would only have done this if (besides an inclination to "kill democracy") he had secured the allegiance of a number of institutions and set in place the actual conditions for a functioning Trump dictatorship.
Coups are frequently preceded by mass demonstrations clamoring for something radical to be done. But these are not "the seizure of power by a political faction"; they're (1) a symptom of the generalized social dysfunction under which a coup is even thinkable and (2) a legitimizing excuse that new rulers-to-be can invoke to minimize general opposition to their claim to power. The seizure of power takes place elsewhere. Sometimes this is even gradual -- in preparation for a coup, loyalists are put in charge of major institutions, particularly security ones: National Guard, branches of the military, intelligence agencies and so on.
What you had was a protest. An ugly one too; not all protests are "mostly nonviolent".
Agreed, but that's not my claim. My claim is: these people thought that they could seize power by attacking this particular meaning (however absurd that belief might be). This is documented by posts stating their intent on social media, as well as their actions within the capitol. They also acted on their belief and committed a criminal act. So morally speaking, they had the necessary mens rea and actus reus to be guilty of the crime of an attempted coup.
I completely agree with your statement that this attempted coup was inept and therefore ineffective. I also agree that attempt did not share the characteristics of a historically effective coup. However, I disagree with your contention that a skilled implementation of a coup is necessary for an "attempted coup." Skill in an act is sufficient, but not necessary for an "attempt" of the act.
1. Prevent the certification of the election for a few weeks, allowing Trump to be voted into power by the house delegations.
2. Murder a bunch of elected officials.
For democracy to work it would be nice if people were using facts rather than fiction to base their worldview on. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.