Thread by @joe_rigney

Some reflections as things become clearer in the aftermath of last week (apologies for the length). Obviously the situation is still in process and I've not looked at everything. But the following (at this point) seems to me to be the case:

At the Capital we've got different groups:
1a) normal marchers, waving American flags & wearing MAGA hats (who went back to their hotels after the rally)
1b) Selfie-taking attention-seekers: those who were there to see a show & those who were there to put on a show (Viking man)

1c) Angry protestors who wanted to put pressure on their representatives about certifying the election.
1d) Angry rioters who wanted to find their political opponents & beat them into submission (& who assaulted & killed police officers in the process).

1e) Ex-military types with tactical equipment who were there to do something very bad
1f) “journalists” of various kinds who were there to document the whole thing (and who were sometimes mistaken for rioters in the aftermath)

Note: to be as clear as possible: 1d and 1e were horrifically wicked and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Also, Office Eugene Goodman is a hero and deserves a medal: thehill.com/homenews/senat…

From what I can tell, the different groups got into the Capital in different ways:
2a) Some breached the front door, overpowering police.
2b) Some were let in one of the entrances by the police (after taking selfies with them).

2c) Some came later to either of those entrances and just walked in (and therefore didn't grasp the full import of what was going on).
2c) Some broke windows and were clearly coordinating something very evil.

Now, among the Republican political class, there are different groups as well:
3a) Republicans who think all the talk of election fraud is crazy
3b) Republicans who think there are legitimate questions worth investigating, but not right now and not by denying electors

3c) Republicans who think there are legitimate questions worth investigating, and the best way is by objecting to the electors (Hawley, et al)
3d) Republicans who believe (or pretend to believe) the crazy conspiracy level stuff
3e) Trump

Outside of DC, you’ve got
4a) All-in MAGA-type Trump supporters who believe the craziest conspiracies about the election and who believe Trump is a patriotic mastermind who is about to spring his trap to take out the Deep State.

4b) Trump supporters who have real questions about election integrity, but not the fever swamp stuff, & see Trump as a wrecking ball that is upending an established political class who embraces and defends all kinds of “respectable” nonsense & evil.

https://twitter.com/joe_rigney/status/1347627655848407041

4c) Reluctant Trump voters who have questions about election integrity.
4d) Reluctant Trump voters who think he lost b/c he alienated the suburbs & energized Democrats
4e) Conservatives & moderates who didn’t vote for Trump, but go to church with people in 4a-4d

And then you've got variations & shades within all of that. My claim is simply that these sorts of distinctions matter. All last year, we were repeatedly told that distinctions like that were important to make concerning the riots around the country.

We must distinguish peaceful protestors from violent rioters from anarchic accelerationists from opportunistic looters.

At any given riot, there were those who lit the fire, those who wanted to occupy the government, those who wanted to steal a TV from Target, those who were standing around watching, and those who were there documenting.

And then you’ve got various shades of politicians, and support for the protests/riots among the wider population. In other words, you could do the same sort of taxonomy about all of the BLM/antifa riots throughout the year.

And it’s important to this sort of thing for the sake of clarity. Protestors aren’t the same as rioters. Marchers aren’t the same as the mob. And while the event is ongoing, there are lots of people at the event who *have no idea what the others are doing.*

Now these distinctions don’t totally remove all responsibility. The violent are often the radical fringe of a larger movement, and they need that larger eco-system to thrive (and to hide).

And if that larger movement is swimming in lies and nonsense that leads to violence, then the larger movement bears some responsibility for the lies and nonsense (and the subsequent violence). And that’s true whether its Q-anon nonsense and lies or BLM nonsense and lies.

And this brings me to the accusation that I'm seeing among a lot of conservatives and Christians (especially Trump-critics), namely that many conservatives are engaged in "whataboutism" in light of the riots.

We’re told, “Don’t say ‘what about the left?’ after a bunch of Qanon and MAGA-types ransacked the Capitol looking for Pence and Pelosi. Now is not the time. Just condemn the evil that happened. Period."

I think there's legitimacy to this point. BUT it ignores a fundamental feature of political discourse in the social media age: In the present moment, *Events are primarily fodder for narratives that shape our political and social response.*

The pushback from the conservatives I’ve seen is not about excusing the mob & those looking to take hostages; everyone agrees they should be prosecuted. In fact, I've seen literally *no one* call for leniency on such people (and certainly no one is posting bail for rioters).

Instead, the pushback is a refusal to be scapegoated for the actions of those individuals & groups by politicians & journalists who were excusing similar actions by other people & groups all summer. They are resisting the Narrative, because the Narrative is about what comes next.

That's why I think a tweet like this misses the point (and Dan is a friend that I respect; his tweet is simply a good example of the point I'm trying to make):

https://twitter.com/dandarling/status/1347978543746183168?s=20

David didn’t say “What about Saul?” because Nathan (and God) didn’t excuse and rationalize Saul’s rebellion. Instead, God (through his prophet) dropped the hammer on Saul for his presumption (which is idolatry). In other words, God and his prophets use equal weights and measures.

But many of our present prophets were hemming and hawing about looting and rioting when it was done in the name of racial justice and socialism.

But they have now discovered their "principles" and are currently setting themselves up, not only as prophets, but as judge (and jury) who will determine who and what can be said and done going forward.

All of which is to say, there are layers and complexities involved in all of this, the kind that require sober-minded clarity and concern for actual justice (not just faux-justice).

And social media is largely about performative "justice" that has real-world effects in shaping narratives, cultivating our instincts, numbing us to truth, distracting us from reality, and so forth.

And so I'll end where I regularly end for myself: Lord Jesus, have mercy. On me, on our churches, on this nation. Lord Jesus, have mercy.