> As far as I'm concerned, that's just free speech. People may disagree but that must be tolerated right up to the point they pick up weapons.
Hard disagree here. Free speech is not unlimited, and in most countries there are limitations to it. Calling for violence is one of those things. Demanding a military coup is not, and should neve be, protected speech.
> Showing up at the capital with flags and bibles is not an attempt to take power by force.
You know full well that what happened there was a lot more than elderly people with flags and bibles. If you don't know, you are willfully blinding yourself.
> So the "attempted murder" analogy is not convincing either.
Murder, while a serious crime, in my opinion, is generally a less serious offense than the abolition of democracy.
> To take power by force, you actually need force.
Brazil has a long story of military coups, in more than one occasion invited by portions of the civilian population.
> Every day on the internet people publicly wish fates worse than death on others. This does not amount to attempted murder or anything of the sort.
We are not talking about people merely "wishing" a coup. They in fact, and very plainly, attempted to make it happen.
> Demanding a military coup is not, and should neve be, protected speech.
Sure it should. That is a valid political position. They wanted the military to rule them.
If you're gonna ban that speech, then I demand the complete erasure of speech I deem far worse. I demand the complete annihilation of the vast majority of brazilian political parties and literally everything they stand for, especially those which contain the words "communist" and "socialist" right in their names. Those ideologies are demonstrably far more damaging than the brazilian military dictatorship ever was.
I simply do not accept the validity of the notion that militarism, fascism and nazism are all banned wrongthink while literal communists and socialists walk the soil of my country completely unpunished. I am not capable of the cognitive dissonance necessary to accept that. In order for me to maintain my sanity, one of those ideas must go.
> You know full well that what happened
I know the military didn't actually enact or even try to enact a coup. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant.
> Brazil has a long story of military coups, in more than one occasion invited by portions of the civilian population.
Yes. Military coups. Emphasis on military.
> Murder, while a serious crime, in my opinion, is generally a less serious offense than the abolition of democracy.
Surely we can agree that actual committed murder is worse than an hypothetical attempt to abolish democracy. A crime with actual victims must be more severely punished than one with zero victims.
If we can agree on this, then we can agree that these people were punished in a completely uncivilized manner. They got worse sentences than literal murderers and rapists routinely get here. That's just stupid even if I were to accept the idea that they tried to take power, and I don't accept that idea.
We should also be able to agree that this sends a very dangerous message: if you intend to protest these judges, you want full measures instead of half measures. They're going to punish you as if you had gone all the way anyway, you might as well go all the way.
> We are not talking about people merely "wishing" a coup. They in fact, and very plainly, attempted to make it happen.
Not at all. They were just generally protesting, and the protest was not in any way different in its violence compared to any prior ones. That they called for a coup at the same time does not make it an attempt to enact a coup.
An attempt to enact a coup would be the people with guns showing up, beginning their operation and then failing. That's an actual attempt to seize power. An actual coup would end with them succeeding at it.
They tried to get the military to do it. But they didn't try to do it themselves.
This is well argued. I think the part that you missed the part that the majority of people calling or voting (or "wishing"?) for a military takeover is technically still a democracy. It is not necessary to call for a free speech argument, when you have the power of the mob behind you. Incidentally, why democracies are just... dangerous mob rule.
As you said, democracies do vote in socialists, or communists, which are far worse.
Banning 'wrongthink' while at the same time allowing murderous ideologies like socialism to roam free, so that ideas have killed hundreds of millions of people in history, are actually scot-free, does seem paradoxical, at the very least.
> As you said, democracies do vote in socialists, or communists, which are far worse.
Hell, they elect them. An actual socialist president was elected in 2022 and is in power right now. And he appointed another communist to act as a judge in the supreme court. The brazilian government is absolutely filled with these people. Our economics minister wrote a dissertation on the soviet union's economics shortly before it collapsed. An economics minister who doesn't believe in private property. I wish I was making this stuff up.
Most brazilians apparently think that communism died with the soviet union and that any talk of socialism in Brazil is just baseless conspiracy theory. Despite the fact we have lots of political parties which feature the words "socialist" and "communist" in their literal names.
I fear for the future of this country. Compared to this, military rule would not be so bad. At least there's a chance for Brazil to prosper that way.
I mean, you complain about "communists" and "socialists" (as if Lula's government was anything like that. I mean, his vice president is Geraldo Alckmin. Not really an example of socialist).
But that is all beyond the point. You don't mind the coup attempt in January 8th because you are sympathetic to the idea of a military dictatorship in Brazil.
The only possible reading is that you are an authoritarian, as long as the ones you are aligned with politically are in power. You don't value democracy. This conversation is moot.
The funny thing is that you think that a military dictatorship would not be so bad and thst Brazil might prosper, ignoring how hilariously incompetent the military in Brazil is.
There was no coup attempt. And you're right that even if there had been one I would not have minded.
The reason for that is in my world view I am already living in a dictatorship of the judiciary. So it's not that I don't value democracy, it's that Brazil is not really a democracy to begin with.
If I have to choose between a dictatorship of the military and a dictatorship of a communist judiciary, I'd rather live under the military one. An actual democracy would be nice but it doesn't seem to be one of the available choices.
I'm not sure that I'm politically aligned with the military either. It's not like its a right wing haven. Lots of communists in there too and it got even worse after Lula reached power.
I chose my words very carefully specifically because I wanted to avoid even the implication that I think the military is competent. I refer to the brazilian military as the "armed pensionists", they do literally nothing other than suck up our taxpayer money. I wish it was different. I still think they are preferrable to communists in power but that's a very low bar to begin with.
Even so, it would be unwise to underestimate what a military state is capable of. The brazilian dictatorship was responsible for major industrialization and the imports replacement policy. This contributed to the creation of the Lua programming language, for example. I sure as hell want Brazil go even further than that, and these communists aren't getting the job done.
To be precise, lets say that brazil was a constitutional democracy respecting the balance of powers and protecting minorities.
Now, the country, thru the usurpation of previously separated powers, has devolved into something else. What that is is hard to say but it looks like autocratic socialism, fascism or communism. Its hard to say at this point since the executive and executive are mostly looking the other way.
I call it a dictatorship of the judiciary. Simply because our representatives don't matter. They pass laws, judiciary ignores them. They reject laws, judiciary acts as if they had passed. And in the end, it's the judiciary who makes police show up at your house to oppress you.
I agree that it's hard to say what specific class of clown world Brazil has degenerated into but whatever it is it sure as fuck isn't a democracy. Hearing the word "democracy" come out of the mouths of these judge-kings makes me laugh psychotically like the joker.
Let's not have this argument here. Suffice it to say that I have news, videos of the people in question calling themselves communists and socialists. I'll just take their word for it and call it a day.
The CIA and NSA are already involved. The CIA in particular essentially gave the brazilian right the evidence that got our current president arrested for corruption years ago. Biden's CIA guy literally told our former president to stop questioning the elections in a public statement, even some american journalists noticed. The left constantly accused Bolsonaro of being a CIA puppet and I don't even doubt those claims. I just wonder what happened behind the curtains that soured the CIA's opinion of him.
Hard disagree here. Free speech is not unlimited, and in most countries there are limitations to it. Calling for violence is one of those things. Demanding a military coup is not, and should neve be, protected speech.
> Showing up at the capital with flags and bibles is not an attempt to take power by force.
You know full well that what happened there was a lot more than elderly people with flags and bibles. If you don't know, you are willfully blinding yourself.
> So the "attempted murder" analogy is not convincing either.
Murder, while a serious crime, in my opinion, is generally a less serious offense than the abolition of democracy.
> To take power by force, you actually need force.
Brazil has a long story of military coups, in more than one occasion invited by portions of the civilian population.
> Every day on the internet people publicly wish fates worse than death on others. This does not amount to attempted murder or anything of the sort.
We are not talking about people merely "wishing" a coup. They in fact, and very plainly, attempted to make it happen.