Thing is, they did get everything they wanted with a bit of a delay. So in essence they proved that violent uprisings work.

Mapping out the actual "ethics" of the J6 people has been difficult for me. It butts up against how I generally define "good" and "bad".

For an easy example, a guy murdering his wife for the insurance money is someone that I can pretty easily call "bad". That's would be hurting someone to enrich yourself, which I think we can agree is pretty bad.

But on an "individual morality" level, it's hard for me to directly condemn the J6 people. If they genuinely believed the election was stolen, and if they genuinely believed that the only way to save America was by invading the capital, and they were willing to do it at great risk to themselves with very little personal benefit, it's hard for me to directly say that they're "bad" people. Dumb, misguided people doing a bad thing, but they're doing what they think is right.

To be clear, I think the J6 people were very stupid, and I think it's horrible that the orange idiot lying about some election fraud in order to overthrow democracy is a very very very bad thing.

to be honest, the only downside with this idea is that in case you succeed, you are left with a group of people who like killing elites (and who can switch their definition of "elites" to include you)

That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM.

J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period.

BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.