You are accusing me of "strawmanning" and arguing in bad faith, but you seem to have forgotten how a comment thread works. I was responding directly to the specific claims made by the previous commenter.

The person I was replying to explicitly claimed that the mob's violence was politically motivated—they called it a "crucial defense of democracy" designed to ensure people "stay afraid." I responded directly to their stated ideological motive. It is not a "strawman" to quote a person's exact words and reply to the argument they actually made.

Now you have jumped in with a completely contradictory defense. You are arguing the mob had no political ideology at all, and was just acting like unprincipled thugs "beating up a drunk at a bar."

I had no reason to address your alternative explanation at the time, because the person I was talking to was actively claiming this was a noble political crusade. Ironically, by stripping the mob of their political motive, you are actually arguing against the person I was responding to.

If you want to completely scrap their defense and present your own distinct viewpoint—that this wasn't about defending democracy, but was just a senseless, apolitical street assault—I'm more than happy to address your argument separately. Let me know if that is the premise you want to go with.