This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think the harsh penalties are the ones whose cases have been decided, rather it's the ones who are awaiting trial without bond. Zachary Alam is charged with using a helmet to break a window inside the capital building (in the entrance to the speaker's office or lobby) valued at $1,000 and related charges. He's been held without the option to post bail for nearly 2 years. Megan Fuller, Alma Raven-Guido, and Elijah A. Roach are 3 examples of people charged with serious crimes like arson, felony burglary and others in Portland who were released without posting any bail.
That's an enormous difference in harshness, even if that's the nicest jail in the world.
I appreciate that you included specific names! The window you're referring to Zachary Alam breaking with a helmet was at the Speaker's Lobby doorway, the exact same window Ashli Babbitt immediately tried to jump through before getting shot. So when I asked about defendants who are held without bail for "wandering in", obviously Alam's case does not qualify and you knew that.
You can also skim through the government's brief for some of the reasons he was denied release. They were concerned he was a flight risk, because immediately after J6 he changed his phone number, cleared out his storage unit, and fled to another state. When he was finally arrested, he was driving a vehicle he never registered and had multiple stolen license plates. He also has a history of using multiple fake names and was caught with multiple ID cards. His to-do list that included buying crypto and stashing a burner phone probably didn't help. Then of course, when he's in jail and talking on a recorded phone line, he's asking people if they talked to the FBI. The brief goes on and on.
Regardless, I think pretrial release should be the presumptive default, even for extreme flight risks like Alam.
I actually didn't know what wandering in meant. Those are the people who I believe are being punished far in excess of their actual crimes so perhaps I agree with you.
I am less offended at his bail condition than the volume of people in Portland and prior riots released without posting any bond. I'd have no issue with dumbasses (and Zach's antics qualify, imho) being held, but a dumbass who intentionally torches a building should also be held or at least be posting a large bond.
Earnest question but what do you think the purpose of pretrial detention should be?
My preference would be that almost everyone posts some sort of bond, scaling with mostly seriousness of the charges.
Pretrial detention should be for those who don't post a bond, or those whose charges are so serious or frequent they represent a danger to the public (is if there's a greater than 10% chance someone commits another crime while on bond, I'd prefer they be held until their trial).
How does posting bond make someone less dangerous? I know the putative argument is that people are encouraged to be on good behavior on pain of forfeiting their bond, but I haven't seen good evidence this actually works. Bail companies exist and they can front the full amount in exchange for paying 10%, and if you have Fuck You levels of money you can just post bond and jet set to the Philippines or whatever. For those who can't afford it, do you have any concerns about making liberty conditional on wealth?
Yes, but I'd take making liberty conditional on wealth over making it conditional on the court's subjective opinion of how much of a risk I am which is almost certainly going to be contaminated by assumptions about my immutable characteristics. If it is conditional on wealth, I can at least try to acquire wealth to mitigate those concerns. What do I do to mitigate "Your demographic is more risky, tough luck."?
You can't acquire wealth from jail
I can acquire it before I am accused of a crime however. I can also ask others to raise money on my behalf. Both of these are at least theoretically possible for everyone. I agree it is far from the ideal, but it is in my mind strictly superior to simply leaving it up to the court's subjective beliefs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link