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 -
Major Protests in Las Angeles
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/paramount-california-home-depot-protest-rcna211650
Earlier the LAPD had to rescue a group of federal agents surrounded by, ahem, 'boisterous' protestors.
In response, the feds are federalizing the national guard to deploy to LA:
Gov. Newsom doesn't like the idea:
Of course, that last bit is patently false- see above- but the current situation on the ground is very much fog of war.
So why this protest now? As far as I can tell, this all started when federal agents arrested David Huerta for obstructing an ICE raid(https://ktla.com/news/local-news/union-president-among-44-arrested-in-los-angeles-ice-raids/). David Huerta, for those of you who don't know, is president of the SEIU, America's more aggressively left wing federation of labor unions(the AFL-CIO is moderately pro-Trump). He released the following statement:
Maybe-maybe not a call to arms, but the SEIU absolutely does not play around when it comes to protests, so put two and two together- and the union released its own statement, separately, which is more clearly combative:
Again, not unlawful incitement. But most people would interpret that as mildly threatening. Newsom is maintaining that this was an arrest for 'observing'- patently a lie, given video evidence.
This has the potential to be a domestic test of Trump. I'm of the impression that the SEIU, like most unions, Does Not Play By The Rules when it would mean not getting their way, so selective prosecution under RICO is possible, but more than likely Trump will just make himself look strong and Newsom weak by cracking down on LA protestors. This is a pretty core federal power and assaulting a federal law enforcement officer is almost definitionally something with federal jurisdiction for prosecution; presumably the feds can access the database of everyone who clashed with the LAPD to charge them too.
I'm eagerly waiting for all the deeply sincere civil libertarians who were minted on January 6th, 2020, to come forward and angrily denounce these insurrectionists. I expect calls for Palantir to have them all IDed and then rounded up and fed into a woodchipper of a prosecution storm, including random grandmas who just happened to be at the protest, but too close to someone obstructing federal business.
Trump sends in the National Guard, Newsome looks like a pussy.
It is a strain to compare a large protest which involves people obstructing and assaulting law enforcement to a large protest which involves people breaking into the country's main legislative building. Whatever you think about the severity of either, they are firstly surely quite different in nature, and secondly the former is quite common across Western countries while the latter is very rare.
Please explain your line of reasoning because i do not see how anyone could reasonably make this claim in good faith.
More options
Context Copy link
The country's main legislative building is arguably the most legitimate target for protest in the country.
That the J6 protest escalated into a riot that eventually spilled into the building itself is more about the abject security failures than anything special about what the rioters did.
More options
Context Copy link
I could point to the 1954 Capitol shooting, in which Puerto Rican separatists (Americans) fired 30 rounds in the House of Representatives chamber, hitting five representatives. Their sentences were commuted by Jimmy Carter in 1978 and 1979.
Or the 1983 bombing of the Senate, done by a self-described "Armed Resistance Unit" protesting US involvement in Lebanon and Grenada. Their sentences were commuted by Bill Clinton in 2001.
Or the 1971 bombing of the capitol done by Weather Underground, whose leadership largely escaped any criminal charges and went on to be professors in universities throughout the country.
Comparing those three to Jan 6th (or even seeing them as strictly worse, considering the clear murderous intent) seems fair to me. That doesn't mean the LA stuff is.
The actual best comparison is the 2011 Wisconsin statehouse takeover, wherein a large mass of hostile protestors Occupied the legislature building for the express purpose of preventing legislation from being passed, while openly calling for the deaths of the Republican legislators and governor.
But leftists disrupting legislative proceedings in DC is so common it's banal. There's procedures, where the "rioters" wait in line for their turn to get into the room, make a scene, get "arrested" and then released to go brag about it to their friends.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have to agree. While I'm broadly more aligned with the right, all of the equivocation of BLM riots with Jan 6th is annoying and mealy mouthed in my opinion. Breaking into Congressional buildings is an extremely different situation than protesting and even rioting.
Breaking into Congressional buildings is different than protesting but (in the context of a mass event that started as a protest) a central example of rioting.
More options
Context Copy link
Why? It's political violence either way.
Political violence directly or indirectly, charitably, aimed at the congressional capital where legislators are actively working is quite different than rioting in a random city. Even if the rioters are attacking city hall or police stations, the degree is significantly greater.
Acting as if they are equivalent is ridiculous and playing games with “political violence.” It’s like saying slapping a politician you don’t like the exact same as murdering them, because it’s “political violence” either way.
So you're just going to say it's obvious and not actually explain why? Come on.
Is it mere geographic proximity? Are you saying one is more likely to work? What?
I could understand if congressmen were assaulted. Hell, going to people's homes might actually be an escalation. But it's just rioting on some official building we're talking about.
I can explain the difference for that one, only in one case is the politician removed from play and unable to do anything anymore. Which is how Japan's left wing coalition once collapsed.
I don't really see that clear a difference between causing property damage in fed buildings or police precincts except who has to pay for it.
All I see is people with no power breaking things to make themselves look more intimidating than they actually are. I think your degrees are more aligned to the targets of the intimidation or the symbolism thereof than its actual severity or destabilizing effect.
The symbolic and indeed legal status of say, Pittsburgh downtown versus the Capitol of the United States are indeed quite different, and I do think it's obviously true. There are specific laws about threatening Congress, crimes on federal land, etc. Even if there weren't, the implicit statement the rioters are making is vastly different. One is random wanton destruction, one is destruction aimed specifically at the ruling body of a nation.
Congressmen were in the building that was raided. That counts as attempted assault at least, in my book. If the rioters had gotten to the elected officials, I don't doubt there would've been some violence.
Not sure what you're saying here. I agree that rioters with no power are breaking things - I see it more as a sort of mob pressure release rather than an actual plan to become intimidating, but don't think that is a big deal.
What do you mean my degrees are more aligned to the targets? Are you saying the BLM riots were more severe and destabilizing than J6?
It's as obvious to me as the opposite seems obvious to you. And not just because the deathcount is an order of magnitude higher.
I just see another irregular verb.
I release pressure. You riot. He is an insurrectionist.
You think trashing the desk of a congressman is a strictly less legitimate form of political expression than trashing that of random people or that of policemen. As a Frenchman I find that exceptionally weird. If anything the proper order of a republic would go the other way around.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, definitely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
@ArjinFerman
I thought you said there was a legal argument for it being worse, rather than merely symbolic?
Violence committed on federal property is a bigger issue. Violence or threats of violence against Congress is a bigger issue than property destruction, legally.
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
Nah. The singling out of "main legislative building" is nothing more than special pleading aimed at pretending one is different from the other, when they are very clearly not.
No, it's special pleading to pretend like breaking into Congress directly after a Presidential election is the exact same as rioting in a city. They are quite different things, even legally.
I'm open to hearing your case. Please tell me what is the argument for setting a police station on fire being less illegal than breaking into the building of the legislature.
First, police stations are state property. They are of a lesser legal status than federal property when it comes to crimes against them, is my understanding.
Furthermore you've got specific laws against obstruction of Congressional proceedings, and threatening officials. Not sure if the J6 people were charged with those in particular.
Either way the major argument I'm making is more symbolic - I think the legal points are relevant but not going to fight to defend them if it's not the case.
On the other hand, burning something down to the ground is an act of greater violence than breaking in and aimlessly walking around the premises until asked to leave. How do you know the former amounts to greater crime?
The symbolic argument is far more subjective, I don't see how you can insist you're obviously right with it.
More options
Context Copy link
They were charged with "obstruction of an official proceeding", which is a fairly new crime created by the Sarbanes-Oxley act. You may recall that Sarbanes-Oxley was about financial stuff -- the official title is "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act". The application here was a stretch, and one the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against, though prosecutors were trying again with some defendants when Trump rudely interrupted them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I think that pretending that the seat of one of the branches of government is nothing special just so you can equivocate is special pleading. If it's so non-special, why do protesters not storm it more often? Manifestly, doing so would shut down a central government function that pisses a lot of people off, and guarantee eyeballs in a way that torching some random police station in bumfuck nowhere won't.
Other countries also hold that legislatures are special: in Germany, for example, where there is otherwise a fairly strong right to public protest, there is a special cutout prohibiting assemblies in a certain radius around federal and state legislatures and the constitutional court. This has been in place since 1920.
Oh no. I think it IS special, just in the opposite manner. There is no reason for anyone to protest a Binny's Beverage Depot in Chicago and take 300 bottles of Tequila because a cop stepped on a black guy too long in Minnesota. OTOH, protesting the seat of government over their proceedings is inherently legitimate activity. Therefore, the question turns more to how an ordinary protest turned into a riot and a riot turned into a bunch of unarmed, uncoordinated, people essentially sacked a 18th century fort.
As to the first question, I would say its about 20% that the J6 protestors were a more animated group of folks than the average protestor, but thats not a very good explanation. They really werent a particularly aggressive group, and very few professional agitators were in the group. Law enforcement's failures explain a lot more. They were severely understaffed, as you can see on video and as was testified by many witnesses at the Congressional hearings (multiple requests for additional staffing were denied). Given that, they were also incompetently deployed. You can see multiple teams of 2-5 police standing behind a couple of those metal gates they use at Six Flags to make sure people queue in an orderly fashion. This is not actually a crowd control device. Given the size of the crowd, those poorly thought out isolated positions would have been overwhelmed with no violence at all. And, of course, they were. And that is what led to the escalation, because the retreating police from those idiotic positions were the first to physically engage with protestors in an aggressive manner.
So now we have multiple rapidly collapsing "defensive" positions with police having the obvious fallback position of the building's doors. If they can just close those and lock them. No amount of people shoving, kicking, etc can get into the building. You'd need a SWAT battering ram to start to have a chance, and even that would probably be inadequate, those doors are thick and heavy. BUT, of course, the doors are never closed and people just kind of flood in right behind the retreating police. Often you can see people entering the building while officers just kinda stand there at the door watching. In other words, the entrants at that point shouldn't even qualify as trespassers or rioters. They are, implicitly, invitees, as the local authorities have implicitly blessed their entrance.
More options
Context Copy link
I would argue that this is a very American sentiment actually. The only reason there's a building is that Congress kept getting hassled without one.
The building itself is not meant to hold any sacred character because government is the affair of the people for themselves, not that of their betters. Be them kings or Gods. Congress is just a bunch of Americans deciding for themselves what to do and explicitly not a holy ritual. Though I always thought it was a funny contradiction with the intense Rome aesthetics.
More options
Context Copy link
The special pleading started during the summer of love. It was the fact that protest was so essential to our nation that it overpowered medical science, so essential that it justified burning and looting cities, that caused the Jan 6ers to think storming the capitol was a good idea. In a way they were primed to do it - if burning and looting is an appropriate response to the perception that black men are being slaughtered by the police, what is the appropriate response to the perception of the theft of the election?
More options
Context Copy link
For the same reason people don't burn down that specific police precinct in Minneapolis more often.
The protest in question did not result in the shutdown of the central government.
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