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 -
That quote was referring to Federal Obstruction of Justice charges, which are separate from the interfering charges. These cover things like jury tampering and destroying evidence. Physically obstructing ICE agents would presumably be covered under both state and Federal laws. I was listening to a left-wing radio program last night and the host and his guest were in agreement that protestors shouldn't do anything that physically prevents ICE agents from apprehending their targets, so this doesn't seem controversial to me.
The gang example is complicated. Typically, in order to be liable as an accomplice you have to have knowledge of the crime being committed, not just general knowledge that the people you are dealing with are probably up to no good. The complicating factor is that all 50 states plus the Feds and DC have enacted a cornucopia of anti-gang laws over the past 40 years that, in some cases, expand accomplice liability to "gang members", and may of these laws have been challenged for overbreadth and vagueness, and some were recently modified as part of recent calls for criminal justice reform, so any answer would be highly dependent on jurisdiction, and the constitutionality of some of the more recent reforms may still be an open question (attempts to solve some problems may create others). But based on general principles, I don't think that his knowledge of specifics would be relevant, provided that he knows that a crime is being committed. For example, if he's a lookout for drug dealers and he knows drugs are being sold illegally, I think that would be enough to invoke accomplice liability, even if he didn't know what kind of drugs or what the roles of the other members of the gang were. But again, it really depends on the specific fact pattern.
But did you get the impression that this meant they should stay away from protestors who do use more physical means of resistance?
My understanding of the fact pattern, from watching various videos of these people, the videos they share amongst themselves and the videos of outsiders recording them, is this:
A bunch of concerned citizens join a Signal Chat together. Some are actual committed anarchists dedicated to (mostly, but there's a literal holocaust going on so it's only a matter of time!) non-violent physical resistance against ICE. Others, hopefully the majority, join to be loud and obnoxious when ICE is nearby to help non-citizens escape lawful arrest. This second group serves to create confusion and doubt about the nature of the first group, though they may not see it as their role. The first group encourages the second group because they hope to create headlines like, "Completely innocent Kindergarten teacher exercising 1st Amendment Rights pepper sprayed by ICE" when they inevitably incite ICE to take their disorderly conduct seriously.
Because the devoted anarchists do not always get in trouble, the Kindergarten teacher group sometimes forgets the line themselves. If you see behavior repeatedly go unpunished, it starts to seem unpunishable. That's how you get the "I'm just a mom" woman who ran red lights trying to box in ICE with her car.
And the Mainstream Media writes articles as if everyone is in the second group, and any evidence of the anarchist group is just someone in the second group getting pushed over the edge by vicious ICE agents.
But it's not quite clear to me that the second group is entirely innocent here. Once they realize they are among people trying to physically interpose their persons and vehicles between ICE and the people they have a lawful duty to arrest, they share some blame if the tactics work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link