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 -
And another culture (and shooting) war event happening right now, event of more importance than the pathetic one in Montreal.
After a year (lightning speed for justice) events that happened during protest at ICE detention center in July 4, 2025 were resolved.
In rather unexpected way, by maximum possible prison sentences.
Ineffectiveness of your resistance is no longer an mitigating circumstance, and using Signal is highly aggravating one.
The judge openly said that the sentences are meant to "send a message".
As expected, Xitter celebrates while Bluesky mourns. We will see if this is one time occurance, or Trump's promise to crack down on Antifa was meant seriously.
I don't care about the incident one way or the other, but the notion that a judge can deliver harsh/light sentences "to send a message" is ridiculous.
US law explicitly states that the four purposes of sentencing are punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation.
The number one purpose of punishment is punishment? We really put our top wordcels on that lmao
Anyway, no, the issue isn't with criminal punishment as a deterrence: it's with with judicial discretion regarding deterrence. Despite all perception to the contrary, the law is not the judge's personal megaphone to blare his opinions on the rest of society.
Sorry, I should have said "sentencing".
The judge's discretion is limited by the minimums and maximums prescribed by Congress. For example, the sentence for rioting can be anything from five years to just a fine with no prison.
What's the alternative? Congress isn't interested in prescribing a zillion specific degrees of rioting that all have different, narrower sentencing ranges.
Discretionary sentencing should be with respect to the severity of the case details, not with respect to whether the judge feels like sending us all a message (and yes, the message is to us, not to the person sentenced to de facto their entire life in prison. One can only contend the deterrence message is to the offender if there's an expectation they'll be released and a participating member of society again).
I don't know about this specific case, but my general understanding is that when a judge is said to be "sending a message," it is always understood to be specifically because of the severity of the case details, and the "message" (deterrence) is specifically about making sure the rest of us understand that if we commit some crime that is specifically as severe in the details as this particular case, then we could expect such a severe level of punishment.
Well, in this case it looks like that's exactly what isn't happening: the details don't look particularly bad, but the sentences are severe because the judge is trying to send a political message.
50 years in prison over some petty vandalism is completely ridiculous.
The details look quite bad.
(Caveat: The jury did not necessarily decide the truth of this specific paragraph, as opposed to the overall charges on which it convicted.)
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
What is the evidence that they were planning to do anything more aggressive than set off fireworks and make noise and vandalize stuff? The guy who shot at the police officer is obviously a dangerous criminal but what about the rest of them? Why couldn't they have all been planning to simply protest? The Wikipedia article says guns and body armor were recovered from the suspects (not clear if they all brought that with them to they protest or they found that at their homes) but how much are we allowed to read into that in Texas?
According to the final indictment and the jury verdict:
(1) "Setting off fireworks, making noise, and vandalizing stuff" still counts as "rioting" and "using and carrying an explosive to commit a felony". Eight of the nine defendants were convicted on those charges. (The ninth defendant is the one who just hid some papers.)
(2) The prosecutor is in possession of "several group chats on an encrypted messaging app" showing that four defendants definitely were explicitly planning to bring guns, even if others were not made aware of the true plan and thought that only fireworks would be used.
The prosecutor also alleges in-person coordination among the eight main defendants (again, not including the paper pusher) prior to the riot.
The material support for terrorism charges seems the least likely to survive, and even that more because of the costs of defending the use of the statute rather than losing in court. Humanitarian Law Project supported the law even in the face of much more speech-focused conduct, but it was so highly pre-enforcement that it probably should have gotten a punt on the merits. Here, with this level of coordination, it's likely to survive... if the feds want to keep supporting it. A Dem presidency reversing on that bit would be political, but it would be arguably reasonable allocation of resources if it's the only thing being seriously appealed.
There's a lot of commentary assuming that they were charged on the designated foreign terrorist group prong, and that would be subject to review based on how well-grounded (or liked) Trump's designation of antifa is, but there's a separate "predicate acts" version that doesn't require the designation, and it looks like that's the version used here.
The fireworks-as-explosives bit and destructive vandalism are pretty mainstream, and they're a pretty sizable part of the sentence. They're also such a sizable part of the sentence because of the terrorism enhancement.
I'm not a fan of prosecutors being able to bring up owned materials that were not used in the crime -- especially medical gear like tourniquets -- but it's pretty well-supported by the judiciary. From a pragmatic, rather than legal standard, the combination of bringing AR-15s, tourniquets, and body armor to a place you intended to throw lit fireworks at people is uncommon enough a behavior that it's a reasonable thing to take inference from.
The sentences seem high for the pure aiders-and-abetters, since they weren’t convicted on pretty much anything involving the shooting itself, but that’s easier to raise as a philosophical argument than as a legal one. The courts have pretty strictly constrained proportionality complaints and condoned inclusion of uncharged conduct, and it was only a pretty recent sentencing guideline change that prohibit (mostly) the use of acquitted conduct.
More options
Context Copy link
Okay! If I was going to what I thought was a protest and the leader guy says we're all bringing guns because he's not going to jail I'd be pretty alarmed that this was not going to be an ordinary protest. I have to conclude you're either very dumb or you want to support shooting at cops if not do some shooting at cops yourself. Then you go protest and this protest is kind of rioty and the leader guy actually shoots at police. Looks bad!
Its the typical Democrat, "our violence is speech, your speech is violence" juxtaposition. January 6th was "an insurrection" that warranted a wide-reaching crack-down on anyone even tangentially involved, but getting together with your friends to shoot at cops and commit a bit of light arson is just all in good fun.
Which is why the first act of the next Democrat president will be issuing them pardons.
I would not be surprised if this happened, but would not bet on it happening either. It would fit the general pattern of institutional collapse.
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
I have no theory of mind for the people who are outraged by the verdict or believe that this is somehow creating a chilling effect on the right to protest. The idea that the first amendment is a license to shoot a cop is fundamentally absurd and I have no insight into the mind of the person who is shocked that doing so would result in a prison sentence. The most charitable way I can think about this is that they feel a social obligation to speak in solidarity with their fellow travelers, and the fact that doing so requires them to spout obviously absurd bullshit is not an obstacle to this.
There are people who to this day believe Rittenhouse showed up to a protest, started shooting and killing black people, then got away with it in court. You just can't underestimate how thoroughly people are interfacing with the news.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you making a distinction between people who are outraged about Song's verdict and those who are only/primarily so about the others? That Song was convicted seems undisputably reasonable (though US prison sentences continue being bafflingly draconian to my European eyes - an effective life sentence, and he didn't even actually kill anyone?), but from what I gathered a lot of people do believe the others' claim that they did not know that Song planned to have a shootout at all (however plausible or not that claim is). If you buy into that narrative, it does really seem like a precedent for severe collective punishment if your politics are a bit out there and one of the people you associate with turns out to be crazier than you bargained for. I mean, what's the guarantee that if a Mottizen goes postal under a future Blue administration, there won't be calls to put us all on the hook based on this precedent?
The fact that they were committing a terrorist act at the time, and the victim was a police officer, are both aggravating circumstances here.
Extremely implausible that they did not intend, or at least reasonably foresee, some sort of shootout considering they brought loaded rifles and first aid kits, and wore body armor.
A conspiracy under the law in the United States requires an agreement to commit an illegal act, and in most jurisdictions an overt act furthering that agreement. The prairieland suspects had a history of close association in which they communicated their plans to commit a terrorist act, and then they all showed up at the same place at the same time wearing the same uniform carrying rifles and explosives and wearing body armor and committed a terrorist act with those rifles and explosives. No, some lone nut going postal is not grounds to put any of us away just because we happened to post in the same comment thread on some web site. To believe this to be even remotely possible is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the charges against the prairieland suspects, and the law itself.
An easy thing to do, given how mainstream sources have not been exactly forward about the details. All I'm saying is that you don't need to theory-of-mind someone who knows/believes the same version of the events as you do, and then is outraged by the verdict - all that you need to understand is how someone who has probably not heard a version other than "a bunch of people went to protest for a Good Cause with fireworks, one of them had a gun because he was an ex-marine, and shot a sketchy cop thinking he was acting in self-defense; the state used it to lock them all away for believing in the Cause" from any source they considered credible would come to be.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some of these people just literally don't know he shot a cop, they're uncritically believing lies from left-rag media sources. For others the 'right to protest' is the 'right to advocate left wing causes' which trumps reactionaries' right to safety. Sort of like how racism was the real public health hazard...
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly what it is. If you pay attention, you’ll see it everywhere, from people of all political stripes. The median person just cares more about winning than truth or abstract values, simple as.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Regardless of my views on the underlying merits of what ICE are doing, good.
There is a widespread view, historically on the left and increasingly on the anti-establishment right as well, that participating in a political protest should be a mitigating factor for ordinary violent and property crimes committed by protestors, when it is actually an aggravating factor. (The situation is different if the only crimes committed by the protesters are public order crimes). Political violence (including deliberate property destruction) is more dangerous than random criminal violence, and ideally the punishments should be harsh enough to push the frequency down to zero.
Political Violence is a semi-protected Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment Right in the US which obviously disagrees with a lot of things related to having a functional society.
But I do think a bunch of rebels writing these words “ A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” has a meaning that is broader than everyone has guns so the British can’t come back. It’s also an idea that political violence is one of the checks and balances in the US system that checks the power in Washington DC.
How this applies to modern level technology I have no idea. But I do think actual political violence is within the Spirit of the constructs of the US Constitution.
The Counter I think is the Civil War meant something in a common law sense and has the power of an actual written Amendment that ended the day of America being a bunch of rebels. I have no idea what this means in a practical sense and most likely nothing but the US would seem to be the only government ever formed that built in rebellion as a right. In which case armed rebellion as a form of protest is culturally within the American culture.
Uh... No, no it is not. The second amendment guarantees citizens the right to maintain the capabilities to come at the king, it does not free them from consequences if they miss.
This is an empty statement. Whether you're hanged as a traitor or celebrated as a founder is defined by whether you win or not. This is true regardless of whether the Constitution says so or not, so if this is what the Constitution is saying here, it's basically a rooster crowing to claim credit for the sunrise.
I mean, no, it really isn't? There are nations in which you can discuss revolting against the government, where you can recruit men, buy weapons, and even drill in public, but as long as you don't pull the trigger, it's mostly accepted. And there are nations where that isn't true, and telling the wrong joke, or looking at a picture of a gun will get you jail time. The constitution sets out where various lines are. My point is the post above misunderstands drastically where the line actually is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The idea that rebellion is somehow a constitutional right is absurd. George Washington himself put down rebellions in the early days of the United States. The best way that I can understand this is that all rebellions are legal if they succeed, and the function of 2A is to make that possible, but in order for your rebellion to be legitimate it needs to actually have the manpower, organization, and support necessary to succeed against the manpower, organization, and support that the government is able to muster.
Democracy is a substitute for political violence. The second amendment protects the right for people to take up political violence if democracy fails. It only works if a plurality of people take up arms, swapping guns for votes. Small groups willing to take up arms against the government is not constitutionally protected - if they couldn't win an election with that number of people they don't have a right to a rebellion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More importantly, it's a statement that the Monopoly on Violence is not held by The State, but by The People, and the State is merely the instrument by which we make the enactment of the monopoly regular and orderly.
This is a charge and responsibility at which the State can fail.
More options
Context Copy link
The people who wrote the Constitution had crushed Shay's Rebellion already and knew how to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion (and the violent crushing of these rebellions was broadly popular). As of 1789, the primary reason why the well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state was because it could be used to do the crushing - avoiding the need for a (politically dangerous) standing army.
The structure set up by the militia clauses in the Constitution was designed to maximise the centrally controlled military power of the Federal Government within the limits of "no standing army" and the practical impossibility of drilling and training a geographically dispersed militia from Washington DC.
Not only that, but Shay's Rebellion was an immediate proximate cause of the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Somehow, it went from shooting the officer in the neck (in official documents) to hitting the officer in the shoulder (earlier in the article) to firing a gun at the police officer (here). Give it a few more paragraphs, and maybe we'll learn that Song never touched a gun at all, he was totally somewhere else with good friends that will vouch for his whereabouts.
And the Guardian is supposed to be a barely-left-wing news organization. I shudder to think what actual partisans are reporting.
What I have seen from actual partisans:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It sounds kinda like some of the sentences may be excessive, but I can't tell because the leftist orgs which say so keep referring to it as a "protest".
e.g. The defendants, who were protesting the Prairieland immigration detention center in Alvarado, Texas
When they refuse to acknowledge this wasn't just a protest, I suspect if they're lying when they claim a defendant was sentenced to 30 years for nothing more than moving a box of "antifascist zines".
They really are trying to frame things as 'attending a protest' and 'chatting on Signal' as if there wasn't a deeper coordinated terrorist activity planned and executed. Its the 'I was just giving my friend a lift' excuse for bank-robbing getaway drivers all over again.
Also the omnipresent 'antifa isn't an organisation, its just an idea' flailing is being attempted, but its getting weaker and weaker.
More options
Context Copy link
A guy, as part of the conspiracy, shot at federal agents. That any still have their lives ahead of them in any respect shows the leniency baked into the system.
More options
Context Copy link
At the very least thé sentence lengths seem accurate.
I’m reminded of the government crackdowns on anti-nuclear(weapons) protestors. Most of these people had aggravating circumstances just a bit worse than their confreres are willing to admit, but they still got the book thrown at them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The court documents are split between three different pages due to glitchiness in RECAP: 1 2 3
There's no sentencing transcript yet, of course.
Reference is made to a pre-sentence report (laying out the prosecutor's rationale for requesting long prison sentences), but I can't find it.
Thank you for the links. I've gone for the first link link, document no 1 (main) and clicked Text rather than PDF.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71664415/1/united-states-v-arnold/
Search quickly finds me
This is so much worse than what I was expecting from the discussion that I'm having to re-calibrate my opinion of following online discussionNote that document 1 is only the initial complaint. The document on which the jury actually made convictions is, not document 1, but document 127, the second superseding indictment.
On that basis, Song was convicted (in document 367) of attempted murder of the police officer (but not of the two ICE officers).
More options
Context Copy link
I had no idea there were two shooters. I knew that only one person ever got convicted for the actual shooting, I guess they were never able to identify the second shooter.
I know that "imagine if the roles were reversed" is very tired at this point but I can't imagine a group of right wing militants bringing body armor and rifles to a federal government facility and opening fire on federal agents and having a sitting member of congress make a statement about how awful it was that they got sent to prison over it. Truly incredible to me.
This quote is from the initial complaint. The second superseding indictment (filed five months later), on which the jury actually made convictions, does not mention a second shooter.
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