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 -
A bit meta - but why is nobody here talking about - congressional hearings about twitter files, new January 6th footage - those look like a prime culture war fodder. And yet it is suspiciously silent here? Personally my reason is that I can't just wrap my head around what is going on really.
I’ll share something about the J6 footage. The video shows that the “shaman” Jacob Chansly was a non-violent protestor on good terms with the police whom guided him through the corridors of the capitol. He is on video praying for the police and telling everyone to leave peacefully after reading Trump’s tweet. Also persuasive is the fact that only 106 officers were injured, whereas 180+ officers were injured when the progressive insurrectionists in 2020 attempted to seize the White House (burning down a piece of history in the process, a church of God). Remember that the media then laughed because Trump was placed in a safe location.
This only interests me a little though. What’s more interesting and scary is talking to an older relative who refuses to even watch the tape. Why? Because the news pushed stories to his iPhone immediately after Tucker’s monologue (which has 4mil views only on YouTube plus everyone who watches JRE plus etc). The News pushed debunks, or perhaps prebunks, in an attempt to inoculate their
subjectsviewers from ever being persuaded by Tucker’s video. None of it had anything that even vaguely amounts to a debunking. If Chansley was indeed violent, it should be as trivial as publishing the clip. The shaman didn’t exactly blend in with the crowd. But in fact, they can’t debunk it, so they just attack Tucker with persuasive linguistic programming.I also noticed how insanely uninformed my relative was on what happened in the Greater Insurrection of 2020. His entire memory of the event is “Trump dispersed peaceful protestors for a photo op”. The media is so crafty and so consistent in their messaging, it leads to such resilient disinformation. What, the President shouldn’t be able to speak a few miles from his house, about the piece of history insurrectionist burned down? That’s clearly insane.
Violence is not an element of the crime Chansley pleaded guilty to, obstruction of an official proceeding. So it is irrelevant whether he was violent.
Do you believe that is the normal punishment for such crime?
Well, according to the plea agreement, the sentencing guidelines range was 41 to 51 months. He got 41. So, yes.
The question isn’t what sentencing guidelines say. The question is what does the average person get. For example, certain protestors without authorization got into private areas for senators to protest Kavanaugh. Were those persons even arrested let alone stuck with 41 months? The context of these statutes do suggest some degree of violence.
Moreover the elements of the crime require that it be unauthorized. Yet here the defendant is thanking the police for letting them in and was escorted by 9 police officers when there was no one else around; these police officers even tried to unlock doors for him. This is at least a mitigating factor.
He should’ve gotten jail time but 3.5 years seems excessive given that other protestors probably received zero jail time and the context muddies the water.
I am not familiar with those specific people. Did they do so with the intent to disrupt an official proceeding? And, apparently 300 people were arrested at some point. Not sure if they are the ones you are referring to.
Where do you see that? The statute reads:
I think you might be thinking of another charge such as entering or remaining in a restricted building
Well, he did get the low end of the sentencing range. And, besides, the final offense level it calculated after mitigating and aggravating circumstances are added. Eg: According to the plea agreement, his agreed-upon offense level was reduced for acceptance of responsibility
You are missing the point. Sure, you can certainly make the case that Jacob Chansley’s actions were criminal if you look only at the bare letter of the law, and ignore context. The argument is, however, that there have been thousands of other people, hundreds in the specific example of Kavanaugh hearings, that also broke the bare letter of the law in roughly the same degree of egregiousness as Chansley, but none of whom even faced anything close to criminal trial, much less years in prison. The argument here is about malicious prosecution which is completely outside historical norms for the behavior.
Imagine, for example, that federal government found that some of these protesters are not US citizens, but permanent residents, and found that they are not carrying their green card, as required by law, and charged them with misdemeanor and put them for 30 days in jail. The letter of the law clearly allows that, but it would be completely outrageous, as this law is never enforced in any other circumstance, so it would be hard to see it as anything other than malicious political targeting.
Yes, I am familiar with the concept of selective prosecution (not malicious prosecution, which is a tort). But if you are going to claim that they "broke the bare letter of the law in roughly the same degree of egregiousness as Chansley," you should probably cite some evidence of what explicitly they did. Because it seems to me that attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from the loser of an election to the winner is pretty egregious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Count 2, 3, and 5.
And yes there was an intent to interfere with Kavanaugh deliberations.
Additionally, I imagine the looters who were attacking the White House got less than 3.5 years.
That is, there is massive discretion in charging and pleas. Citing the sentencing guidance is far downstream of the relevant decisions.
Yes, there is, and prosecutors always charge as much as possible, and most charges are eventually dropped when more facts come to the fore (and sometimes charges are added when more facts come to the fore). The entire allegation is that this guy was treated more harshly than is normal, but what the prosecutors did as in fact completely normal. That doesn't mean it is ok, but the claim that he was somehow was singled out is not supported by simply pointing to what was alleged in the indictment.
I cannot comment unless you can link to exactly what you are referring to.
Were they attempting to disrupt an official proceeding? It doesn't sound like it.
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