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 -
January 6th agitator Ray Epps has pled guilty to one charge of disorderly conduct. The NYT story contains this sentence:
I'm not so sure about that. For those who haven't paid attention (a group that included myself until a discussion here a while back), Epps is on video repeatedly urging other members of the crowd to go into the Capitol. Many people have speculated that he was in fact some form of federal agent or informant. The fact that this is the legal outcome for him heightens, rather than lessens, my personal suspicion that he was working for the feds.
It is a very minor charge. Now granted, Epps did not enter the Capitol himself - but his open agitation of the attack nonetheless seems to me like it should constitute a significantly more serious offence, such as incitement to riot.
Speaking of which, it's very odd that he did not go into the Capitol himself, given that he loudly and repeatedly urged others to.
The fact that this minor charge plea deal has taken so long is very eyebrow raising as well. We typically saw the less serious cases dealt with quite quickly, while the big trials with serious jail time on the line took much longer - and even they got dealt with more quickly than Epps!
It's also extremely curious to me that they arranged a plea deal with Epps before he was ever charged with anything. That's not the normal way things go, as far as I'm aware - usually they throw everything they can at you, and then agree to drop some charges in exchange for guilty pleas for the others.
Now, it may be that there are matters of fact or law that I'm not aware of that makes all of this very normal and reasonable, and if so I would be delighted to be informed of them. But as it stands I am at a loss to explain how this guy is getting this treatment if he is not some kind of undercover operative.
EDIT: Thanks to @huadpe and @Gillitrut who have convinced me that the elements of more serious charges against Epps could probably not be satisfied.
IANAL but it seems like 18 USC 2101 could be appropriate. Although 18 USC 2102(b) provides:
So it probably depends pretty specifically on what Epps said and what the feds could convince a jury of. Was Epps urging or instigating others to commit or threaten violence? Or was he merely advocating an idea or expressing a belief that didn't necessarily entail violent acts?
The article notes there were a few others who went to the Capitol but didn't go inside. Do we have any information on what they were charged with? Might be a useful point of comparison.
Also the article you linked to references another NYT article from yesterday, when the charging was originally announced, and says:
I almost wonder if the FBI considered his conduct too minor to charge in summer 2021 and maybe lost track of his case in the interim since he wasn't on their list anymore? Then, Epps was back in the news with his interview and lawsuit so they decided they should get around to charging him? Given the harassment it sounds like he faced maybe he wanted to be charged to try and put rumors of his being a fed to bed? I might rather spend some time in jail or on probation than be inundated with conspiracy theory driven death threats!
Ah yeah. That is indeed a hard test to meet.
Okay, I'm putting my pitchfork away. Still weird that it took so long for him to get charged, but that's not weird enough to suggest "federal plant" to me anymore.
Why would the DOJ need to cover their ass if he wasn't a stooge? People get called snitches all the time, I can't find any other examples of the DOJ even feeling the need to respond to claims of that nature, let alone prosecute.
especially 2.5 years after the fact when they know no one who thinks he's connected to the government is going to have their minds changed by this behavior
my speculation is that there are two high-ish profile cases (Ryan Samsel and another I cannot immediately recall) going to trial in the next month with Epps being a direct witness in those cases and the defendants in those cases are now changing their stories w/re to Epps and what happened and the gov may need to use him to go after those people
if there was no plea deal, Epps has a strong case for refusing to testify by invoking his Constitutional rights, so by golly gosh, it just so happens a charge by information on a single misdemeanor count with a plea deal hearing scheduled a few days later just popped up
my additional less supportable speculation is that those defendants have played ball somewhat with the government and now that they're realizing the government is still coming after them seemingly without any limit, they've decided to stop playing ball and changed their stories and will claim it was because of government threats, again with Epps being a direct subject
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