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 -
He was charged with disorderly conduct.
As for "felony obstruction", are you referring to USC 1512(c)(2)?
I'm not aware of any video showing Epps committing assault, could you link me?
That would be what some of the protesters were charged with and convicted of, the "official proceeding" being the election stuff going on in congress, no?
"Video unavailable in your region", but here's Yahoo news talking about it:
Thanks. The video is unavailable for me too, but I do note that the yahoo news article states that another protestor (Jose Padilla) with his hands on the same sign was acquitted of committing assault in that instance. (Why was he charged while Epps was not? I would guess it had something to do with the fact that Padilla was also charged and convicted of a bunch of other violent crimes.)
Yes, many other protestors were charged and convicted of obstructing an official proceeding. However, I don't believe Epps could be convicted of that as he did not enter the Capitol and therefore did not obstruct its proceedings.
There were protestors who have not entered the Capitol who have faced, and were convicted of the same charge. Keep in mind that it's the "not even being charged" part that is important here. It would be a lot harder to argue there's something special in Epp's case if he was hunted down like the other protesters, and just ended up with lawyers that were good at making his case.
You're right, and I apologise. It seems I misunderstood the requirements of the charge.
I found this transcript from the trial of Guy Reffitt, the protestor you mention. From page 24 we get the actual jury instructions for the charge in question. Apparently aiding and abetting others to obstruct the proceeding is sufficient.
Reffitt reached that threshold (as laid out on page 28) in my opinion - the five elements are 1) that others committed an obstruction of an official proceeding; 2) that Reffitt knew that the obstruction would be committed; 3) that Reffitt committed an act or acts in furtherance of the offence; 4) that Reffitt knowingly committed that act or acts for the purpose of assisting, encouraging the offence to be committed; and 5) that Reffitt committed those acts with the intent that others commit the offence.
In my opinion, Reffitt's actions clearly meet that standard. What about Epps?
It seems to me that the third element is problematic. It's not obvious to me that Epps committed any act in furtherance of the obstruction. Maybe you could argue his statements from the night before count, but I wouldn't be confident.
It actually seems pretty clear to me that he did, but it doesn't matter - that's what trials are for, and he wasn't even accused. Even more telling is the mainstream media circling the wagons around him, while they went after the other J6 protesters, and stayed silent about their mistreatment.
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