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 -
Ray Epps, pro-Trump rioter smeared by conspiracy theories, gets probation for role in Capitol riot
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/09/ray-epps-probation-capitol-riot-00134551
There's been an ongoing debate about Ray Epps on this site: Could he really be a Fed if the government is still trying to prosecute him? And the results are in: After heckling demonstrators to invade the Capitol, Epps was charged with a misdemeanor, uniquely leniency for J6 protesters, and will received one year probation. He will not see the inside of a jail cell. His suit against Fox News for defamation will be allowed to proceed, with the promise of a seven or eight-figure payout.
Almost simultaneously, the DOJ has announced that they will begin prosecuting J6 protesters who did not enter the Capitol building but were present in the demonstration outside. These protesters are expected to be charged with something more than misdemeanors.
A quick review of other J6 protesters
Enrique Tarrio was convicted as a terrorist for his role in organizing the Proud Boys even though he was not present at the Capitol or protest on J6
Owen Shroyer was jailed for speaking at the demonstration outside the Capitol, which prosecutors argued violated the terms of his parole (which stemmed from an occasion where he disrupted one of the House's impeachment procedings against Trump)
Joe Biggs, who was present at J6, was given more than a decade in jail after his efforts in taking down a fence around the Capitol were deemed to constitute terrorism, which resulted in his sentence being enhanced.
Steve Baker, an journalist who was present at J6 in his capacity as journalist for the Blaze, has been arrested by federal prosecutors, who sre seeking a 4-year jail sentence.
Ray Epps, who was present at J6, and encouraged people to enter the Capitol Building, will receive no jail time, will still be able to vote and carry a gun, and will possibly win a defamation payout of several million dollars. The government and the media agree that Ray Epps is not a federal agent, and that the accusation that he was caused him significant harm which is far worse than anything he deserves.
I used to think the J6 "fedsurrection" narrative was cope by right-wingers who weren't ready spiritually to defend the J6 protesters. I considered that, if you really believed the election was stolen, then a protest follows logically, except that that would make many conservatives uncomfortable. But, at this point, for me, it's pretty hard to deny that the government was up to something too. I could imagine that the government just had agents embedded to watch and follow along, but Ray Epps clearly did more than that.
I remember arguments on this site that, while it looked like Epps could be a Fed, the fact that he was still being prosecuted implied that maybe it wasn't so. Given his uniquely generous outcome, which almost amounts to an award, I'd like to reopen the discussion.
+1 evidence for him being a Fed, and for the feds spying on everyone, all the time.
His sentencing was changed from in person to online, supposedly because he was going to be served in a lawsuit at the sentencing.
Epps is, of course, an agent of the intelligence apparatus.
What does online sentencing have to do with being a plant, exactly?
If I'm understanding correctly, the allegation is that the court is actively helping him avoid being served in a lawsuit regarding his actions on jan 6th.
As a lawyer who represents clients who get sued almost weekly, I can assure you that avoiding service isn't an effective strategy to defend a lawsuit. It's not like the case gets dismissed if they take too long or can't find you after three tries. What really happens is they document their attempts and go to court to get permission for alternative service which, depending on the jurisdiction, could amount to nothing more than running an ad in the paper. In the meantime, you've been turning your life upside down to avoid the process server, and you've been so successful that while you were hiding in your friend's basement you got legally served and didn't know it. In the meantime, the case has proceeded and resulted in a default judgment against you. Now you get to go to court yourself to try and convince the judge that there was a good reason you didn't get served and he should throw out the default judgment. If you're successful, the best case scenario is you get to go back to the position you would have been in had you just accepted service in the first place, excepting for all the money you spent on attorneys to get the default judgment overturned. I don't know how the idea that it's a good idea to avoid service became a thing.
Are you sure on that? Usually it’s the complaint that controls time for statute of limitations purposes, but under federal rules plaintiffs only have 90 days to serve a defendant before they must show cause or have the complaint dismissed without prejudice. That lets them start over again, but it means starting over again.
For sophisticated plaintiffs going after unsophisticated targets, it doesn’t usually matter — you don’t let things get close to running the clock, and know exactly what is to dot to demonstrate necessary attempt of service — but I don’t think that’s the case here.
Right, so he's being sued by someone that doesn't even know how to attempt service? Or hire it out to a reputable one?
Because, as you say, if he's sued by anyone competent then they are gonna demonstrate that they made sufficient efforts.
Since "sufficient efforts" are whatever the court thinks they are, if the court wants to decide that things which would normally be sufficient aren't in this case and just dismiss for lack of service, they will.
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