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 -
You appear to have missed, for instance, the case of the QAnon Shaman himself, sentenced to 41 months for nothing more than "obstructing an official proceeding", a charge which if applied as widely would certainly apply to any protestors whose actions resulted in delay of any proceeding they were protesting. Of course, since technically this isn't merely "trespassing", it doesn't qualify; I fully admit you are a better lawyer than me and will always be able to find a wording by which the actions against the January 6 rioters look perfectly in line with the actions against left-wing rioters, or which somehow distinguish the actions those left-wing rioters from those of the right-wing ones. Yet.... eppur si muove
I remain intensely curious as to how you arrived at your original position, especially since you appear to have asserted it with some measure of confidence by claiming there were "many" such examples. Is it now reasonable to conclude your assertion was not based in fact? What is your best guess for why you nevertheless adopted this belief? I think these are relatively straightforward questions so I don't understand your apparent reluctance in answering.
I have already told you that I accept that you are a better lawyer than I am; if I try to play along you can likely twist me in knots. Your tactics are effective, if not original; making a new top post when a few too many inconvenient objections appeared on your older one was a nice touch. If I may engage in a similar sort of thing you are trying here, it appears that your reasons for posting these sorts of things are to put forth the notion that the January 6 rioters were not treated in an unusually harsh way, particularly compared to BLM rioters, that they deserved what they got, and to spread some doubt upon some of the obvious indicia that this is not the case.
I don't have any superpowers. There's nothing Herculean about saying "Yes my original position was based on false premises, I adopted those false premises because of X, Y, & Z". I don't get why you're so resistant, as you're not even challenging the premise of my question. Neither you nor anyone else has tried to defend the original "many" claim with fact, so why not just admit it was wrong? It's not a personal failing. I too sometimes hold erroneous beliefs, and it's ok when people call me out on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I appreciate the kind words but I don't have any superpowers and what I did wasn't special. My real-world experience does give me some anchors and generalized awareness, but what I did above just boiled down to googling. If I make an argument that is unsupported by the evidence, I think anyone has the power to demonstrate that. I can't claim that how the J6 defendants are treated is "perfectly in line" with left-wing rioters. I do think it's a reasonable conclusion, but I remain open to evidence demonstrating otherwise.
Regarding Q Shaman, I personally think 41 months is an unconscionable amount of prison time, especially one without even the trial tax applied, and especially given what seem to be clear mental health issues. But your original claim was much more expansive than just the Q Shaman. You said:
So I remain very curious to know how you arrived at this belief. Pointing out that the person who was most visibly at the center of the riot got a ridiculously high prison sentence is not going to be representative of the rest of the participants, most of whom did indeed commit no worse than trespassing. So how did you arrive at the claim that "many" of those trespassing were getting "harsh punishments"? Do you still hold this belief? Where did this belief come from?
More options
Context Copy link
Was the substitution of what Angeli (the QAnon Shaman) did with what he plead to in a plea deal deliberate or just ignorant?
Edit:
For reference, Angeli was charged with:
Civil Disorder; Obsrtuction of an Official Proceeding; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building; Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building.
For "reference", he wasn't convicted of those. Prosecutors routinely toss in bogus charges to force suspects to plea to a charge.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From what I can see Mr. Chansley suffered from placing himself front and center. I’d guess inciting others made the difference, but it could also be because of his ambiguous spear.
I think section 1505 is limited to Congress or it’s subcommittees, though it’s possible that it covers all Departments. If the latter is true, I’d expect the government to have charged far more people with this.
All in all, I don’t find the single longest sentence, directed at the single most prominent participant, to be convincing proof of “many of the rioters” getting such punishment.
deleted
I thought of it more like performance art personally. that is to say I think he knew what he was doing and I enjoyed the show.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link