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 -
To be sure, you're advocating that Dylan Robinson have his 4 year sentence commuted to time served?
Obviously not, which is kind of the point. The BLM rioters were, by and large, let off. But there was some amount of discretion shown and the worst were prosecuted. Can't say Trump returned the same.
"the worst" in one set are significantly worse than "the worst" in another set. BLM rioters murdered people with guns and burned down police stations. What is the worst crime that a J6th rioter committed?
So you have literally nothing to say about the specific defendant whose sentence was not commuted by Biden.
See the response here:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Broke into the capitol building in order to overturn an election? I feel like people really undersell how crazy it is that we had an angry mob break into Congress. For national respect and social cohesion that’s so much worse than burning down a police station.
You're getting downvoted pretty hard, but FWIW I do think you have a point regarding the difference in significance.
More options
Context Copy link
You mean "walked through the Capitol building after being ushered in by the police and while being followed by the police, while changing exactly nothing and having absolutely no effect on anything"?
Or people actually know that such things have happened before, multiple times (including multi-day "occupations" of state Congressional buildings, for example), and yes, done for explicit purposes of influencing the policies, only since it has been done by the left, people who get their news from CNN didn't even hear about it. In fact, angry mobs did much worse than walking through a building (like burning down the said buildings, yes) and nobody really noticed. It is a very common pattern in the US - the left is doing something for decades, then the right half-ass doing it once and everybody in the press screams "You see how crazy it is? How the right is breaking all the established norms?!". Unfortunately, they are doing it because it works - zero-information voters - like Chattooga here - eat it up wholesale and are convinced this is actually what is happening.
Please don't pretend you worry about "social cohesion" while simultaneously preaching "it's ok for my side to do everything but not ok for your side to do anything". It's not called "cohesion", it's called "submission" but fortunately it's not what American people are into. If the only way to reach "cohesion" is for everybody to submit to the ultra-left, this "cohesion" has zero value so stop promoting it as something that is universally valuable. We will know the left wants actual "cohesion" and "respect" when they start condemning their own ultras with at least half the energy they spend on condemning ones on the right. Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though.
P.S. Here's one example out of many, just saw it today: In 2017, son of Senator Tom Kaine rioted (with others, using smoke bombs, incendiaries, etc.) at MN Capitol, fought the police, was arrested, got zero jail time: https://freebeacon.com/politics/tim-kaines-youngest-son-arrested-in-minnesota/ Kaine never even half-assedly condemned the violent riots but of course he's whining about J6 pardons now, because it's not supposed to work both ways.
My point is obviously not that “it’s okay for my side to do anything but your side can’t do anything”. I get that you’re frustrated by a double standard but don’t project that onto me.
My point is that widespread generic protests cannot be equivocated to this specific event. It’s unlike anything in recent election history.
J6 was clearly not peaceful, and its goals were not, like almost all major protests in the last century, to influence politics through voicing discontent. It was to upend an election, and for some, to kill specific members of Congress.
Now, of course it was an uncoordinated mess, but it’s incredibly embarrassing, and yes, is bad for cohesion. Especially after Trump pardons all the people involved. Say what you will about left leaders handwringing or outright supporting riots (as you should), but none of those people stood to benefit from the rioting.
Honestly I think it’s fair to still be angry about the lack of response in 2020. What I can’t stand is the complete denial of J6 as a significant and unique event.
Of course not. "Widespread" means they were doing it many times, in many places - while the right did it just once. And was suppressed with furious force, way over what has been necessary to restore order, while much worse behavior from the left is routinely going unpunished - or frequently even rewarded - for decades.
Would you buy "mostly peaceful"? Because that's what we've been sold about Floyd riots, which did billions of damage and actually caused deaths. By the standards of those - again, for which virtually nobody is punished, select one-off sweetheart plea deals aside - they were extremely peaceful. I mean, they didn't even set the building on fire, amateurs. And a number of people on record for inciting the violence turned out to be suspiciously close to governmental "assets".
Oh, you know perfectly well the leftist protestors do way, way more than "voicing". I know it, you know it, you know that I know it - why do this? How much contempt must you have for your opponents to throw them a lie right in the face in full knowledge that both sides know it's a lie?
Nobody tried to kill specific members of Congress. Oh, my bad, somebody did try it - James Hodgkinson - only he was from the left. So, no national conversation on this one. No Congressional hearings orchestrated by Hollywood producers.
Because it is not true, and it is the correct behavior to deny it. J6 was a significant event, true, but in no way unique (except in a trivial way that every event is literally unique, being the only instance of itself), and especially not unique in the way that the left is trying to present it, as an unprecedented instance of political violence or insurrection - which is total falsity, political violence has been common on the left for decades, and there was no insurrection (come on, the bunch of gun nuts from the most gun-owning nation on earth stage an insurrection to overthrow the government and don't bother to bring a single fucking gun?! you really think we are extremely dumb here, do you?). It has been turned into political theater aimed at suppressing the Right's participation in the public politics (to some measure of success - the Left has several movements capable of turning out thousands to the street and produce political violence - or "mostly peaceful" if they want so - on demand, the Right has none) but nobody on the Right - or in fact on any side - owes to participate in this theater.
I dislike language like this because you’re needlessly raising the stakes. This is an Internet forum, we’re just talking. My point isn’t that all other protests are peaceful and the leftist are angels. Please step out of the bad faith arguing loop where you assume I’m trying to lie to you.
I’m trying to say that J6 was unlike other protests because of the nature of its goal and the scale. They didn’t want to affect the democratic process, they wanted to control it. Again I want to stress: Say what you will about left leaders handwringing or outright supporting riots (as you should), but none of those people stood to benefit directly from the rioting. Trump directly stood to gain from J6. And again, we’re talking about a mob breaking into the capitol building while Congress was in session. It’s never happened before!
I just don’t see your view that ‘the left’ is regularly using political violence and getting no pushback on it. The BLM protests were mostly half-heartedly condemned and under-punished, but they did hurt public opinions of democrats and especially far left figures. It was not forgotten.
How else should I interpret saying things which are not true? You say "My point isn’t that all other protests are peaceful and the leftist are angels" - and yet you describe them as "voicing their concerns", despite knowing there were violent riots. Why don't you say "violently rioting" but "voicing"? OK, you are not trying to lie - what are you trying to do when you do this?
Just as many other violent rioters, "occupiers", etc. did. The left routinely blocks and disrupts events where the speakers they do not approve appear, they disrupted democratic processes numerous times, they performed "direct actions" as "retaliation" for political actions many times, etc.
Of course they did. They got the policies they prefer to be implemented or upheld - and they got their opponents disrupted, intimidated or inconvenienced. Of course they benefitted from it, that's why they are doing it!
So? The leftist politicians routinely gain from the policies that result from the pressure they apply on the political processes. Of course any political process is done for somebody to gain something - otherwise it would be pointless. Why perform a political action if nobody gains anything from it?
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/07/8-times-left-wing-protesters-broke-into-government-buildings-and-assaulted-democracy/ That's only a small sample. I don't think whoever informed you did a good job.
"I don't see it because I don't want to see it" is not as strong an argument as you seem to think it is. Yes, I know you don't see it - that's exactly the problem, you see any disruption from the right with a microscope and the mass violence from the left leaves you legally blind.
I am not sure how it is an excuse of anything. "The institutional left ignored and enabled the riots" - "No, but they lost the election because of it!". Yeah, well? They deserved it. The fact that they got punished for it is not some argument to their benefit. They should have behaved differently, and they didn't. The fact that the voters punished them doesn't gain them any merit.
And people argue about it endlessly. It doesn’t go unexamined, and I think we’re well past the ‘de-platforming’ era. It’s not that these things don’t happen or are justified, it’s that you can’t say “The left does xyz and nobody says anything about it!” Because they do! And they should!
And you can certainly argue that violence at protests is under prosecuted or underreported. But that doesn’t mean that J6 is irrelevant. Either we have consistent standards for this kind of thing or it’s just partisan.
Do you consider J6 to be ‘applying pressure to the political process’? In an earlier comment you compared it to leftist protests “done for explicit purposes of influencing the policies“ Now in a technical sense sure, overturning an election in favor of the loser is influencing policy, but surely you would agree that it’s different than a crowd screaming in a state capital about a bill being passed.
I have repeatedly centered on one event, J6, as being a very significant and damaging moment that should not be dismissed. Trump’s pardoning of the people who perpetrated it in his name only adds to the distrust it sows. I maintain that there is no comparable event from the left.
I have acknowledged that left wing riots, particularly 2020, have gone under-condemned, although I do think they fall short of ‘mass violence’.
The federalist article provides a list of some government buildings being occupied, including people yelling the senate gallery while Pence bangs his gavel(?) and asked for them to be removed. (I’ll remind you that on J6 we had staffers piling up furniture to barricade senate doors.)
Yes, these are bad, yes, left wing protests get violent. But that doesn’t mean that J6 is just retribution and can be ignored. The difference in scale is immense! Breaking into the Interior Department over the need to declare a ‘climate emergency’ is not the same as trying to overturn an election.
———
The story of Joe Biden sneaking into the senate in 1963 is a particularly infuriating inclusion in the article since it’s is plainly not leftist assault on democracy and is only included as a braindead ‘gotcha’. This doesn’t really detract from your point but it made me mad.
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
2020 dug deep into a well of insanity that we still haven't climbed out of in many ways.
I get a certain argument about the symbolism of DC and institutions, but I still believe the passé attitude so many liberal-progressives had about widespread street violence displayed much more disregard for social cohesion. It was a rejection of social cohesion on the national "territory," not the national "map," so to speak.
Say what you will about
national socialismJ6ers, at leastit's an ethosthey took their aggrievement where they thought it belonged, not against random businesses or apartment buildings or freight trains that happened to be nearby.More options
Context Copy link
They didn't even break in. They were let in because of inadequate staffing. Also, criminal trespass to property is in a different league than arson.
Calling it ‘criminal trespassing’ feels bad faith. Sure, it’s technically true, but it downplays the obvious severity of the situation.
I want to treat people like adults and say that if you are climbing through a broken window into the Capitol of the United States with the express intent of halting proceedings, you are taking on the consequences of that action.
Was all of the sentencing fair relative to 2020? Maybe not, but this was an enormous national and international embarrassment, and I’m not too worried about the government being too harsh on the category of “people who break into the capitol to stop an election”.
More options
Context Copy link
Is your point that some were let in, while your ignore how others broke in?
Or is your point that a broken window "lets in" anyone who would like to enter?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It had been previously established that it was entirely acceptable for mobs to declare themselves sovereign from local, state and federal law enforcement, and to enforce this claim by burning police stations and courthouses, denying access to the actual police, arming themselves with rifles and shooting people in the street. When I and others like me stood appalled at the leniency applied by the government to such behavior, we were told that this lawless, organized and widespread violence was "mostly peaceful", that acting against these mobs would only "inflame tensions", and then that it was fine because they didn't actually achieve anything, ignoring of course the mass victimization of their fellow citizens and the mass intimidation of those who disagreed with them.
It seems to me that the same arguments apply here. The January 6th protest was in fact significantly more mostly peaceful than many of the leftist riots that preceded it. The protesters did not arm themselves with guns, did not shoot people in the street, and did not set the capitol building on fire. They scuffled with police, conducted an unscheduled tour of the capitol building, had an unarmed woman among their number fatally shot by security, and then left. To the extent that they intended to "overturn an election", it seems to me that numerous leftist protests involved similarly dire goals, and took far greater action toward achieving them to boot, and were given far more lenient treatment even when their crimes included serious violence with guns and arson.
Mobs have "mostly peacefully" disrupted government functions before, and it was not treated as insurrection. I see no reason why this should be treated any more harshly than previous mob disruptions, particularly given the violence allowed during the Floyd riots.
I disagree. My perspective on the riots is that Blue Tribe legalized political violence committed by their partisans against people like me within a significant portion of the country, and made it stick for the better part of a year. That is a profoundly corrosive action against any conception of "national respect" or "social cohesion". I now know for a fact that reasonable, thoughtful Blues are in fact willing to look the other way while my civil and human rights are violated and while lawless violence is committed against me or my family, because I watched them do exactly that, and I watched them argue at length that it was good, actually. That's the meaning behind "burning down police stations." January Sixth was not even close to that bad.
I understand that you think 2020 had a vast under response. Broadly I agree that there should have been less hand-wringing and more condemnation. But I don’t think that describing politics as Blue Tribe and Red Tribe actually justifies tribal argument. Many ‘blue tribe’ people I know were also outraged at the rioting and destruction.
You describe J6 like it was an overeager group of tourists ducking under a velvet rope. I can’t really figure out what to say to that. Generally I try to respond as genuinely good faith as I can, but this seems like a major break to me.
Members of J6, broadly:
Fought with police instructing them to disperse
Tore down crowd barriers
Broke and climbed in windows
Opened doors to let in others
Went through desks and offices of capital building members
Pressed further into the building, including secured areas.
Babbitt climbed through a broke window directly adjacent to a guard with a drawn weapon.
All of this in one of the most importantly political buildings in the country, second only to the White House. While Congress was in session. With the express intent of stopping the proceedings and in some cases calls for the execution of its members.
What about the situation am I missing that leads you to dismiss it? I don’t think this is comparable to previous protests since to my knowledge no previous protest has led to the occupation of the capital building.
More options
Context Copy link
I think there's still a big difference in kind between effectively micro-secessionism and fucking with the election. One is an attack on one area of a city, the other is an attack on the entire country.
Correct. One, if accomplished by force, is literally treason, and the other is normal. It's the micro-secessionism which is treason -- "making war against the United States". Having a protest against election results in a democracy is normal. Having the protest become a riot is regrettable but also not uncommon.
To me it's not a matter of category but scale. And micro-secessionism does not affect the rest of the country, whereas fucking with the election does.
This is getting very Texas Sharpshooter. Austin, specifically, I suppose.
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
That’s fine, punish them both.
But don’t commute the sentences of violent J6ers (even if they are less numerous! which underlines your point!)
It's argued elsewhere in this thread that BLM rioters who attacked cops were given ~1 year sentences. Assuming that's accurate, why should J6ers who committed similar crimes but who have already been in prison four times as long, and at least arguably in significantly worse conditions, remain in jail even one day more?
Nor does it seem that punishing BLM rioters is still possible, given that they have in many cases served their sentences and have been released. Presumably your view is that this is regrettable, but we should stand for the principle in any case?
No, my point is that many BLM rioters that committed violent acts are still in prison right now.
And Biden, after pardoning everyone under the sun, didn't so much as lift a finger for them.
Both of these are just basic facts about reality.
This is true, for certain values of "many". I'm sure I could find at least a dozen examples of BLM rioters still in prison, and a dozen is certainly fits the general definition of "many".
Do you believe that most BLM rioters that committed violent acts are in prison right now? I would say that is certainly not the case, but perhaps you disagree.
What would be your estimate of the percentage of BLM rioters who committed violent acts and were then imprisoned? I would say less than .0001%; does that estimate seem in the right ballpark to you?
What would be your estimate of the percentage of BLM rioters who committed serious violence, like shootings, stabbings, severe beatings or arson, and were then imprisoned? I would estimate less than 1%. What would your estimate be?
Of those who committed serious violence and were then imprisoned, what percentage received notably lenient sentences given their crimes? My estimate is that most of them did, because that is how the large majority of the cases I followed at the time and in the aftermath went; what's your view?
Another way to frame it is that, roughly speaking, the overwhelming majority of BLM rioters who committed violence were not arrested, of those arrested a large majority were not prosecuted, of those prosecuted a majority were not not imprisoned, and of those imprisoned a majority received unusually lenient sentences. By contrast, it seems to me that J6ers got much harsher treatment at pretty much every step of this process. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?
I am not willing to accept significant disparities in law enforcement breaking along the lines of partisan ideology. You have pointed to a BLM rioter who got a serious sentence for a serious case of arson. I would even be willing to overlook the many, many BLM rioters who were not punished for serious arson, and agree that any J6er who committed arson should receive a similar sentence and a similar lack of pardon; only, there aren't any, are there? I would even be willing to agree that the person who planted pipe bombs in the capitol building should receive a harsh sentence and no pardon; only, the FBI seems to be oddly incapable of finding them, claiming that all the video evidence has apparently disappeared from FBI custody. I would be willing to write off any J6ers who shot people, or shot at people, or even who brandished firearms to threaten people, but it doesn't seem that there are any of those either.
I am not willing accept an equivalence between scuffling with the police and burning down a police station or shooting people or staging an armed takeover of a portion of a city. I have no idea why I should, but I'd be happy to hear arguments to the contrary.
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