site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023

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.

12
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As a realpolitik thing, the prosecution here doesn't happen without the Jan 6 riots.

It was valid to protest the election and certification.

Nothing Trump said incited violence, and his literal words send the protesters home.

The actual riots were incited by Federal provocateurs, it being well-established now that many of the people who entered the Capitol were literal agents for the FBI.

Even the NYT published this very washed-over account about FBI informants among the rioters:

https://archive.is/5J0Db

(The same news organizations will then call it a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that there were FBI informants at the Capitol. Not to mention the Ray Epps affair: https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1547396003690577921 )

Epps instigated the riot, uniquely among all Capitol protestors, went expressly to incite a riot, was given a sweetheart deal by the Feds, and is now given puff piece media coverage. As Beattie says, "Ray Epps is the smoking gun of the Fedsurrection narrative," and yet is defended by the New York Times, the January 6th Committee, and the FBI. Does that not constitute evidence? 2 and 2 make 4 even if no on says "4" out loud.

The Establishment prosecuted J6 protesters who were completely peaceful and didn't even enter the Capitol. Why is that same Establishment protecting the guy who actually wanted to incite a riot, and would, in fact prove the narrative they're trying to promote? Can you explain why Adam Kinzinger or the NYT are calling Ray Epps a victim of a conspiracy theory, when they are hounding every other J6 protester who did far less? Where's your curiosity?

Keeping in mind that being a loudmouth and even encouraging crimes isn't itself a crime.

There go most of the indictments against Trump...

What did he do that warrants non kid gloves?

Instigated the riot, went expressly to incite a riot, was the second in command of the oath-keepers present on the day. He flat out said that they were going to go into the Capitol building on the day before it happened. You can see him on camera talking about how he'll probably be arrested because he is advocating that they breach the capital. I recommend checking out the Revolver News article on him, or the Tucker Carlson segment if you prefer video. I'm not suggesting you look at them uncritically mind you, but they lay out a fairly strong case that there is at least some fire beneath all this smoke.

even encouraging crimes isn't itself a crime.

I'm not a lawyer, but... what?! Isn't incitement a crime? Particularly in the face of the claim that the riot itself was an insurrection?

Let's do the counterfactual: what crimes did he commit that others have been charged for and he hasn't? You're saying he's getting kid gloves? What did he do that warrants non kid gloves?

Most of the J6 people that got prosecuted did nothing that warranted non-kid gloves. The fact that they behaved different than Epps is not evidence that they should have been prosecuted.

And that thread on Epps doesn't provide any evidence he was in any way employed by the government to instigate a riot. He may have wanted to instigate a riot, but that doesn't make him a fed. What is the positive evidence that he is?

Ah yes, the dude that actually tries to start a riot gets treated with kid gloves by the government and the media, as they come down like a ton of bricks on dude that enters the capitol in a buffalo hat. Makes perfect sense, and does not indicate he was working for the feds in any way.

There's in important distinction to be made between spooks and snitches.

"Someone in the crowd was giving information to the FBI" is very different to "FBI agents instigated the riot".

DOJ has refused to specify how many informants they had in the crowd, even though we know of several. They've refused to elaborate on footage showing the Capitol being unlocked from the inside by Capitol agents. And they won't prosecute Ray Epps.

Actually, you know what? I think a lot of your posts on this topic are nonsense but I'm going to back down and concede you may have a point here. I've never heard of Epps till today, but if it's true that the guy caught on video loudly advocating for an incursion into the Capitol itself in advance of the event has not been prosecuted... yeah that's a massive red flag.

Edit: Okay, so apparently he's saying he's going to be charged, but as far as I can tell it hasn't happened yet? It's plausible his case took longer because of his unique role in instigating the riot... I'll wait and see. But if he doesn't get hit with some heavy incitement-type charges I'll hmmmmm very loudly.

For what it's worth Epps is willing to go to court to prove that the claims about him are false.

That would mean something, if we could guarantee he'd come under competent hostile examination, but just giving a testimony doesn't move me either way.

As far as I know he didn't enter the Capitol building and apart from being an especially notable loudmouth isn't getting much different treatment from others who just entered the grounds but not building and didn't fight with cops or something.

It's a little bit weird to me how Boomers taking a stroll through the Capitol are insurrectionists, but the dude inciting a riot is just a loudmouth,

More comments

The actual riots were incited by Federal provocateurs, it being well-established now that many of the people who entered the Capitol were literal agents for the FBI.

Where is this well-established? A cursory Google search only returned that the FBI revoked the security clearance of one agent who joined the mob.