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 -
I can see the tenuous basis/linkage here, and I appreciate you providing an answer to my question. But, unfortunately, it isn't enough to change my mind on this matter - I can't understand how Ray Epps gets away with what he did on the basis of people saying mean things about him online when this same principle is not applied to anywhere near the same degree when it comes to others. Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were the target of far more online conspiracy theories than Ray Epps was, but that hasn't impacted their sentencing or prosecution in the slightest.
Well there's two questions here and it's important not to confuse them:
I've laid out my reasons for why Ray Epps does not appear to have been treated unusually when comparing his charges/sentences to other comparable J6 defendants. In terms of how much him being the victim of a conspiracy theory affected the outcome, it's hard to say because his ultimate sentence was well within the ballpark compared to other defendants. I do think it's plausible just based on the fact that this is indeed a factor in other cases, but his sentence was expected to be low anyways. You can read Epps' sentencing memo filed by his attorney for further details on how his life had been affected.
This is why a comparison to Epstein/Maxwell wouldn't make sense. The "suffered enough already" factor might sway judges/prosecutors at the margins, particularly for petty or questionable offenses, but I can't imagine a scenario where it would justify leniency for someone accused of running an underage sex trafficking ring.
Could you please show me where you actually did this? I gave the post I was responding to the and the links a few looks, but I couldn't find any where you went through the claims made in the Revolver piece in great detail.
Also, I'd just like to add as an aside that I don't think "being the victim of a conspiracy theory" is actually what is responsible for his lenient sentencing - rather, it was due to him being a federal informant or otherwise working for the government. I think that the conspiracy theory claim is being used as a figleaf for those other reasons. And finally...
Petty or questionable offences? Epstein was just running an underage sex trafficking ring, and the government didn't even think that was a big enough deal for him to go to prison the first time he did it. They haven't even gone after many of the confirmed customers of the sex ring - Ehud Barak is still a free man, as is Prince Andrew. In contrast, I've been repeatedly informed by "reliable sources" that what took place on January 6 was a violent insurrection that attempted to end our democracy, and is actually legally comparable to raising an army and literally waging war on the US government. The idea that people being mean on twitter could make up for that beggars belief.
I was addressing whether or not Epps was treated unusually as a defendant, and I examined that by comparing him to all other J6 defendants: "Ray Epps pleading guilty to misdemeanors (505 out of all 1,265 J6 defendants also did), avoiding jail time (282 out of 749 convicted J6 defendants also did), or avoiding pretrial detention (70% of J6 defendants also did) seemed unusual." What claim within the Revolver piece addresses whether or not Epps was treated unusually that I did not address?
Do you believe that the 37% of other convicted J6 defendants who also avoided jail time were also federal informants or otherwise working for the government?
Sure, that would beggar belief if it happened. I've seen no indication that's the case because plenty of other convicted J6 defendants avoided jail time despite not being the subject of a conspiracy theory. This is evidently not a material factor for sentencing purposes.
The actual acts undertaken by Epps as outlined that article are the exact reason why people believe he was being treated unusually. Remember that he said that people needed to go into the capitol the night before the speech, and he even quit the speech early to go make sure people could go into the capitol! There is a much more direct line from his actions to the breach of the capitol building than anything Trump did or said, and they actually are going after Trump for actions that were unequivocally less relevant to the breach of the capitol building than what Epps did. He was also high up in the ranks of the Oathkeepers, one of the groups involved - he's directly comparable to Enrique Tarrio, and the difference in sentencing is extremely stark.
I believe that a substantial amount were. This isn't a bizarre conspiracy theory or fact pulled out of my ass to justify my opinion, but based on the admission of several officials that there were a large number of informants and government workers in the crowd. I'm sure that some of these individuals were just lucky (or unlucky given they were involved in the process at all), but I would bet a significant amount of money that there are federal informants or government workers inside that 37%.
Did you read the opinion? Judge Boasberg (coincidentally the same judge who approved the faulty warrant that allowed surveillance of the Trump campaign) explicitly said that this was a material factor for sentencing purposes. I think he was lying, but that is his actual official position.
This is very interesting to hear and maybe explains our disagreements you outline in your first paragraph. What officials? What admissions? How many informants? And assuming all that is correct, how do you know that the groups 'informant' and 'J6 defendant who avoided jail time' overlap with each other? The practice in federal court that I'm familiar with for defendants is that their informant status is disclosed in order to get leniency at sentencing, and no J6 defendant has ever been outed as having done that. Maybe they're ongoing confidential human sources (CHS) but then I'm failing to understand why the government would bother charging them with a crime only to result in no jail time. Is this all meant to be a charade to aver a suspicious public? If so, doesn't the lack of jail time allow scrutinizing observers like yourself to see through that facade?
Mea culpa, I was not aware the judge said that. But like I said before plenty of other convicted J6 defendants avoided jail time despite not being the subject of a conspiracy theory. I understand you believe that many of those were also informants so that loops back to that point.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12541115/Merrick-Garland-says-dont-know-asked-FBI-informants-January-6-former-assistant-directors-bombshell-claim-bureau-MULTIPLE-confidential-sources-involved-Capitol-Riot.html
There've been multiple news stories about this, and multiple confrontations in official government panels. Even disreputable media sources like the NY Times have reported on this - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/politics/capitol-riot-fbi-informant.html
I don't even necessarily think that they do. Some of them would receive light or perfunctory sentences in order to keep their cover (most groups recognise what it means when someone keeps joining political groups, commits crimes, encourages lawbreaking and then doesn't go to prison). Some of them were, supposedly, simply government informants for other reasons who went to the protests as individuals. Some of the people who received a vanishingly small sentence may have simply had good lawyers, taken advantage of a legal mistake made by the government or have extenuating circumstances. But I stand by my claim that some of those defendants received leniency because they were actively working with the government. Ray Epps especially given that he's on camera talking about the need to break into the capitol building the night before (to a rousing chorus of FED!).
Publicly admitting that they were there on government orders is exactly the sort of thing that the FBI would prevent these informants/CHSes from doing, because that gives the game away.
Not at all. Notice how we're actually having a debate over this rather than simply pointing at the evidence and going "lol fed". Additionally, the FBI actually lost track of all their informants and confidential sources due to the sheer quantity of them involved in the protest. If there are so many of them that the FBI can't even keep track of people who they have on file, I don't think it's impossible that the government could end up charging some of them by mistake.
But to bring things right back to Ray Epps and the FBI, they have a documented track record of instigating crimes for the purpose of making arrests - see the Gretchen Whitmer plot, or the Khalil Abu Rayyan case. "Right wing extremism" is currently their biggest investigation target, and I think it is abundantly plausible that government informants or people otherwise working for the FBI were involved in making sure that otherwise innocent people ended up committing crimes.
If you look at things under that assumption, everything about Epps' conduct makes sense. He spends time telling people they need to break into the capitol building (again, with such insistence that people there in person surround him and start chanting FED), and then he goes and skips the actual speech he supposedly came to Washington to see, in order to make sure that the barricades preventing people from going into restricted areas are removed!
Then, he later says in a phonecall that he "facilitated the entrance of people into the capitol" - which is exactly what he would be doing if this theory is correct.(I can't find my source for this quote - google seems to just ignore it and give me articles about how he was let off, so feel free to just ignore this point). I may be making a fallacious argument from incredulity here, but I really can't see an alternative explanation for his behaviour on the day that makes any sense.I really appreciate your reply; you presented links to substantiate your claims and also argued with transparency. It's commendable.
I acknowledge some informants were in the crowd, likely on their own accord but it's possible that wasn't exclusively so. Assuming arguendo some informants were at J6 to "push things along" (use whatever wording you like), the glaring gap is how none of these efforts have been uncovered beyond just speculation.
I fully agree with you that the FBI has a documented track record of instigating crimes for purposes of making arrests, I said the exact same thing when I discounted the Whitmer kidnapping plot back when the news came out. When a conspiracy plot is hatched largely behind closed doors, it's perfectly reasonable to be very skeptical of FBI claims. Less so when it's enacted out in the open in an unambiguous manner. Several of the kidnapping plot defendants were rightfully acquitted because they presented compelling evidence of entrapment, which couldn't have happened without the defense attorneys investigating the informants, forcing the FBI to admit using them.
So as applied to J6, we don't have to rely on the FBI's skewed version of events because we can see people actually storming the Capitol on video. And we've had 1,265 defendants so far, almost all of whom would be represented by stellar defense attorneys (unlike their state/county counterparts, federal public defenders have a well-earned reputation at the top) so how come not a single defendant argued entrapment? It's not plausible that every single one of these lawyers somehow decided to sit on their ass and ignore the most obvious defense, unless you accept the conclusion that no informants were involved in entrapment on J6. You're welcome to tell me if there's anything wrong with this reasoning.
Regarding Ray Epps's conduct, the fact that some J6 protestors believed he was a fed is not relevant evidence. Baked Alaska, the same guy who starting chanting "Fed! Fed!" at Epps on January 5th still livestreamed himself walking into the Capitol the next day, which eventually landed him with a 60 day jail sentence. This is demonstrably not someone whose judgment merits relying upon.
If you're curious about Ray Epps's mindset that day, you can read what his defense attorney put in his sentencing memo starting on pg 4. Epps claimed he thought the Capitol would be open on J6, didn't start realizing otherwise until he saw the barricades and scuffles, and was too far forward in the crowd to find an opportunity to turn back. Obviously you don't have to accept his version of events, but it all seems like a plausible and likely explanation to me. Tourists can barely identify DC monuments, let alone intimately know their open hours so that part makes sense. Revolver News included video showing Epps in front of a row of police trying to calm people down so that also makes sense. As does his inability to leave because of a crowd of 10,000 behind him, because I've been to a music festival before. I'm not aware of what evidence contradicts his version of events.
Regarding your reference to a phone call he made later, you're probably referring to the text message he sent his nephew on J6 saying "I was in the front with a few others. I also orchestrated it." I agree this could be incriminating, but "orchestrated" what? When questioned about this text (pg 63) he said he meant "orchestrated" helping people get to the front and remain peaceful, and also claimed he wasn't aware how violent it got at the time he sent the text. I personally don't fully buy his explanation, and think the more likely element is he's an old boomer who wanted to brag to his nephew.
First of all, sorry for taking so long to reply - I only post during working hours to make sure that I keep the culture war and getting mad at the internet portion of my day well contained. Thank you for the compliments!
As the person endorsing a conspiracy theory, I'd just like to clarify that I do not believe the "feds" started the protest. I think they went out of their way to make it easy for people to commit crimes without realising it, by being heavily involved in the leadership of the protest as well as by surreptitiously removing barricades and barriers in such a way that people would commit crimes without realising it. So far (to my knowledge) there hasn't been any footage that contradicts this claim. I think there would have been a protest, but I don't think it would have gotten as far as it did, nor would nearly as many crimes have been committed, without some federal encouragement/assistance.
Did you go through every single case? I don't see a source stating that you've gone through all the J6 prosecutions and identified the defences being used in each one. If you've actually got a good source explaining every single case I'd love to give it a look. That said, I imagine that any case involving active federal informants or CHSes would be kept sealed or private in order to prevent that information from being released and leaving them utterly useless, and some people would simply receive extremely good plea deals if their defence would actually expose an informant or source. It feels slightly dishonest to say "All of my evidence is in the box marked 'this box cannot be opened except by federal agents'" but c'est la vie.
I agree! It was actually his actions that I was referring to in that video as evidence, rather than the namecalling.
I'm actually familiar with Baked Alaska, the moron who livestreamed himself committing several crimes, was responsible for getting a lot of people identified with his footage, and who said "if I didn't turn into an informant I'd get a felony charge" before getting an incredibly sweet plea deal (which he then went and fucked up!). Baked Alaska is a very odd figure and connected with a lot of the more odd-looking parts of the internet right (Nick Fuentes), but he is also effectively a confirmed government informant - so if you were wondering what it would look like for one of them to get charged, his case is right there.
I can't find this explanation viable or realistic at all given the actual footage of him and what he did when he reached the barriers. It also completely fails to explain why he was so insistent on breaking into the capitol building everywhere he went and spoke to people - I can't square the mindset he's claiming and the actions he took at all. Hell, even when reading the statements put out by his legal team...
So he gets to the barricade, has a chat with the guy who then goes and takes down the barriers. Then he "followed behind and again through a second set of barriers"? How exactly do you decide to turn around and leave, then end up breaking through security barriers in the opposite direction?
Thanks for finding that one! I also don't believe his stated explanation, albeit for different reasons.
Ultimately, I'm utterly unconvinced by the argument being made by the government/his defence here. There's no good explanation for his bizarre insistence on breaking into the capitol building or for his actions in furtherance of that goal, nor for his incredibly lenient treatment when compared to a lot of the other J6 protestors. Maybe I'm just outing myself as a midwit, but I think that the case made by the two revolver articles was substantially stronger than the one made by Epps' defenders. Though with all that said I don't believe there's enough publicly available evidence to firmly settle the matter one way or another.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So what? For this to be a valid argument, the same rules would have to be applied to all defendants, which is precisely the thing in dispute.
I don't understand which dimension you're referring to. Which rules are not being applied to all defendants?
All of them, or rather you're asking the wrong question, I'm talking about the entire framework you're applying, not a specific dimension.
This is what I think is the fundamental flaw in rationalism and adjacent movements, the framework of natural sciences, where you compare the outcomes after juggling a few specific parameters is not adequate for politics, or really any topic dealing with purposeful human action.
When the question is "why do some things float, and some things sink" you can take a bunch off things and play the game of "is it weight? Hm... No this thing is heavy and didn't sink" because you can rely on the assumption that laws of physics are applied the same way to all objects, and even then it took physicist ages to come up with a reliable model of reality, and even that model has a ton of caveats and unexplained stuff.
When the question is "was being a victim of a conspiracy theory a factor in the applied punishment" it makes no sense say "plenty of other convicted J6 defendants avoided jail time despite not being the subject of a conspiracy theory" because laws of men are not laws physics, and aren't applied the same to all cases.
This entire way of attempting to answer the question in these domains is simply unproductive.
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
I have no opinion whatever about whether Epps is or isn't a federal agent, nor do I care.
With that said, though, I think some of what you are encountering is based not on any of the individual factors you discussed, but rather the combination of all of them together all seeming to roll on the "lenient" side, along with the perception that Epps is a (relatively) prominent defendant. I think to some degree you have mistakenly focused on individual probabilities rather than the compound probability that a "prominent defendant" would have all of those individual elements all come up in a way favorable to him.
Not saying that's right or wrong, but I think that is at least some of what is going on here, and if you wanted to be more convincing, I think that's where you'd want to focus.
I appreciate the feedback but I'm not sure how to apply it. How would someone conduct a compound probability without examining individual elements? Not all of the elements were favorable to Epps either because he was charged with a crime while other prominent figures with comparable conduct (Nick Fuentes & Ali Alexander for example) were not. I'm open to suggestions for how to do a comparison differently.
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