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 -
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.
In case you're interested, I had a 3-hour conversation about this topic in the latest episode of the Bailey which covers a lot of the points you raise.
I find these claims very odd to parse because they're so at odds with what I've seen. I'm aware of the footage of cops removing barricades outside, but that footage was filmed behind the officers so it seems obvious they were already surrounded at that point. There's also this synced footage of the enormous amount of effort police took to stop protestors from coming inside the tunnel. It's baffling to me how anyone present could have believed they were invited in.
No, I did not examine every single one of the 1,265 cases. I'm stating that I am not aware of any J6 cases that did try to use entrapment as a defense. If you want to claim that this information is ultimately unknowable, I would be curious to know why it didn't apply to the Whitmer kidnapping cases where the entrapment defense was successfully deployed.
Sorry again for the late reply, but I'll give this a listen tonight. I don't think there's much point continuing the conversation until I have gotten through that three hours.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link