CCN Wants You Angry at Longview Resistance! Here’s What They Don't Want You Looking At!

 There is a very strange thing happening in the Cowlitz County political Facebook circus right now. Apparently, if one Facebook page gets worked up about something, another Facebook page is required to jump into the fray and express the appropriate amount of outrage. Apparently, Facebook now has mandatory participation requirements.

Cowlitz County News has repeatedly demanded to know why Longview Resistance isn't responding to allegations involving Terry Carlson. The argument is essentially, “Why aren't they calling this out? Why aren't they as upset as we are?” That isn't an argument. It is a collection of logical fallacies dressed up as accountability.

The first problem is that there are several different logical fallacies being piled on top of one another:

• Tu quoque, or the hypocrisy fallacy: “You criticized something else, so why aren't you criticizing this?” Whether Longview Resistance has been consistent in every situation has nothing to do with whether the current allegation is true.
• Whataboutism: Instead of dealing with the substance of the allegation, the discussion gets redirected toward Longview Resistance and what it supposedly hasn't said.
• Shifting the burden of proof: An accusation is made, then someone else is expected to explain why they haven't responded to it. The person making the allegation has the responsibility to support it.
• False equivalence: Different people, allegations and circumstances are treated as though they are automatically comparable simply because someone wants to make a comparison.
• Guilt by association: Longview Resistance is being dragged into the controversy based on its perceived associations rather than evidence that it was involved in whatever conduct is being discussed.
• Appeal to popularity: “Everyone is upset about this, so why aren't you?” The number of angry Facebook comments isn't evidence. It's just angry Facebook comments.
• Ad hominem: When the discussion turns to attacking someone's intelligence, character, grammar or motives instead of addressing the evidence, the argument has stopped being about the issue and started being about the person.

Then there is the particularly bad argument we've seen repeatedly: “Just because someone wasn't found guilty doesn't mean they didn't do it.” That statement proves absolutely nothing. The absence of a conviction does not establish guilt, just as the inability to prove guilt does not become evidence that someone committed the alleged conduct.

The entire premise that Longview Resistance is somehow required to respond becomes even more ridiculous when you look at what happened next.

Instead of simply discussing the issue with their own followers, in public, on their page, Cowlitz County News is directing people toward their private group and encouraging them to make their feelings known there. That's sus as hell as well as completely disingenuous. 

If Cowlitz County News has evidence, present the evidence. If someone believes Terry Carlson did something wrong, make the case regarding Terry Carlson. 

There's another rather important problem that seems to be getting lost in all of this.

Terry Carlson's daughter has now publicly addressed the allegations herself. In her statement, she says the allegation involving Chris did not happen. She explains that she was a child caught in the middle of what she describes as a very ugly divorce and says she remembers how difficult that time was for her family. She also says she has a good relationship with both her father and Chris and is grateful for those relationships.

Most importantly, she is asking people to stop dragging her childhood and private medical information into this public fight. She specifically says she does not want her private medical records from when she was a child being used or shared publicly. She says she is speaking now because she wants the truth stated in her own words and does not want a painful chapter of her childhood being used to hurt her family today.

That seems like a pretty straightforward request. Yet somehow the people supposedly so concerned about protecting children don't appear particularly concerned about respecting the wishes of the adult who actually lived through the childhood they're using as ammunition.

If Cowlitz County News is genuinely concerned about children, then perhaps it should consider what it means to continue pushing allegations about someone's childhood after that person has publicly stated that the allegation involving her did not happen and has asked people to stop. Her statement doesn't automatically settle every factual question surrounding every person involved, but it certainly deserves to be acknowledged rather than ignored because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative.

You don't get to invoke children as a shield when it suits the argument and then ignore the person whose childhood is being discussed once she grows up and tells you what she remembers. At some point, continuing to use someone's childhood and private history as political ammunition after they have asked you to stop stops looking like concern for that person and starts looking like using that person to make a political point.

Cowlitz County News is revictimizing the victim and that's pretty despicable. 

Jim Walsh Is Wrong, Too

The comments on Jim Walsh's post deserve their own examination.

One of the arguments appearing in the discussion is that if Terry Carlson had sexually abused his daughter, she would have “already spoken out about it as an adult.”

This person proves CCN, Jim Walsh, Joel McEntire and that entire group flat wrong. 

The suggestion is that Carlson must have somehow implanted a false memory because the child was four years old. That's another enormous leap. If someone has evidence that a child was coached, manipulated or instructed to make a false allegation, present the evidence. If someone has evidence demonstrating that the allegation is false, present that evidence.

What cannot logically happen is starting with the conclusion that an allegation is fabricated and then constructing a theory to explain why. That's confirmation bias, not investigation.

Walsh Is Also Wrong About the Civil Complaints

Walsh makes another claim that deserves attention. He suggests that this is why Carlson's supporters have “rushed to file civil complaints” against Joel McEntire, implying that the complaints are simply part of some organized political effort to attack him.

People file complaints because they believe conduct occurred that warrants reporting. A complaint being filed does not automatically prove that the complaint is valid, but it also does not become illegitimate simply because the person being reported has political opponents. If people believe conduct occurred that warrants a complaint, they are entitled to report it through the appropriate channels. The existence of political disagreements does not automatically transform those complaints into a conspiracy.

There is another detail that matters here, too. At least one of the complaints being discussed was filed by someone who is not a constituent of McEntire's legislative district. That fact alone doesn't establish whether the complaint is valid or invalid, nor does it establish anything about the complainant's motives. What it does undermine is the attempt to reduce every complaint to some simplistic story about local political opponents trying to punish McEntire. People outside his district can still have legitimate reasons to file a complaint about conduct they believe warrants review, depending on the rules governing the complaint.

In other words, the question should remain: What was alleged, what evidence supports it, and what did the appropriate authority determine? Whether the complainant lives in McEntire's district is not a substitute for answering those questions.

Walsh's argument appears to reverse cause and effect: Carlson has supporters, Carlson's supporters filed complaints against Joel, therefore the complaints must be part of an organized political effort against Joel. That's guilt by association combined with an unsupported assumption about motive.

The relevant question isn't who the complainant supports. The relevant questions are what conduct was reported, whether that conduct occurred and whether it violated whatever rules or laws apply.

If Joel believes a particular complaint is false, retaliatory or politically motivated, he has every right to challenge it with evidence. He can identify which allegation he believes is false, provide evidence supporting his position and allow the appropriate body to evaluate the matter. What he doesn't get to do is declare that everyone who reports him is part of some coordinated conspiracy simply because those people disagree with him or support someone he doesn't like.

You don't get to discredit a complaint simply by assigning a political motive to the person who filed it. Otherwise every ethics complaint, administrative complaint, civil action, police report or protection-order petition could be dismissed with the incredibly convenient explanation of, “They're just trying to get me.” That's not an evidentiary argument. It's an excuse.

Now Let's Talk About Joel McEntire's Argument

Joel McEntire appears in the screenshots saying that Terry Carlson was “implanting fake SA memories” into his four-year-old daughter and calling that “diabolical.”

He then claims Longview Resistance has been using “every trick in the book” to get him out of office and says the judge “dismissed most of the requests from the plaintiff.” There are some enormous problems with that reasoning.

First, Joel is asserting a motive without establishing it. Second, he appears to be conflating a court not granting every request a party makes with a court determining that the underlying allegations were fabricated. Those are not remotely the same thing.

Most importantly, his argument about Britney Brown's protection order ignores the actual legal standard. Under Washington law, a court shall issue a protection order when it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner has proved the required statutory criteria. For an antiharassment protection order, that means establishing that the petitioner was subjected to unlawful harassment by the respondent. Washington law also requires a protection-order petition to be accompanied by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating the specific facts and circumstances supporting the request. Protection-order hearings may be conducted using the information in the sworn petition, live testimony from the parties and additional sworn declarations.

So let's be clear about what this means. Britney did not simply walk into court, make an accusation, and automatically receive a protection order because a judge decided to believe her. A legal proceeding occurred. The court considered the material before it. The applicable legal standard was applied. The court entered an order.

There is one important correction to something I said earlier, too. I used the phrase “tangible proof.” That's too narrow. The law does not require some magical piece of physical evidence with a little red bow around it. Evidence can take many forms. The legally important point is that the court had to find the statutory criteria established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Washington law specifically says that in proceedings where a petitioner alleges nonconsensual sexual conduct, a court cannot require physical injury or other forensic evidence as a prerequisite to relief.

The accurate argument, therefore, is not, “There had to be tangible proof.” The accurate argument is: There had to be sufficient evidence to meet the applicable legal standard, and the court determined that the standard was met. That's a very different thing.

The Protection Order Cannot Simply Be Explained Away

The screenshots show people attempting to suggest that Britney obtaining a protection order was somehow part of a coordinated political operation involving Longview Resistance.

Where is the evidence that Longview Resistance orchestrated Britney's case? Where is the evidence that they manufactured her allegations? Where is the evidence that they manipulated the court? Where is the evidence that the judge's decision was the product of some political campaign?

The screenshots don't establish any of that. They show people asserting it. Those are two very different things.

Joel can disagree with the court's decision. He can challenge it through the legal system. He can appeal if the applicable rules permit it. What he cannot reasonably do is take the court's decision, replace it with his own preferred explanation, and then present his explanation as though it were a judicial finding.

The same problem applies to Walsh. If Walsh has evidence that the child was coached, present it. If he has evidence that Carlson fabricated something, present it. If he has evidence contradicting the allegations, present it. If Joel has evidence that Longview Resistance orchestrated the protection-order case, present it. Evidence first. Conclusions second. Facebook outrage somewhere much farther down the list.

The Protection Order Was Not Created by Facebook

This is where the argument about Britney's protection order really falls apart.

The people arguing about this seem determined to make Britney herself the center of the discussion rather than dealing with what the court actually did. A protection order is not issued because Facebook users decide somebody deserves one. It isn't issued because Longview Resistance wants one. It isn't issued because Cowlitz County News doesn't like Joel McEntire. It is issued through a legal proceeding under a statutory standard.

That doesn't mean every allegation in every protection-order proceeding is automatically true. It means the court has a legal process for determining whether the statutory requirements have been met. That's the distinction Walsh and McEntire keep blurring.

So Why Does Longview Resistance Have to Respond?

It doesn't.

This is perhaps the simplest point in the entire mess. If Cowlitz County News has evidence regarding Terry Carlson, present the evidence. If Jim Walsh has evidence, present it. If Joel McEntire has evidence that Longview Resistance orchestrated something, present it. None of those things creates an obligation for Longview Resistance to participate in the discussion.

“Why isn't Longview Resistance talking about this?” is not evidence. “Why aren't they as angry as we are?” is not evidence. “They're hypocrites because they haven't responded” is not evidence. It is an attempt to make someone else's silence into a substantive argument. Silence does not establish agreement, guilt or hypocrisy. Silence means somebody hasn't responded.

The original post to Stacey makes the problem particularly obvious.

Instead of keeping the discussion focused on the actual subject of the post, the conversation keeps circling back to Longview Resistance and what it supposedly should or shouldn't say. That's not accountability. That's an attempt to dictate the response of another political group.

Then Scott Beck Joins In

Scott Beck also enters the discussion, which adds another layer to the ongoing effort to make Longview Resistance part of the story.

Again, the question should be simple: What is the evidence? Not who knows whom. Not who supports whom. Not which Facebook page is angry. Not who failed to make a statement. Not who supposedly has an obligation to denounce something. The evidence. That standard has to apply to everyone.

Notice What Keeps Happening

The more these people demand that Longview Resistance respond, the more the conversation moves away from the actual documented controversy involving Joel McEntire. Instead of discussing the court order, we're discussing Longview Resistance. Instead of discussing evidence, we're discussing whether other people are sufficiently outraged. Instead of discussing what a judge actually decided, we're discussing theories about what a four-year-old supposedly would have said. Instead of asking what evidence supports an allegation, we're being told that somebody is a hypocrite for not discussing it.

That's quite a detour.

The court order against McEntire is a separate, documented legal matter. The existence of an order does not establish every allegation anyone has ever made about McEntire. It does establish that a court applied the applicable statutory standard and issued an order. That is considerably harder to dismiss than somebody's Facebook opinion.

The claim that this is a “last-ditch attempt” to get the spotlight off Joel McEntire is an interpretation of motive, so I would not present it as an established fact. What is plainly visible in these screenshots is that the discussion repeatedly redirects attention away from McEntire and toward Longview Resistance, Britney Brown, Terry Carlson and unrelated allegations.

The effect is obvious. The more everyone argues about Longview Resistance, the less anyone is talking about the actual court order involving Joel McEntire.

Longview Resistance didn't issue the protection order. Britney Brown didn't issue the protection order. Cowlitz County News didn't issue the protection order. A judge did.

People can disagree with the ruling. They can challenge it. They can appeal it. What they cannot do is pretend the order doesn't exist, then demand that everyone else explain why they're not sufficiently angry about an entirely different controversy.

Jim Walsh doesn't get to determine that Carlson's supporters filed complaints because of some political conspiracy simply because he believes that's the reason. Joel McEntire doesn't get to determine that a protection order was politically manufactured simply because he disagrees with it. Cowlitz County News doesn't get to determine that Longview Resistance is hypocritical simply because it hasn't responded to their demands.

There is one other little detail that caught my attention. One of the administrators for Cowlitz County News recently stated that they were flying back to Washington State. Given that Bill Josh is the person who started CCN and remains on its admin team, I'm assuming that announcement was from him.

So that raises a rather interesting question: Is Bill Josh flying back to Washington? If so, what exactly does Bill Josh plan on doing once he gets to Washington?

Is he planning to personally involve himself in this controversy? Is he planning to confront someone? Is he planning to pursue some sort of legal action? Or is this simply another example of people talking a very big game on Facebook and making sure everyone knows they're coming back to Washington?

I don't know what his intentions are, and I'm not going to pretend I do. That's the difference between asking a question and inventing an answer.

What I do find interesting is the apparent escalation. We went from “Why isn't Longview Resistance talking about this?” to sending people into their group, dragging additional people into the discussion, speculating about political coordination, and now one of the people who founded CCN and remains part of its administration is announcing that he's flying back to Washington.

For something that supposedly started with a question about why another Facebook page hasn't made a statement, this has gotten remarkably elaborate. Human beings really can turn a Facebook argument into a full production.

If you are making the accusation, bring the evidence.

That's the standard that should apply to everyone. At some point, if you have to keep dragging another Facebook page into the conversation to keep your argument alive, perhaps the problem isn't that everyone else is refusing to pay attention.

Perhaps the original argument simply isn't holding up very well on its own.