EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
I personally think that the Trump assassination plan was one born more of smaller radical elements within an often emboldened and somewhat independent IRGC rather than anything central, so although we heard about the plan I don't really put high chances on them going through with it even if we hadn't figured it out/his security hadn't been increased. Their intentions are still absolutely pragmatic on the whole.
Of course we do know that Trump was literally 5 or 10 minutes away from ordering a larger retaliatory strike against Iran that would have had a direct military death toll of at least a dozen, so yeah the potential for escalation is still there, though I still think neither side truly wants that kind of thing, those sorts of misplaced judgements just happen in military and foreign high-stakes stuff. I do think that in that event, a dozen or more direct military deaths, they would feel obligated, against their better judgement, to actually kill some Americans. Don't mistake their public claims that they killed Americans for an actual belief -- they deliberately say stuff like that to pacify their own populace (and even internal elements) into thinking they weren't as weak as they were (for example claiming they did more damage than they actually did in the 300-odd missile strike at Israel the other month, national TV was showing unrelated footage from something else in order to give the impression that their strike did something, allowing the face-saving measure of saying "ok retaliation complete" and claiming victory).
Although the IRGC is probably more genuinely angry about Soleimani, overriding pragmatism even, though they have a lot of leeway they still aren't actually in charge. The actual leadership, Khomeini for example, probably know that Soleimani was kind of asking for it and that although they obviously weren't happy, still viewed him as at least somewhat a "fair" target. Because intelligence was highly specific that he had planned, and continued to plan, stuff that was directly leading to US deaths in Iraq and elsewhere.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
Well, to be clear I think that although the line is obviously never clear-cut, I do distinguish between vulgar bad words and slurs, which I do consider to be in different categories both in meaning and the situations in which they are used. There's a long human history of words that are sexually or scatologically oriented that pop up across cultures pretty regularly (the "vulgar" category). Offensive people-category and behavior/intelligence words do also show up (the more general "slur" category), but their use and deployment seems to often form a parallel path, rather than one that frequently intersects and has interchangeability. Mind you, a foul-mouthed person is more likely to employ more words on both axes, but in more independent situations -- at least it seems that way to me.
Of course in the case of "cunt", there might be a little more crossover due to its frequent use as a gendered insult, but I'd argue the word still has more to do with the personality of a person rather than their identity, when used solo.
When it comes to adaptations, yeah it's pretty variable, and obviously highly contextual, something greatly missing over text. But I'd still say that "asshole" is stronger than "ass", as the vulgar connection is stronger and more direct (referring more explicitly to a "dirty" bodypart), but "dickhead" to me seems about as strong as "dick". "Dickhead" is a little weird because it usually is taken as referring to your head on top of your body as opposed to the glans, and yes there's a humor element too which can be a diminisher. But I don't think adding "white" does anything to the offensiveness at all.
Bad words are funny things, because they are at once extremely flexible and context-dependent, and highly culture-dependent too, but also seem to rhyme quite often across cultures which suggests something deeper at play.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
That's my current theory too based on at least the fact he also made at least some Biden searches too, but it's complicated by the fact that it's at least possible that he was actually self-aware that he had a decent chance of being caught (despite his remote bomb distraction idea to get away after the shooting) and thus would have watched his own searches and online activity at least in the near term lead-up accordingly. My degree of confidence is still quite low however.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
We don't need to speculate too much. We have most of the facts. We know he committed very early on to pick a woman (maybe I'm misremembering but the Black half of that I think came later?), and that's mostly due to the overall political environment and happens on both sides for at least a decade, and also to offset the fact that he's extremely white and also quite old, so having some counterbalance is mostly common sense. He has to uphold at least some of the Obama diversity legacy, after all.
But when I say we don't need to guess I mean it. We have some good quality reporting for example here and especially here that explains what the process looked like. Kamala specifically won the final round because of a mix of personal comfort and Biden liked her pitch on being loyal.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
This doesn't necessarily extend. In Starcraft for example, resigning when it's clear you won is actually good form, and in fact one of the worst BM moves ("bad manners") is to as Terran lift up your bases (they can fly) and float them to the corner and force your opponent to hunt down each and every one of your units for the win (sometimes your opponent might not even have flying units yet, and must produce them just to finish you off). In a few other 1v1 games it's also seen as wasting everyone's time if you don't resign when it's clear you have lost (I dunno about chess, but in some e.g. online card games this is the case)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
The negatives will definitely show up, give it approximately two to three weeks until she has her first major accusation or oppo thing the GOP breaks (or possibly a verbal slip that goes viral), and about four to six weeks for people to start to pay attention to the vibe her speeches are giving. And at some point there will be a debate which will make an impact. And the state of the economy around late September/October will also play a big role. Trump's team mostly fumbled their first big chance to set the impressions, but they will have others. Chris LaCivita is a smart cookie, so they will eventually settle on a theme or line that is at least decent, but it's going to be at least a month before the GOP figures out some messaging discipline.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
This, mostly. It's worth mentioning that the US has invested in bunker busters for the last 15 years almost specifically for this reason, but chances of wiping out all nuclear infrastructure dipped significantly in the last 7-8 years -- it used to be doable, even likely, but most people in the know now believe it to be highly unlikely to be fully successful. Plans for doing it still exist and are updated every once in a while, but at the moment just targeted attacks of medium to high (but not total) effectiveness is still seen as sufficient deterrence. Additionally, the US Navy is still powerful enough to meaningfully set back their ambitions to eventually have some degree of control over not just the nearby gulf but also the larger part of the Indian Ocean that Suez Canal sea trade routes traverse. So conventional conflict would still be quite bad for Iran, no invasion necessary. Air forces, naval forces, and oil facilities all take a long time and a lot of resources to rebuild and believe me, the US Navy (overstretched as they are) are nonetheless capable of sinking quite a few oil tankers. We also have bases/base space VERY close to Iran, in Qatar and the UAE for example, which if you look at the map are like right there.
Don't get me wrong, Iran absolutely HATES this feeling of powerlessness, but if you look carefully they are still pragmatists in the things that count. See for example the Suleimani reprisal, which is about as direct as they would ever be short of war.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
I dunno man. Construction workers are obviously among the most crass in all of America, so there's some bias right away, and even to this day, the word "cunt" is seen as the most genuinely offensive and vulgar and strongest bad word without any contest. "Cunt hair" is doubly obscene because, you know, pubic hair isn't really typical in polite conversation, and it forces the meaning to be physical and sexual rather than merely colloquial. So you really are double layering there. No culture warring necessary. In a forum assuming it's deliberate antagonism is for sure the default.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
Malicious? Ehhh, maybe? but probably not? We have definitely seen reporting that in general, resources were denied to Trump, and we also know that the USSS just as a policy (probably a stupid one, but it is what it is) simply does not provide sitting-president level support to nominees. Around the time of the event, there was a Jill Biden event, also an upcoming Joe Biden Austin event, but also crucially there were some resources working on the upcoming RNC convention too, and some agents had just come back from the NATO thing in Europe as well. WaPo for example specifically said that "multiple counter-sniper teams and hundreds of agents" were already sent to the convention! They also always have a fair amount of people moving around, but the core details don't seem to change all that much, so for example it's somewhat doubtful that Jill Biden specifically reduced resources for Trump, that doesn't seem to be how their scheduling works according to what I've read (though at the end of the day it is at least a little bit a zero-sum game, but that's just intrinsic to the process).
And in fact, both people in Trump's orbit as well as the Secret Service were, around this same time, apparently tussling to a high and loud degree about how big the security perimeter should be at the RNC, so it's even theoretically possible (I'm not sure how highly to weight this) that his own team's requests for more protection would have reduced, or even did reduce, protection at the Butler event. One thing we know for sure however is that at least for the Butler event specifically, there were no denials. (Still, as I think Jim Jordan put it, "Maybe they got sick of asking"). Examples of denied requests mostly related to wanting more metal detectors and related resources (potentially impactful in this case), and rarely but still occasionally counter-sniper teams, though most of these requests seem to have been centered around bigger, more public/natural appearances like in the middle of a city or at a football game or the like.
One thing I should have mentioned is the updated timeline answers one key question, which was "Why wasn't Trump delayed on taking the stage?" Trump had already been speaking for about a minute when the shooter climbed the roof. So I think most people would think the shooter's status wasn't quite on the level of delaying the event, and it's always a tough call to interrupt Trump mid-speech.
The new USSS director seems to have yo-yo'd a bit between taking the blame directly and shifting it to local PD, and at least in public has stressed that the USSS is taking ownership. Of course at the end of the day, "we trusted local police" is not a sufficient answer for the Secret Service, it's their responsibility, and ultimately their plan too and on some level they obviously realize that. I'd also say that it's likely a little bit easier for local police comms to leak than Secret Service stuff just due to classification type stuff and more people in the loop. It will probably make it into the final report, due in December (at least the House one will be). It's fair to suspect some PR angle. Such as, he's saying things like they'll fire someone if they find a "policy violation", but that's totally missing the point!! We get that you're short on manpower but at least one head needs to roll, there's no way the blame is that distributed. However, based on the info we have, even with its bias, it current seems that the most direct, practical kind of blame is indeed on the police, even if that responsibility ultimately lands upwards in the chain. Final judgement remains pending in most meaningful ways.
Personally I don't think the USSS have truly respected how different the MO and incentives of a county police department are from their own. And of course, Secret Service can't run purely on trust either. They need to be more intimately involved with local PD if they are going to rely that heavily on their manpower. Really, they need to take a leaf out of the book of orgs like the NTSB and NASA about how to handle both investigations as well as tighten up their way of doing things to avoid common mistakes. There's a reason both pilots and the actual military are so anal about saying things a certain way and using phrases and comms efficiently. But there's always the human question -- why fix it if it aint broke? They hadn't had such an immediate threat for a while, maybe even decades depending on the severity of the cutoff, so someone being a squeaky wheel about how the make communication better might not be listened to.
Not a large post, but a brief update on something I've been keeping an eye on. It looks like the Washington Post got their hands on some transcripts of at least police comms the day of the Trump attempted assassination here and, these are the three most relevant pieces of info you should know:
-
The first report that the guy had a gun was not until 30 seconds before shots broke out. Local police were tracking him down in the last few minutes, even mobilizing their own QRF towards the building, and apparently some felt until very late in the game confident they would nab him. He was spotted on the actual roof only about 3 minutes before (two minutes after first scaling the roof) and the sheriff inside the USSS post was told 1 to 2 minutes before about someone on the roof, though where on the roof was unclear to almost everyone. That the roof guy was not a cop was communicated however. Photos of the suspect had first started circulating 25 minutes before, but bad cell service means if many of these went through or not is unclear, at least some pics did not (these circulated photos include the 4chan pic, meaning it could have been any of the dozen or more cops in the loop who leaked it). So the most crucial period of time, that last 30 seconds, did not see the local post contacting the USSS at all, instead they were mobilizing the local QRF towards the building at the time shots broke out.
-
The local police and Secret Service command posts were different, far away from each other (900 feet or so and twice the distance of the rally site itself, and separated by a pond to boot), and with no direct communication line (they were using ad hoc cell phone calls, for example local cops would call a sheriff in the USSS post, which happened at least 3 times in 30 minutes). It’s unclear how quickly info disseminated to the USSS but it appears to involve at least four layers in the telephone game. With this in mind, we must ask ourselves how quickly did info make it down the chain in those 30 seconds? Apparently, the answer was not fast enough: the USSS was not notified that the shooter had a gun by the time shots broke out! We had seem some claims that the Secret Service perhaps did not open fire on purpose despite knowing about the threat, and those claims are much weaker now.
-
What was the local PD counter sniper team in the second floor of the building doing? Apparently at least one person was very mobile looking out several of the windows and moving internally, trying to track where the shooter went. He was responsible for the initial rangefinder call 20 minutes before and possibly the picture too. Most of their attention was in the opposite direction. The new timeline only has the shooter on the roof for about three minutes and identifies where he scaled the roof which was kind of in the middle of the complex - local PD including some taken away from traffic duties was tracking him around the outside, and where he scaled was on the opposite side as the window where you could lean out and see the final shooting position that was featured in Eli Crane’s video. The local sniper second floor's initial setup direction was a third direction away from the rest of the building entirely. I wonder how many people were on this floor and if any considered getting out on the roof themselves, I don’t think the article says, but it sounds like there was likely only the single guy! It's unclear what actions they were taking in the final two minutes.
I had initially said this was more likely a combination of bad inter-service communication, plus poor planning, plus maybe some local cop incompetence and a chance of ROE type concerns, and so far the info lines up pretty consistently with this. In other words, organizational issues, not malice, so far seem to be the overriding factors. Note we do not yet have or know many details about the Secret Service comms side of the story, AFAIK.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
I mean the firing bothers me for example and I've been against OK-sign policing since the issue began, and I was part of the vehement "let's tone it down" camp in the HD case -- but stakes and the amount of consequences do matter. As the OP alludes to, I think part of the reason I'm not as outraged here is the job of "Olympic official" feels like a low-impact part-time job rather than something more extensive. Also, there's kind of an expectation for some PR bullshittery that comes along with the Olympics. I don't really expect them to be super fair on the fringes. If, for example, articles were to come out saying the official had been totally blackballed from everything in their sport, or lost tons of money, or something along those lines I would feel more strongly! As far as I know most officials for this type of thing are somewhat well-off hobbyists from a wide variety of countries. The Home Depot case however was someone who is often living paycheck to paycheck and has to deal with a lot of crap already in their job, and furthermore I know firsthand a lot of people in similar positions. That's a significant contrast. Moreover I don't even have a strong sense for who is running the IOC in the first place, so seeing it as part of some larger and uniquely Western cancel war isn't immediately obvious to me.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
I kind of feel like his comment is such that it could be copy and pasted and dropped anywhere, and that makes it highly suspect. The original comment was talking about economic trends that could be argued to be recent and about unskilled labor more broadly, and how it relates to perhaps a reduced need for migrants. The response was a condensed polemic making approximately zero attempt to engage with the conversation. Consider for a moment the use of the word "they" which is in itself a blaring warning light too. Who the hell is "they" and why on earth would they benefit from such a plan if it even existed? Would foreigners even vote as a bloc? For that matter how do we know this is anything knowing rather than the result of larger macro forces? The comment again does not even begin to gesture at these points. It's, simply put, consummately "waging" the culture war rather than discussing it, which is at least in my eyes the 'red line' of the law here. It's just reddit behavior from a different ideology and so it sort of feels like a deserved ban in that respect, yeah?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
According to most standards, yes. Famously a few music artists would deliberately choose something different and unintuitive including capitalization to see if the outlet cared or not.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
And in fact machetes are actually an amazing, top tier garden tool. Sadly missing from many otherwise well stocked suburban yard work repertoires.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
Good catch, I've been bamboozled!
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
It looks like they only granted like 60,000 people amnesty in the next three years. That's hardly even a blip and not enough to actually change the behavior of potential immigrants. It's primarily driven by economic forces. And if you look further down on the same wikipedia page, there are sources that bear it out. Note that especially in the 90s, immigration to California, New York, Florida, and Texas alone comprised over half of the influx, and many, many other states received large amounts of immigrants despite overall hostility or lack of public/social service support. In other words, economics and network effects seem to consistently trump any other effects, most certainly including most legal repercussions.
I also dislike the current system and think it's possible our views don't diverge all that much. But I still strongly believe that opposition to amnesty is a millstone in practical terms and I think opposing amnesty is the real moral hazard. Assimilation in America is actually crazy fast, and we have to acknowledge that a big chunk of the illegal immigrant population are functionally Americans, even if they legally are not. Far from all! But there are enough cases of kids who were brought to the country when they were under 10 and now don't even speak Spanish and barely differ from other Americans culturally that sending them and their families back wholesale feels exceptionally gross.
I should add that at some point we need to take some personal and collective responsibility for letting it get to this point. IMO, a lot of people and politicians turned a blind eye because the immediate economic effects were positive, and we also took practically zero strides toward reforming the legal system to the point where the illegal system was bound to become the new normal -- kind of Prohibition style.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
Not strictly related, but that middle part reminds me of the funny Heinlein quote,
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
I think that's largely fair too. While the legal choice of 13 in so many laws often seems somewhat arbitrary (including linguistically), it's not actually a terrible separator. It seems to me that there's some massive moral cliff somewhere at age 14 or below, and it's a absolute cliff, not a slope. For example this link talks about psychological development in the 10-12 range with phrases such as: "Write stories, Like to write letters, Read well, Enjoy talking on the phone or texting" and so to take advantage of a girl just at the tail end of learning how to, uh, talk to people independently is super duper messed up in a way that still applies but less strongly to someone in their mid-teens, where gradual gaining of independence is a normal psychological process. And while many states have legal systems that are often capricious and illogical, taken broadly they do seem to reflect at least some awareness of these dynamics. But yeah, personally I'm much more inclined to say that having sex with someone 14 or under indicates something deeply wrong with you, not a temporary "mistake" in this kind of context and knowing what we do about the actual maturity of 12-year-olds.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
I mean, wasn't part of the whole idea of MeToo that some of the highest-profile people (no idea about some of the collateral, as it were) effectively had gotten away with sexual abuse over multiple decades? And so the suspicion was, and somewhat still is, that since cover-ups were so common, maybe every case of sexual abuse is actually the tip of the iceberg. People started jumping at shadows... kind of understandably? I think the ideological portion of this was and is overstated, though it's still a conversation worth having. The fundamental [human] problem of "how do we gauge how sincere an apology is" still remains and makes things messy.
On more general moral principles I tend to feel more like "three strikes you're out" but I think for some people rape and its analogues might test that principle (do we really want to accept 1-2 additional, perhaps unnecessary rapes in "exchange" for a moral stand? Honestly probably yes, but we need to be honest that this tradeoff kind of does exist at least in part)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
To be fair, in the "leave him alone with someone" part of the equation, the team did take pains to "prevent" something like that, though the exact form of that prevention seems unclear (he's at least not in the Olympic village together, though wouldn't that be more safe not less, since it's not usually families AFAIK?) so the argument is really more about optics rather than anything else.
But the Olympics is actually about national pride, not the athletes themselves, if we're being honest. Otherwise it would have a prestige level more on par with the X-Games or something. So in that context presenting a child rapist (I think it's worth noting that he travelled to another country to meet up with this kid knowing full well her age) as the face of your country is patently illogical. But I'd argue that giving the Netherlands shit about it (reputational damage) is more effective than actually trying to get him banned, as a practical matter (especially given that they've assumed responsibility for his behavior during the games).
But yes, at least some of the conversation is definitely about if someone who makes a choice like that can be "reformed" or not. If they can, it's at best inspiring and at worst a non-issue, but if they can't then it's forever a black stain of silence in the face of misbehavior, which people are usually quite sensitive to in the last decade. As I like to say, betrayal is one of the most powerful emotions, and a lot of people feel that Olympic showrunner types are guilty of betrayal and cover-up of sex crimes, so the sensitivity is probably even higher. Recognizing that part of the response is obviously an emotional reaction rather than a strictly logical one is thus helpful.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
I don't think there's any good evidence at all about amnesty incentivizing illegal immigration. Every compromise comprehensive immigration bill that has ever come close to passing (and several have come very close) has been torpedoed by exactly this attitude that is, frankly, massively counterproductive. Not to the point where I'd be quite ready to accuse the GOP of deliberately extending the issue in order to profit from it electorally, but certainly close to it! For example, the Gang of Eight bill was almost a marvelous compromise that left most people happy: more border money, an expanded work verification system, a system for temporary agricultural workers, all of which can help prevent further illegal immigration, and a path to citizenship for some people who have been law-abiding (aside from the obvious) and been here a long time (because let's face it -- someone who's been in the country for 15 years actually does, in effect, live here and it's socially, morally, and even economically disruptive to kick them out). And we'd allow the regular immigration system to work better. Because it's not just pure economics, there's a lot of family/social/network effects going on with immigrants, and also a more expansive legal system serves as a relief valve of sorts (why risk all your chance at future, perfectly legal immigration if you wait and maybe get a fair shake, and cross illegally and be forever barred? That's also an incentive).
In other words, an actual and effective solution is probably close to your own, just with a few steps reordered. While politically and optically the ball is in the Democrats' court due to the recent numbers, the actual ball is in stubborn right-wing attitudes like yours that are just cutting off the nose to spite the face. I emphasize recent because if we zoom back out a little bit, what really matters isn't so much the specific in and outflows -- as you yourself point out, those don't always paint the full story. I probably should have led with this chart, but take a look anyways at overall estimates of illegal immigrants, because that's what we're really trying to talk about, right? Optimizing for light. The last two decades have seen very large numbers of these immigrants. But superimpose if you will in your head the growth of the overall population since 1990 (~250 to 330 million per census) too. And look closely, because the patterns don't hew very closely to political rhetoric. In other words, the problem is roughly stable (still a problem, but stable!) because in the last 15 years all we've done is yo-yo between about 10 and 12 million illegal immigrants.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
It's actually pretty interesting you bring that up. Because I am anti capital punishment not for any moral reason (in fact if anything I think it makes plenty of sense) but for practical/pragmatic reasons instead. Why spend all this money over a fuss? Sometimes the opposition is just too entrenched that taking some sort of moral stand isn't worth it. And wanting to kill bad people instead of imprisoning them doesn't seem like such a massively important thing it's worth wasting "political capital" on. Like, even if I were to agree with saying immigration is bad and hurts the country (which I actually partially do) doing mass deportation is just too much of a political pain for not so much gain that it doesn't seem worth pursuing. Especially when decent-looking compromises show up with some regularity (e.g. Gang of Eight bill that almost made it, or even the less desirable but still OK bill that Trump tanked very recently).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
3mo ago
Well yeah but thus the word "include". Michigan and Wisconsin are literally 2 of maybe 5 states that will decide the election, so have absurdly outsized importance. In typical cycles, even improving your vote share by a half percent in those states could swing the election, and so to realize that Vance is potentially a drag? That's big news.
I mean, basic reasoning/logic my friend, just because she's loyal and Biden valued loyalty doesn't actually mean she has a lack of other positive traits. At least, it doesn't necessarily follow. There's a stereotype of dumb but loyal sidekick, but it's just that, a trope, and each major politician needs to be evaluated on their own merits.
I think there's a decent chance she's actually somewhat dumb (or at least as dumb/deluded as someone who is eventually able to pass the bar exam can be) but I'm going to give her a month or so to demonstrate it one way or another. I really don't give much of a shit about DA records, I have zero confidence in my ability to distinguish an effective or good DA from a bad one, but her Senate record which I do keep an eye on looked pretty thin (although it's still worth noting that her entire time was squarely during the Trump years where they basically had little to no room to work with). But all of this is beside the point. You're trying to present her very selection as VP as evidence of her incompetence, but that's not actually evidence. Nor is "uppityness" a good proxy for effectiveness either (and I'd be hesitant to use that word anyways, because it actually does have a legit and documented history of racial and discriminatory use, so it's a little too close to a slur for comfort).
More options
Context Copy link