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 -
There have been rumors circling that the Secret Service counter-snipers may have been directed not to fire first. At first that seems silly to me, but I think it makes sense in such an environment with constantly-changing scenery, civilians prone to doing all sorts of silly things, and new law enforcement organizations to cooperate with every week.
Yes, "shoot if you see someone with a gun" seems reasonable, and to be honest I'd probably defend it, but I can only imagine that we're only seeing the one(?) false-negative in my lifetime. I don't think I can point to a case where they did shoot first (or at least without a direct credible threat), either, but I can only imagine that given the complexity of the job they've come close to shots that wouldn't sit well with the public more often than they'll ever admit to us (for security reasons, naturally): Local law enforcement went up on the wrong roof, kids playing with airsoft guns, an unrelated carjacking a block away from the motorcade, suspicious-looking camera equipment, and so forth. It's pretty clear they don't shoot anybody who breaches the White House fence: that seems to happen regularly, even toddlers, and the optics from that would be terrible.
I've seen people (on the internet) saying this, and while I fully understand this policy and the false positives it means to avoid, it still is an unbelievable policy. A USSS sniper team has stricter rules of engagement than a citizen or cop has legal protections/assumptions in a self-defense shooting?
If the USSS is proficient and competent at everything else, then it is justified to centralize the 3-second-decision making in the upper layers of an events chain of command. If communication network at an event is well practiced, well functioning, and efficient. If those in a commanding role are constantly kept in the loop, on top each responsibility with a clear picture of what is going on and familiar with what their subordinates are doing. All the stuff that prevents 3-second-decisions from popping up. Even if all that and more was true, then it still is a major limitation on what sharpshooters can do to succeed in their role.
Apparently, security details are not always proficient and competent at all the things that justify such a policy. It may well be impossible for that to be the case given they frequently work with local officers of unknown ability and experience. If I am under their care I want to empower the highly trained, hopefully veteran counter sniper team to make 3-second-decisions without calling Lieutenant Fuck Up and waiting for his response. I don't know how sniper teams typically operate, but it seems like it has a built in structure that allows for decisions to be checked and calls made by more than one person. The spotter verifies the target and says, "You're good, hit him."
We are not calling in an airstrike. We are potentially trying to shoot man-with-gun before he shoots our VIP. If a sniper kills Joe Shmoe once every 20 years, that sucks, but fine. His career is over, the government writes a check to Mr. Shmoe's family, and the service is smeared and marred. It is still less of a reputational hit than counter snipers staring at an assassin and forcing them to allow the assassin to fire unless they hear back from Lieutenant Fuck Up. Unbelievable or untrue policy that declares POTUS and others under their care are not important enough to take the job seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
Allegedly a local cop climbed up and confronted Crooks immediately before the shooting, Crooks pointed his rifle at the cop and the cop retreated.
Assuming that's true, besides painting the cop in question as being a bit rubbish, it surely indicates that the secret service snipers were not yet aware of Crooks or at least hadn't got him sights. Because surely a bloke on a roof with a rifle pointing his weapon at a cop is reason enough to pull the trigger. Unless the secret service have a categorical policy of never shooting first, which would seem insane.
More options
Context Copy link
Great comment. I'm hesitant to actually advance that as a leading theory, but it is absolutely within the plausible realm and doesn't even require actual malice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link