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 -
Trump hasn't grown in my esteem at all (there are many virtues I think he lacks, but the abilities to take risks and project self-righteous strength are not among them), but Biden has been falling fast recently. Confusing "5%" for "$55", repeating inflammatory lies after the dangers of that were demonstrated, maybe that could be excused as a mentally slipping figurehead who nevertheless has a solid team behind him ... but is the team out to lunch too? Even "5%" is some mix of shameless pandering with economic illiteracy. More obviously, the "we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof" lie should have been treated as probable cause for criminal investigation; every hour where it isn't even considered to be cause for firing is another hour of shame.
I also don't effectively have a vote in the Presidential election (in a very non-swing state, I get to vote for the Libertarian and plurality counting be damned), but every year I get more sympathetic to people who do. Whichever way you all vote, at least have the decency to regret ending up in this situation, and maybe get drunk afterward?
...but the counter sniper team was on a sloped roof, what the hell? https://i.redd.it/3dc6t8vjbxcd1.jpeg
Is she just that stupid or does she think that will actually mislead a significant percentage of the public? How did the interviewer not call her out? That's straight journalistic malpractice
From what I could tell in the video posted here a day or two ago that merged a bunch of different videos that have become public from random people's phone cameras or whatever, the sloped roof that the counter sniper team was on looked like it turned out to be a problem for them. They were likely already alert to a possible threat in that direction and were already oriented that way. It looked like a metal roof, and when the first shot cracked, both of the guys in the shot visibly flinched and started slipping down the slope. They ended up off balance and struggled for a second to get back up into position, reacquire the target, aim, and take the shot. The delay from slipping may have enabled the final rounds from the would-be assassin to happen.
I don't have any grand pronouncements as to blaming anyone or anything, but I imagine that AAR and future training/procedures will make such folks at least a little more likely to include things like a grippy, non-slip mat in their kit in the future in case they need to establish a better base from which to fire. I'm binning this just under, "The real world happens like that sometimes, and people hopefully learn."
That's all well and good, but the head of the secret service's claim was that no one was posted on the shooter's roof because of safety issues due to the slope, even though people were posted on other sloped roofs (and roofs that appear to have a steeper slope than the shooter's roof)
Somewhat of a coincidence, but I thought it was funny enough to make me want to share it. I happen to be reading through a book on home inspection, because I just want to know more about maintaining the house, and it's talking about roof inspections. It gives some factors for/against getting up on the roof in different conditions. ...then we get to the section on metal roofs. It says, "Never get up on a metal roof to inspect it: it’s too slippery, even in dry weather." The emphasis was in the original.
More options
Context Copy link
If I were forced to steelman, perhaps it could be done. I've been reading some of the articles about what their plan was and what went down (NYT just had a pretty detailed one that didn't seem atrocious). The biggest aspect would be the SS/local divide. Folks in this thread have already made jokes about the local folks probably being incompetent, screwing stuff up and not doing what they're supposed to do. The SS could have thought, "Yeah, we're not going to have some obese local hanging out on that roof all day, just hoping that that they don't hurt themselves," while still thinking that their own counter sniper team was obligated to take such a position, for lack of any better positioning options... plus a little overconfidence that their guys would totally be capable of handling it, even though the dumb locals couldn't (as I mentioned, I think this belief turned out to be wrong, considering that both their guys immediately started slipping down the roof).
I still totally agree that things were immensely screwed up, because that roof is the single most obvious place to attack from in the area.
EDIT: I also think that if their reasoning was something like this, they really can't vocalize, "The reason why we thought it was a safety issue is because we have no confidence in obese, incompetent locals." Too much social desirability bias.
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