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 -
I’m not convinced that nobody on the building in question is proof of conspiracy. It’s entirely possible that this is simply bad coordination between agencies — nobody was on the roof because there was no centralized control of who was assigned what and therefore everybody thought that one roof was covered by somebody else’s team. It might also explain why they weren’t too worried about a guy on the roof, as they might well have assumed it was a local cop assigned to the building. And once alerted it might take some time to figure out that the guy on the roof isn’t a cop on the detail.
I could easily imagine a strategist thinking "we don't need someone on that roof, we've already got snipers on two other roofs covering it", without thinking ahead to the snipers' dilemma of "there's someone on that roof now - is it one of the local cops from the building below? did our own plans change? just how suspicious does that guy have to look before I kill him?"
But the trouble is, that's not what the "strategist" reported thinking; her official thoughts were "That building in particular has a sloped roof, at its highest point. And so, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside," and the trouble with those thoughts are that they are the most obviously false excuses that I've ever heard, and yes I am including all the "gosh he just fell out of that window" stories about Russian politicians. Sometimes people really do fall out of windows; at this point the odds are a quadrillion-to-one but who knows? But if you say you're keeping your teams off of roofs where the slope is too high, after there have already been many photos published of your teams at the same event on roofs with higher slopes, then that is an outright lie.
I still suspect that this lie was an attempt to cover up incompetence, not an attempt to cover up conspiracy - conspiracies being pre-planned, you'd expect one to come up with a less ridiculous cover story! - but lying in the middle of the investigation is still the point at which the failure here crosses the line from dereliction of duty to betrayal of it.
The sloped roof thing sounds like confabulation to me. In the moment she judged that “I don’t know” would be a terrible response and so had to come up with something plausible, but came up with something terribly implausible.
Either that or that’s what a subordinate told her and she’s easily fooled.
More options
Context Copy link
They planned for Trump to be dead, and their cover stories reflect that.
The cover-up is often the first, best evidence of the conspiracy.
if i set a barely out of highschool, no training guy up to plink cans off of a fence i dont think i would put all my chickens in the "yeah hes gonna hit one" basket. if dude was some ex marine maybe i could see the angle, but i dont think any type of spooky spies would make a plan that 100% rides on the efficacy of an untrained man to peg a target at medium range with a very short time window and essentially all the pressure you can imagine without being under fire.
I don't believe there was a deep state plot to kill Trump less imaginative than the CIA's innumerable attempts on Fidel Castro's life. But that is a bad argument simply because we don't know that this twenty year old kid was untrained- for all we know, he could have taken professional shooting lessons.
we know he wasnt trained by the millitary, fair enough though that there are more ways to get good at shooting.
More options
Context Copy link
If he did, I'm pretty sure there would be a record and we'd find out? Usually people who shoot guns regularly aren't very quiet about the fact. Of course, might depend on how cooperative the parents are. We do know that he had gone to the range with his dad's AR a few times before.
I should further add that he clearly wasn't a pro. If he were always planning on using the roof, why would he have shown up near the metal detectors in the first place?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If Trump were dead, the issue of how the fuck the kid was allowed to be on that roof would be absolutely, red-hot critical and way more than it is now. That there isn't a good cover story indicates that they're either incredibly, unbelievably stupid or that this was really unplanned.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link