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 totally agree that for practical purposes, the rally was supposed to be a high water mark of security, at least according to the standards of the time. It's not good at all.
From Exhibit B:
This is consistent with one of my speculations I mentioned a few days ago -- that the police did not have a shoot-first mentality and were expected to be point on security outside the perimeter due to outsourcing. I also talked about communication challenges. Most everything so far is still consistent with this framework, which is an incompetence one (gross incompetence to be sure, but perhaps not willful). To be fair, I say mostly consistent because:
These quotes are sending mixed messages. The first part of the quote and the last quote makes it sound like there were some communication challenges and clear confusion. Did the Secret Service know he had a gun? One sniper team clearly oriented themselves in the right direction, but I would direct you to this analysis that states the slope of the roof was such that the snipers did not have line of sight until the last second. However, the second part of the quote seems to suggest that maybe the Secret Service hesitated to take a shot, and THAT would be malicious, or incompetent enough to be malicious, and in that scenario I'd say that we are into conspiracy land as totally worth considering.
I kind of do think this is the case. It's worth noting that despite possible claims otherwise, I think candidates, even of a major party and even ones projected to win, are never going to be Secret Service protected the same as a sitting president. Or at least, are not currently protected the same. I think this is bad, and should change. Because obviously one of the two people are going to be President soon for all practical purposes, but I'm not convinced that the system is set up to reflect that properly.
However, for that matter, I'd also guess with fairly high confidence that the Vice President's protection even worse than Trump's. That might matter when it comes to questions of fairness. (If this is not the case I'd be interested to know). So if the question is "how vulnerable are the rest of US leadership to enemy agents" I'd say the answer is at least moderately vulnerable, yes! After all, in theory and in practice, most of the deterrent effect, at least for foreign nations, is supposed to be a combination of norms and most importantly the threat of traditional retaliation when it comes to assassinations. The system is not currently run that way. Cost cutting happens even at the highest levels, after all. And we are considered to be in peacetime. Obviously standards are different if we are actually at war, and funding is too. Most of the other-people protection is for regular-level crazy people and not dedicated-level crazy people, and I guess normally that is enough? Otherwise we'd see Nancy, not Paul Pelosi being attacked, or things more like that. I don't know any random crazy who would go out of their way to assassinate Vice President Kamala Harris... attention is normally drawn straight to the top.
It also depends on how specific the attack warning is. At times, the US clearly has high specificity intelligence, and the evidence is that they do usually act. Hell, we even warned Russia, practically our global enemy, that they were going to have a terror attack at specifically a concert venue, warned our own visiting citizens of such, and we were right. The reporting hasn't been super clear about how specific or "actionable" the Iranian threat was, AFAIK.
One thing is very clear however...
Biden should have fired her almost immediately, quite frankly. Absolutely crazy incompetence even in the best-case scenario. And the buck has to stop somewhere.
More options
Context Copy link