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 -
This points to a problem recently discussed by Auron MacIntyre: that the word "tyranny" generally conjures up in our minds rule by a singular tyrant; and thereby the impression that all that needs be done to guard against oppression is to prevent power from falling into any one person's hand's. But such individual concentration of power is not necessary (nor sufficient) for a government to become oppressive. As Hannah Arendt wrote in On Violence, bureaucracy can lead to "tyranny without a tyrant."
Snipers can shoot a singular "tyrant and their supporters," but when you're instead oppressed by tens of thousands of mostly-interchangeable near-anonymous bureaucrats with no clear, single leader, what then?
Well, about that sniper...
I've read that piece before, and I think our @KulakRevolt both overestimates the ease of assassination government officials — and the willingness of sane, non-suicidal people to attempt it, given the negligible odds of getting away with it — and underestimates the willingness of our officials to bear the risk (which, again, is lower than he thinks).
Was McVeigh really that much of an outlier? You make a good point that this would require sufficient motivation, but I think living conditions could easily get bad enough that people no longer have much to lose.
Really all that needs to happen is that people get their friends and family killed, raped or immiserated with no recourse.
As mentionned elsewhere in this thread, the Feds have been smart enough to avoid escalating in such conditions since Waco, but if they did we could easily get back to levels of violence that are not really that far in the past. People forget there are still living members of the Weather Underground.
Yes, and his sort even more so in the decades since.
Perhaps, but not particularly soon, and as times get more desperate, people tend to get less cooperative as they compete with one another to maintain their slice of the shrinking metaphorical pie.
I think Nybbler answered this one pretty well.
McVeigh had very little to do with the lack of further Wacos. Nor is it due to any unwillingness or incapacity on the part of the government. It is my understanding that the local cops had several opportunities to arrest Koresh and other leading Branch Davidians, and indeed wanted to do so, but were specifically told not to by the feds, who wanted to sweep up the entire group in a single big operation that Janet Reno could show off in the media, and the FBI and ATF could use to justify their big budgets and fancy toys.
But then it went wrong. So, now, they don't bother doing it that way. Instead, they let the local cops pick off leadership as soon as possible.
The reason you don't see any more Waco-type incidents isn't because the government can't deal with groups like the Branch Davidians, it's because they've gotten so good at nipping such groups in the bud long before they ever reach the "armed compound" stage, in ways that don't grab mass media attention.
It's not a sign of their weakness, but a sign of their strength.
More options
Context Copy link
They'd cling to authority and blame their friends and family for their disobedience and defiance. Law-and-order conservatives do this as naturally as progressives denounce their "racist uncle".
Because they believe in a recourse. This cannot be maintained forever.
It can be maintained until they are dead.
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
More options
Context Copy link
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
I guess you're going to need a lot more bullets.
No, you're going to need a lot more people. Because our sniper might be able to successfully pick off one of the faceless bureaucrats… but his odds of getting away alive and free to try again with another are very, very small. So you're going to need someone else to pick up where he left off… and then another to follow after him… and then another…
And like @RobertLiguori noted above, only "the barest fraction" are even going to do anything other than meekly submit. And after the first dozen snipers all end up arrested or dead, while the bureaucrats they picked off are replaced, with no real change in the mechanisms of tyranny (beyond further crackdowns and tightening security), how many are really going to want to follow suit?
Recent events seem to indicate that for the set of bureaucrats not protected by countersnipers the odds might be better than you think?
AIUI the countersnipers were slower to respond to the Trump shooter because they were busy doing overwatch at the ranges that a sane sniper who was concerned with getting away with it might have set up -- 4-500 yards.
Take away the overwatch, substitute a competent assassin, and it would absolutely be possible for a bad dude to crank off a few shots COM and hop in a van to escape. (on second thought let's make it a dirtbike considering that this is a Kulak fantasy were in)
Random citizens are not "competent assassins." And for that matter, I'm not sure how much "competent assassin" is even a thing. I don't remember where I read it (as usual), but I recall reading about how on the one hand, it's not easy for a protection detail to stop a determined assassin with no concern for his own survival, but, on the other hand, any assassin who makes plans to try to get away alive is pretty much guaranteed to fail at hitting their target.
Now, the fact that the bureaucrats (at least initially) won't have a protection detail will change this a bit. But still, the odds of getaway remain very slim.
Well picking citizens from a hat your odds would suck, sure -- but go over to Rokslide.com (hunting forum with a focus on long range elk & such) and there are 10,000 dudes who could hit a man at 500 yards every single time. 500 yards is a long ways -- much easier getaway than robbing a bank, and people do that all the time.
That's before you even get into people with military experience -- I'm not saying it's likely, but it's not impossible. And even if it fails most of the time, assassination attempts would put quite a damper on the activities of the bureaucrats, and might make many reconsider their path in life?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A sane terrorist would use bombs, damn the collateral damage. That’s what terrorists elsewhere in the world mostly do.
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