deadpantroglodytes
No bio...
User ID: 568
deadpantroglodytes
1d ago
Once again, thank you for the links.
I wasn't familiar with the hotel sieges, which are appalling. I don't think masks help with that particular threat, but I understand that your overall point is that there are many people that would like to harass ICE agents, enough that they're willing to harass randos in pursuit of that goal.
Am I right to say that our central disagreement is that masked agents hurt the legitimacy of government? Or perhaps you concede that, but disagree about its significance relative to the importance of protecting agents?
As I've mentioned in this thread, I'd support a variety of laws to deter mistreatment of ICE agents (plus additional funding as needed). For example:
- Aggressive prosecution of doxxing.
- Rapid restraining orders.
- Address confidentiality programs (many states already have them).
- Enhanced penalties for targeting families.
- Federal relocation or security support for high-risk agents.
- Limits on publication of home addresses.
But anonymous law enforcement officers ought to be a last resort. Realistically, it's much worse than that. I'm aware that the substantial contingent of blackpilled commenters here that consider the idea of a free country a hopelessly naive illusion, but I still aspire to it.
Are you willing to move in my direction at all? In order to mitigate the negative effects of masking, would you accept these?
- Mandatory visible badge numbers on uniforms.
- Mandatory body cameras.
- Independent logging of which agent was present at each operation.
- Severe penalties for impersonation.
- Sunset provisions on mask authorization, contingent on periodic review of threat data.
deadpantroglodytes
4d ago
Me: "more investigations ... more arrests"
You: "The assumption that Trump would have arrested everyone".
The whole issue involves adjudicating tradeoffs, which are a matter of degrees. I think it's reasonable to push back on hyperbole.
deadpantroglodytes
4d ago
The assumption that Trump would have arrested everyone harassing ICE off-duty
I don't appreciate the strawman, but I am grateful for the links. I'm looking forward to reviewing them.
deadpantroglodytes
4d ago
Thank you, I'm looking forward to reading about that.
For what it's worth, the comment I was originally responding to said "The man who bit an agent's finger off does not appear to have been charged" ... implicitly "at all". The local Democratic official's call is execrable, if true, but I think my skepticism has been vindicated.
deadpantroglodytes
4d ago
Interesting. I'll read up on the woman's case.
I am against protesters concealing their identities as well, and would support minor sentencing enhancements for doing so in the commission of any crimes (or any other reasonable way of deterring it).
deadpantroglodytes
4d ago
I agree they face threats to their safety and peace of mind, and that they do not deserve to be harassed outside of work. But I disagree the threat is so great that it's worth the tradeoff in legitimacy. Unfortunately, it's hard to quantify declines in legitimacy, which makes it difficult to gauge where mask supporters stand.
deadpantroglodytes
4d ago
In the course of human events, government agents have on occasion abused their powers. There is no way to guarantee they will be held responsible for those abuses, but you can guarantee that they will not be held responsible for those abuses by anonymizing them.
Bravo! You didn't speak plainly, so I'm not sure whether you're saying "the Trump administration is incompetent", "even if they did try, Dem judges would block them", "there's nothing to investigate, it's all a MAGA lie", or some baroque objection I haven't thought of.
deadpantroglodytes
4d ago
I would genuinely like to understand what's been transpiring. I'll be shocked if authorities identified the man that bit the agent's finger off and did not charge him.
I know you can't prove a negative for some of these events, but can you link resources for the others? The DHS referrals or reporting on the harassment and threats in Portland? I'm inclined to believe those occurred, but that prior doesn't give me any sense of the magnitude and won't motivate me the same way that verifiable reports will.
I'll search when I have time, but the easier you make it for me the more likely I am to support your position.
deadpantroglodytes
5d ago
To clarify, the minor threat I was referring to was the demonstrated threat to ICE agents, especially relative to the historic threats against government employees. I recognize that the potential threat is great,but so far, the verifiable dangers have been nonzero, but hardly comparable.
deadpantroglodytes
5d ago
The third party capable of identifying them is in the DHS hierarchy, under the authority of their political opponents. That's a system that can work when there's sufficient trust, but that's not what we have today.
deadpantroglodytes
5d ago
That would probably be sufficient, though I wouldn't really like it.
deadpantroglodytes
5d ago
I propose that, if a government employee's targets can't even identify them, that employee is not accountable in a meaningful sense. A third party can identify them, but it's the target's political opponents, also meaningless.
I agree Don Lemon's stunt was bad, and I'm happy he's being prosecuted for it. But was it even a threat?
Throughout US history, officials have been in the same position as ICE employees: strikebreakers in the late 19th century, DOJ officials in charge of civil rights enforcement, and the varied law enforcement officials that decimated the mafia. All of those officials faced more urgent, demonstrable peril than ICE officers, yet the government protected the officials, they didn't hide them. (With the exception of juries, who are not government officials, and are accountable at least to one another.) Even when judges received death threats and prosecutors were tailed by mob associates, the government didn't conceal their identities, because doing so would have undermined its legitimacy.
deadpantroglodytes
5d ago
I agree that the intransigence of local officials strengthens the case for allowing masks, but:
- The FBI is available, and my priors are that the Trump administration would absolutely pursue that specific behavior.
- I have not seen allegations, much less independent evidence of any sort, that state officials have refused to cooperate with investigations of the kind we're discussing, nor that federal judges have prevented prosecutions. I would not be surprised to see the worst of them drag their feet or apply extremely demanding scrutiny, but so far I don't even see that. I am willing to listen.
deadpantroglodytes
5d ago
I think obstructing ICE operations is reckless, deadly gamble. I think the people that participate share some responsibility for the injuries and deaths over the last year.
Furthermore, I acknowledge and condemn the abuse of on-duty ICE agents. Are you suggesting those incidents justify the fear of harassment, stalking, doxxing, and violence against off-duty officers?
My position, the steelman you asked for, is that we cannot absolve law enforcement officers of all accountability as a precaution.
deadpantroglodytes
5d ago
I'd accept the necessity of anonymizing agents if there were a verifiable history of violence anywhere near the levels perpetrated by Mexican cartels. That appears appears to be about 400 murders alone per year over the last decade. We don't even have to get within an order of magnitude: I'd be more sympathetic if there were a ten or more independently verifiable incidents and for some reason alternative methods of deterrence didn't seem likely to work. I detest the use of masks, but I promise you I am not looking for a reason to lawyer my way out of these conditions.
I've looked for verifiable cases of harassment, stalking or violence against off-duty ICE officers and only found one so far, for threats and harassment, announced today. Perhaps there have been more: I wouldn't be surprised if major media outlets ignored them or applied maximum scrutiny before reporting on them, but I do think the Trump administration would have initiated more investigations and likely secured more arrests.
But from what I can tell, you're asking US citizens to make an enormous sacrifice to combat what evidence suggests is a minor threat, at best. Worse, this is over a year deep into the Trump administration authorizing the practice.
I agree that ICE should be allowed to operate openly, under the authority of the president, in any American city. I think the real-time obstruction of their operations is bad (and a calamitous mistake as well).
But allowing agents to wear masks destroys accountability and increases the volatility of every interaction by introducing uncertainty about their authority. Lack of accountability erodes confidence that the government can carry out its commitments, which depresses future cooperation.
On a more visceral level, even the mildest encounter with an armed, masked man is scary as hell. I wager it will badly degrade Americans' view of law enforcement officers if it continues much longer.
I'm sympathetic to the interests of ICE agents: their desire for not just their safety, but the safety of their families. But masks ask too much. The tradeoff isn't worth it, especially when there are alternatives: pursue the threats against agents, investigate, throw the book at the culprits, whatever. But don't empower stare security forces to become a nightmare that no one wants their political opponents to control.
deadpantroglodytes
20d ago
Indeed, and I hear echoes of old debates.
The attitude you're describing reminds me of how some advocates would tout Ruby on Rails as an obvious solution to software productivity needs, despite the active record pattern's drawbacks that make it inappropriate for anything except for simple CRUD applications (Create, Read, Update, Delete).
deadpantroglodytes
4mo ago
I think that's all your right as a business owner. That's distinct from campaigning for other people to enforce one's judgements.
deadpantroglodytes
4mo ago
It's more accurate to say that your comment shows how the Oz comparison makes no sense.
(Though it is a useful heuristic for the ITT.)
Turok's previous writing is almost perfectly incompatible with the goals of the Motte. It's often witty but insincere (I enjoy his trolling of r/AITA quite a bit). It's also marred by elliptical insults that are often rooted in failed cold reads. For example, the "didn't you see 'Alt' in my flair?" schtick presumes an interlocutor easily gulled by shibboleths that aren't really a thing here.
This seems correct to me, with two addenda.
First, there's been an explosion of oppressed identities accessible to the majority, in the form of disabilities, queerness, plus esoteric sexualities and genders. This vastly increased the surface of potentially receptive people that would have previously considered themselves targets.
Second, the development of social media, especially Tumblr (as Katherine Dee has documented) provided a vector for the reemergence of political correctness as wokeness.
deadpantroglodytes
1yr ago
I don't think this responds to my claim, which are that the default human position on kids is "not worth the trouble" and therefore making contraception cheaper, more effective, or more accessible mechanically reduces fertility.
I agree that there are legal regimes, beliefs, and customs that foster fertility. I'm just annoyed whenever people write about what "caused" the fertility crisis. There's no theory that makes sense or matches history apart from "people don't want kids and will take measures to avoid having them" except "mo' better contraception."
Japan didn't get the pill until 1999 but its TFR fell from 5 to 2 between between 1925 and 1960. What happened?
Sparked by the visit of Margaret Sanger to Japan in 1922, and through the dissemination of printed information, and the opening of clinics, birth control became widely understood by the general public.
The article goes on to say "Governmental thinking of population as a marker for national power and international strength, however, remained steadfast and led the Japanese government to ban the sale and use of birth control in the 1930s, considering it harmful to the user." I freely admit that there are innumerable confounding factors, but I'm going to take "the introduction of a new technology did exactly what it promised to" as the null hypothesis. (Also, wow, what shitty prose. Do better, Wikipedia.)
Or read Cremieux's post about Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh, "The Fruits of Philosophy". TLDR: family-planning advocates disseminate information out to the English population, fertility craters.
Romania only proves that it's hard to stop people from practicing contraception for long.
The Amish and Haredi communities are interesting and useful, but they don't contradict what I'm saying. In fact, the Amish formally prohibit contraception. People infer that some Amish communities quietly accept contraception use, based on differential fertility rates between communities where more conservative communities have higher fertility rates.
The Haredi might prove me wrong, in some sense, but they are also a world-historical outlier that are not obviously reproducible (pun intended).
At any rate, I'm not saying we shouldn't look at communities and societies that have done better. I'm just pessimistic that we can overcome the default human bias by copying them.
Religious fundamentalists who anathemized contraception will be proven right and their children will inherit the Earth.
There's a reasonable chance this is right. I can't find the comment, but someone here recently summed up that position as "evolution works". Correct! But it just means that negative-fertility species will lose (on a geological timescale), not necessarily that the fundamentalists will win. Most of the fundamentalist groups have a problem keeping children onside, and even their fertility is in decline, with a few notable exceptions.
How about this as an intuition pump: would it be good if all law-enforcement officers always wore masks?
At several points in this thread, I've tried to make it clear that I acknowledge there are situations where they are acceptable. Some tactical conditions justify them, like SWAT actions and drug raids: that covers the DEA and Florida links you provided. In those cases, the high risk of retaliation comes in the form of credible murder threats. The single failed attack on the Dallas facility notwithstanding, that's not what ICE officers face at the time I'm writing this, as far as I can tell.
I'm not even sure what's going on in the Portland photo: the caption says it's from 2020, so it's hard to tell whether the officers' faces are partially obscured to protect their anonymity or because of COVID. (As an aside, I also agree that gas masks are acceptable for riots.)
I mean that an authority outside Trump's chain of command should have access to information about exactly which agents were present at each operation. Practically speaking, that means it would have to be a Democratic-aligned official, since "non-partisan" isn't really a thing, so add serious penalties for leaks if necessary.
I gather from your final comment on sunsetting that you'd prefer not to interfere with the discretion of law enforcement. I'm sympathetic: for the most part, they know better than civilians when it's appropriate. But I'm not going to surrender my judgement entirely, or this just turns into the red tribe version of submitting to experts.
More options
Context Copy link