wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
There have been rumors circling that the Secret Service counter-snipers may have been directed not to fire first. At first that seems silly to me, but I think it makes sense in such an environment with constantly-changing scenery, civilians prone to doing all sorts of silly things, and new law enforcement organizations to cooperate with every week.
I've seen people (on the internet) saying this, and while I fully understand this policy and the false positives it means to avoid, it still is an unbelievable policy. A USSS sniper team has stricter rules of engagement than a citizen or cop has legal protections/assumptions in a self-defense shooting?
If the USSS is proficient and competent at everything else, then it is justified to centralize the 3-second-decision making in the upper layers of an events chain of command. If communication network at an event is well practiced, well functioning, and efficient. If those in a commanding role are constantly kept in the loop, on top each responsibility with a clear picture of what is going on and familiar with what their subordinates are doing. All the stuff that prevents 3-second-decisions from popping up. Even if all that and more was true, then it still is a major limitation on what sharpshooters can do to succeed in their role.
Apparently, security details are not always proficient and competent at all the things that justify such a policy. It may well be impossible for that to be the case given they frequently work with local officers of unknown ability and experience. If I am under their care I want to empower the highly trained, hopefully veteran counter sniper team to make 3-second-decisions without calling Lieutenant Fuck Up and waiting for his response. I don't know how sniper teams typically operate, but it seems like it has a built in structure that allows for decisions to be checked and calls made by more than one person. The spotter verifies the target and says, "You're good, hit him."
We are not calling in an airstrike. We are potentially trying to shoot man-with-gun before he shoots our VIP. If a sniper kills Joe Shmoe once every 20 years, that sucks, but fine. His career is over, the government writes a check to Mr. Shmoe's family, and the service is smeared and marred. It is still less of a reputational hit than counter snipers staring at an assassin and forcing them to allow the assassin to fire unless they hear back from Lieutenant Fuck Up. Unbelievable or untrue policy that declares POTUS and others under their care are not important enough to take the job seriously.
the supposed martyrdom effect is just a cultural strategy to discourage assassination. When politicians rally behind an assassination victim, they're contributing to a political norm that protects their own behinds.
Agreed. It's a fairly good norm to have. Not just for the politicians avoiding the guillotine.
At some level the average American understands, or believes, that assassinations on important people threaten their comfortable way of life. In addition to that, Americans have a common association with assassinations in history. Lincoln, JFK, the average American is taught about these figures and recalls them in the context of their assassinations. On top of the taboo Americans see assassinations as Big Historical Tragedy. That elicits sympathy and dredges up deep associations found within their educational programming.
I don't think the effect is such that a bunch of D primary voters will swing to Trump. Among undecideds or swing voters, however, if this event is still at the forefront of voter consciousness come November it will have an effect. As an anecdote, a very blue couple I was with yesterday shared the news. This couple had canvassed for Biden in 2020 as I recall. They are less politically engaged this go around, but still very blue. They believed it meant the election was lost. That was one of their first reactions.
Perhaps if Biden was in a stronger position they would have reacted differently. A lot can happen, as we've seen, but this felt like a nail in the coffin to them. This is a barb in the side of avid partisans and accelerationists. Of the, actual real people, group I was with there was one "wouldn't have been so bad if he missed" flippant comment. Which Blue Couple did not appreciate and shamed him for, despite all the the vitriol Blue Wife has directed towards the former president over the years.
Hmm, true. I wouldn't call Biden senile yet. I'd call him old, with a scoop of burgeoning senility*. I'm not going to dig thru 2020 stuff, but he was more capability for sure. I'm also not going to take Mr. Cluchey's account as gospel. His plea for media to "demonstrate the clarity and capacity to do their job" makes my eyes roll. Dan, too, apparently ignored evidence of Biden's ability in the past year or more and laughed at the media as they tried to "do their job." How happy would Dan have been if they did their job, the Whitehouse invited them to do their job, and came to a similar conclusion in, say, November 2023? Do we trust Dan here to spill the beans if he did see something concerning?
The media is building and driving a narrative. They often do so haphazardly, because that's what they do. While a hostile media might be upsetting to Biden administration, perhaps they could do a better job inviting media scrutiny to get to the truth-- if the truth is he's mostly fine, most of the time, for most of the day. We don't know to what extent the narrative is true, beyond what we see.
Age focused political attacks are destined to become true at some point. We can say AOC has cognitive impairment due to age, then cash in on that attack 40 years down the line. When Trump starts avoiding public appearances, events, and gathers a posse to surround him to get to and from Air Force One we will hear about it for days.
wemptronics
11mo ago
There's not enough posts to justify a megathread. This is the megathread. I can collapse chains easily. Browsing thread and yeah, this could have gone in a pinned comment or something.
wemptronics
11mo ago
His outgroup does lie. Frequently and, sometimes, brazenly. That's politics, baby. It's not so reasonable to assume they are baseless smears to the extent that you're surprised by something closer to the truth given the facts in this case. Like the Hunter laptop story. That was a true story. It was even a believable story. But, it was also a timely political smear, which reasonable people are skeptical of. Folks should not take every claim in political attack ads at face value.
Outright shoving them into the Republican propaganda box isn't doing people like Scott any favors. I would not be surprised if Scott hadn't paid attention to or watched any Biden old clips-- certainly not selectively edited ones posted to pwn libs on X.com.
I believe it was Michael Moynihan of the Fifth Column that said, a couple years ago now, what sold him that Biden's age was a real problem was the distinct omission of it as a topic in media. That late night talk shows didn't make jokes about his boomer moments was evidence itself this was not a concern people were interested in even laughing about. Then again, I'm not sure we'll ever really see a late night talk show scene that sees hosts take D-politicians to task for jokes.
Some not-bare links, words, and a Scott watch.
1 a. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prediction-markets-suggest-replacing
First, a Scott post on Biden, debate, and a personal accounting of The Big Reveal. The curtain drawn across the stage to lay bare Biden's cognitive decline for the world to see. This is the common framing and narrative, anyway. He writes:
Many people on Twitter are asking “how could anyone possibly have been stupid enough to not realize that Biden was senile?”
I was that stupid. I didn’t say it openly, because I’m at least smart enough to have a high threshold for giving my opinion on political things I don’t know much about. But I thought it in my heart. So in case the people asking “how could anyone have been that stupid?” actually want an explanation, here’s my former reasoning.
Republicans have been accusing Biden of being senile (and the Democrats of hiding it) for at least five years now. Before the 2020 debates, they were excited that this was when they could finally prove once and for all that Biden was senile. Then Biden did fine, and they retreated to “well he’s senile but”....
Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Even if liars are saying something for their usual liar reasons, it can still be true. For twenty years, people spread false rumors that Castro was on his deathbed, but this didn’t make Castro immortal. In the same way, I should have figured out that even if I couldn’t trust any particular claim that Biden was senile, the prior for an 81 year old becoming senile was still high.
He then suggests Biden drops out, dropping Kamala as well, and throwing in some "purple-state Governor". Like Scott, this seems rather late in the game to me. There is still plenty of time to the election, as I'm sure the Biden loyalists are also telling themselves, so anything can happen. Who knows, maybe Biden gets a war? Wars are good for incumbents.
1 b. https://eigenrobot.substack.com/p/come-on-man
Eigenrobot, Twitter poaster extraordinaire, has some good thoughts looking at the same theme, but with regards to the media. He lays some groundwork with articles speaking of Biden's potential decline as an elderly gentleman some dating back to 2017.
My tentative conclusion from all of this is just that everyone here was socially or otherwise imprisoned and so prevented from putting two and two together even privately. All of the evidence was plain to see; or at least enough to not be shocked by what happened last Thursday. What was wanting was the capacity to perceive it.
There are some beliefs held for utility, and some load-bearing for survival; if they were to be abandoned, one would have to surrender their convenience, their security, or an identity. These are real costs.
Finishing with something that's been mentioned here many times:
The secret is my God I mean Biden was coming up on eighty years old! Have you ever met or known eighty year olds? Even if they don’t get a diagnosis, even if their minds aren’t totally lost to us, the fact is octogenarians are just in a phase of their lives where they are meaningfully slowing down both mentally and physically.
Biden is old! This reaction with CNN anchors exclaiming, "how could the Whitehouse aides forsake us" is funny. Journalists have gotten worse at their jobs, that's how. There was space and time to talk about Biden's age and its potential impact it may have on the election. All well within the Overton window, even. Some journalists did write about it-- even those in Respectable Publications. That this idea was pushed into right-wing meme territory is an apparent, notable, visible failure for journalists. Not only do they feel lied to, they feel inadequate that they allowed themselves to be lied to. An outrage!
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=_sZU0tQkwnQ&t=3382 - Mistake theory strikes again
I listened to this Q&A with Scott and Nate Silver at the allegedly controversial Manifest conference that happened in June. There's some interesting tidbits in there if you're interested in prediction markets, Nate Silver+election models, AI risk, and so on. Perhaps not anything new for your ears that these two haven't written about.
The time stamp shows Scott answering a question about AI and how that may play into the risk of future wars. He first says that wars between great powers have a good chance of going nuclear and that is bad. However you want to define "good chance", fine. Then he goes on to say how it is his impression that "often [wars between great powers happen because] everybody was trying to do brinksmanship and made a mistake".
Scott is answering questions off the cuff in an informal, impromptu format. He's not some foreign policy wonk and neither am I. Brinkmanship is a thing. Some conflicts may escalate to unwanted, outright hostilities due to brinkmanship, political grandstanding, or get accidentally'd into full blown war. My impression is that escalation is usually not a mistake, though. Ukraine is not some exception as Scott suggests.
Escalation can be a proactive, reactive, or provocative measure to induce war. Escalation can be seen as a deterrent by one side, then used as a provocation to the other, sure, but I don't think it's fair to call these things mistakes. They are realities. Over stepping, going a little to far, these things can happen between states as they do people. Maybe he means a war that led to nuclear exchange would be considered a mistake. Which is probably true if it happens.
I don't have a lot of sympathy, but it's still not cool. Mobs getting angry and demanding [bad stuff] happens to [petty target] when no real harm has befallen anyone is a human behavior championed by geeks. Not cool, man. Dweebs and dorks chase the dopamine rush from owning the libs and bashing the fash for saying dumb stuff. A political party should adopt a platform that includes the creation of state trained swirly enforcers that replace the democratic moral outrage mob. It will require a constitutional amendment, but after that it's smooth sailing.
More seriously, there's no a path to a détente. People really don't like people that say bad stuff that makes them angry. A good old fashioned lynching is probably one of those God given human rights that the American founders thought were so obvious they didn't write down. Perhaps this pathetic incarnation of the lynching and moral enforcement is the last trace of true humanity we have. There's not much else anyone can do to enforce speech norms in a liberal democracy short of physical harm.
For this reason I'll suggest, in addition to dunking nerds in toilets, the SS (Super Swirlies) could make their way around to the people shit posting after they dunk the pointdexters for being mad at them. Dunk'em all.
More options
Context Copy link