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 -
Okay, I'd really like TheMotte to talk me down from crazy-town and conspiracy-ville.
Exhibit A: Secret Service was warned of an Iranian (or Iran-backed) assassination threat against Trump (Source)
Which means that the Saturday shooting represents a high-water mark in Trump's security detail.
Exhibit B: Secret Service snipers spotted Thomas Crooks in position on the roof 20 minutes before the assassination attempt. (Source) Per the article's timeline:
Which means the Secret Service knew there was an active threat, 10 minutes before they allowed Trump to take the stage. This is separate from the 2-minute 'crowd pointing at guy with gun on roof' warning where the Secret Service failed to move Trump off the stage.
Exhibit C: Secret Service has stated that 'local police' were supposed to be responsible for covering the American Glass Research (AGR) building. However, both the county (Source) and city police (Source) have denied that they were so assigned.
Apparently, there were local police -- including snipers -- inside an adjacent or conjoined building in the complex (Source), but no one's been identified as responsible for the building itself or the roof itself. I've heard unsourced rumors that a SWAT team was supposed to be assigned to the specific roof the shooter used, but instead congregated within the building due to the heat (Source) but there's been no confirmation.
<><><><><><><><>
I know my Hanlon's Razor:
However, at this point I'm gaining an appreciation for Grey's Law:
If the wildest conspiracy theories and worst nightmares were true, if US Secret Service did deliberately set out to create a hole in Trump's security to allow him to be assassinated... what would they have done differently? How much more could the USSS have f***ed up their protection before we'd be comfortable drawing a line between 'smoke' and 'fire'?
And if Hanlon's Razor does bears out and it was in fact merely incompetence... then we apparently live in a world where this is the best the US Secret Service can do while on high alert, actively preparing to defend their protectee against an Iranian-backed assassination attempt. Which leads me to wonder, how vulnerable are the rest of US leadership to enemy agents?
If there are this many layers of "they dropped you on your head as a baby, didn't they?" when the Secret Service has direct warning of a major threat, what the hell kind of protection does the President have, or the Vice-President, or any of the other notable names with a USSS detail?
If the US Secret Service was 'security theater' in the same vein as the TSA, what happens when the curtain is pulled back and everyone sees that the Wizard of Oz is just a sad little man in a booth? Should we expect to see more -- and more successful -- assassination attempts with actual muscle behind them in the near future?
And why in the name of all that is holy does Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle still have a job?!
Trump does way more outdoors events, and events in general, than the average President-tier politician. Having to protect Trump, who both constantly does outdoor rallies and has fewer resources assigned to him than an actual President would, yet is also is one of the most hated US politicians of all time, is probably just really tough for the Secret Service. I can't think of any Presidential candidate or President other than Trump in recent memory who keeps traveling around the country constantly giving outdoor speeches. I think it's plausible that the Secret Service is just out of their depth, they are set up to guard an Obama or Biden type who mostly stays in DC or gives speeches at indoors venues, but they are not set up to effectively guard a Trump.
Obama Biden, and even Romney and Clinton and Dubya, all also strike me as more cooperative, rule following, obedient types. They do what the nice men with guns tell them to do. Trump is notoriously the opposite.
"we've got something suspicious we should pull Trump from the stage"
"Nah he'll never listen"
On Jan 6 when Trump wanted to go to the Capitol after he wrapped his speech, the Secret Service refused to drive him there. Trump ended up not going to the Capitol, even though he could have just walked, as many of the people who watched his speech did.
Had the Secret Service been more willing to accomodate Trump we might have never had rioters breaking into the Capitol.
I wonder if his experience then influenced his instincts to defy the Secret Service so that he could pause and raise a fist for the crowd.
What occurred to me is that despite all the handwringing regarding a violent right-wing backlash to the event, I believe his fist-pump display actually curbed such an impulse in that very moment.
Imagine if Trump had been immediately dragged off the stage, and how ambiguous that image would have been. Is he dead? Is he alive? Is he wounded badly and will bleed out soon? Maybe physically impaired? What the fuck just happened? Is something going to be 'off' if and when he shows up again?
Trump gave 'proof of life' with that act. It wasn't enough to have him merely standing, or to provide a follow-up "I'm fine!" tweet that people may not trust. He snapped back into his usual shape and reassured everybody thay he was OK. And so it ends with cheers and jubilation instead of the wailing and gnashing of teeth. A lot could have happened in those few minutes, and the energy ultimately got redirected to Trump himself.
Anybody bitching about his fist-pump while also shaking in their boots about political violence can't see two feet in front of themselves.
I can't see how anyone wouldn't love that fist pump. It is badass and awesome and defiant in a good way. I can understand people not liking chants of "fight, fight" at the convention, but personally I don't mind it given context.
I saw a lot of comments ranging from the boring "ugh, Trump needlessly showboating again" to "He's making the SS' jobs difficult" and finally to "that he was even allowed to do that means this was staged".
Ignoring the third one since you would have to be insane to keep up that line today, I'll have to admit that they may not even be wrong on the first two. In the fog of it, Trump was exposing himself to further danger for the sake of a visual display. And he was indeed holding up his protection while they did their thing. But in the end, it was absolutely worth it and the correct move to make.
The image is awesome, and I think most Dems are honest enough to admit that. They're just reluctant to give it any credit.
In fact, him doing this in the heat of the moment amid gunfire is largely the reason why it was the correct move. It was a display of masculine bravado. Perfect contrast, not only to the sitting president, but to pretty much every other politician. The resulting photographs alone are invigorating. Trump is effectively an avatar of masculinity in a culture which largely degradates it.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link