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 -
We're in a black swan sprint. Attempted assassination of the previous President, the incumbent President announcing (or "announcing") he's not running for a second term and now a growing din that he's dead or all but. My grandmother experienced a cluster of transient ischemic attacks. She was sharp, in her mid-80s and about to make a long drive to Texas for her annual checkup, to the next day being unable to ever drive again and maybe ever think again. Her body lived a few more years, it's a bad way to go.
I started with no conclusion about the attempt on Trump's life but for transparency's sake I am the type to assume it was a hit. I think neutrally reported evidence now shows it was a hit.
Cheatle testified the USSS was alerted between 2 and 5 times to Crooks
CNN on forensic analysis showing reports from 3 weapons; and I don't know this guy, I'm not endorsing any of his analysis or quoting it here, but at around 18:40 is a clip where 3 distinct reports can be heard.
CBS news on the USSS saying their counter-snipers fired a single shot.
I can't find anything from the other law enforcement at the event saying one or more of their guys discharged their firearms, I think we'd know by now if one of the cops took shots.
Cheatle declined to answer if Crooks acted alone.
Cheatle testified the USSS has no recordings of radio comms from the event. Recording everything could be a policy that only applies to the details protecting the sitting President, but given everything else we know I take the adverse inference.
I think the adverse inference is justified because of the chasmic hole of "third gun." A third person was firing a weapon at that event, we don't know who they are (or were), we don't know where they were when they took those shots, and most importantly, we don't know why we don't know. If they were killed in whatever building, that's a corpse that got disappeared in the middle of a crime scene where somebody tried to kill a former President. If they got away, they got away. That doesn't happen without help. Conclusively: at least one person at that rally charged with protecting Trump tried or helped someone try to kill him. The necessary next question is how high does it go?
I don’t think that constitutes a “chasmic hole.”
Assuming these two experts are correct, though, was there a second assassin? We know some law enforcement had encountered the guy, and that he could be seen from some angles on the ground. What are the odds one of them decided to try a shot after hearing rifle fire?
Given the number of weapons drawn in these thirty seconds, I think a negligent discharge might be on the table, too. It’s more likely than a wannabe assassin who was late to the party.
If anyone knows where to find the analysis, I’d like to see it, because everything online traces back to this one unsourced CNN quote.
Crooks got off three shots, then five shots were heard in rapid succession, then one shot from the Secret Service sniper ended Crooks.
It was a Trump rally, and there were spectators on the grassy field next to the sniper’s perch, not inside the event grounds and thus not searched by security, who could see and film him on the roof. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Trump enthusiast pulled his own pistol and sent five rounds toward Crooks. Though if that had happened, I’d expect someone to have reported it by now.
My understanding, possibly incorrect, was that there was both a USSS sniper team, and a sniper team from the local police. My guess is that Crooks opened fire, the local sniper team shot back, and then, finally, the USSS sniper fired a single shot to confirm the kill.
This seems to fit the audio recording and the official statements that the Secret Service fired only a single round. If accurate, it's also pretty troubling that the actual USSS snipers played no actual role in stopping the shooter, only "confirming the kill" after the fact. Combined with Trump's claims that no one warned him at any point, this would look very, very bad for the secret service.
The local sniper team was said to be hanging out inside the building right next to the roof Crooks was on -- another one of those oddly insider 4chan videos seems to show them checking out one of the upstairs rooms pre-event, and that they would have been practically on top of him if they'd looked out the window.
So certainly it would have been possible for one of them to take a poke at him with his patrol rifle, but if they had done so there will be 4-5 .223 holes in him (not to mention the roof he was on) in addition to the big one from the SS sniper.
My assessment from the audio is that someone did take a poke at him with a semi-auto rifle, and presumably there will be brass on the ground and (potentially) bullet holes in him or the building to verify that.
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