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 -
Random 21 year old dude can't. A 21 year old dude who has gotten a background investigation leading to a security clearance and has need to know and has had it pounded into his head that if he leaks this stuff he can be thrown into pound-me-in-the-ass-Federal-Prison can. The trick with a "determined spy" would be getting them to pass the background investigation.
Or befriend someone who did and get them to spill all the secrets. If a congressman is not too hard of a target, what is? How hard would it be for a smart and attractive female to get a 21 year old male to dance to any tune? If he is doing it for his game buddies, what he'd do for someone who actually can get him laid?
Not as easy as you'd think, because a 21 year old male who has little problem getting laid is going to be suspicious of a woman asking him detailed questions about his job... and a 21 year old male who has a lot of problems getting laid is going to be EXTREMELY suspicious of said woman.
You seem to have a very elevated image of a horny 21 year old male. Most of them wouldn't be thinking too much with the right head in such situation, and only a minority would rationally evaluate the situation. And you need only one to get all the access. I would certainly be glad if I could be sure 100% of people who get access to classified data are carefully screened to be the cream of the crop of rationally thinking men, uncharacteristically mature and serious. However, I don't think anything I knew for a while or learned recently supports such a conclusion.
How do you expect this intelligence gathering to work? A congressman is a relatively easy target because he expects women to fall all over him due to his power, and spilling secrets to impress his new paramour is more or less something he considers a perk -- and expects her to be attracted to. All she has to do is encourage him. A regular guy who happens to have a security clearance doesn't have or expect that kind of relationship with women; a woman who wants to hear secrets right off the bat will set off alarm bells. So either she's going to have to play a fairly long game, or find a guy who is willing to trade secrets for sex while pretty much knowing what he's doing -- and the clearance process is supposed to weed that second type out, though of course it doesn't always.
Being a horny 21 year old doesn't mean you have no mind at all and will spill secrets to the first hottie who says hello.
There was that pfizer guy who got tricked by a right wing journalist. All they needed was to find a guy with a big mouth who wanted to brag. You may as well suggest that no one would be stupid enough to do this for clout to their discord buddies. The modern spy need only join the right disccord server.
Your example differs in basically all the particulars and thus demonstrates nothing.
If you say so. It's really not outlandish that the right people could be seduced.
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
This is how most spies operated during the cold war. Find and befriend people with access who had the right ideology or could be bribed to leak documents.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link