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 -
Certainly he has a background; he's 21 years old, not a newborn.
Seems very strange. At every company I've worked at I had access to a whole bunch of confidential material. Not all of it, naturally, but a good chunk. Texeira didn't have access to the US government's entire classified output either, of course.
Yes, that's because he was incredibly sloppy. Had he successfully leaked the documents without it being easy to find him by tracing the leaks back to him, the audit trail would let them trace forward to find and question those who could have leaked them.
He's not Brett Kavanaugh, so what he did in high school hardly matters. If he did something that does matter, like having a criminal record, he probably wouldn't be nowhere near that position anyway, in fact probably wouldn't be in the National Guard to begin with.
He had much more access than his work needed him to, that's the point.
You're saying like existence of that trail is an established fact, but it's not. I strongly suspect it in fact does not exist.
So in other words, he would pass a background check. As indeed we know he did.
How would you know? In general, of course, it's true; while ideally everyone has exactly has much access as they need and not a document more, in fact that's not practical and if you work on various large projects you likely have access to other parts of those projects that you don't strictly need. But I don't see how you would know that Teixeira didn't need access to those documents as part of his work, since it's very unlikely you have a full description of his duties.
You keep saying it as if it means something. That's a cargo cult behavior - insisting that if some formal criteria is satisfied, then the actual problem, which this formal criteria was supposed to answer (but does not) is actually solved, by virtue of satisfying the formalities, and the evidence that it is very much not solved is just noise, as long as we look back at the formal criteria, all is fine.
I can't know for sure, but it seems highly implausible that anybody - let alone a low-level 21 year old recruit - could have a job that required him to access this breadth and depth of information. Of course, theoretically it is possible that this Air National Guard airbase is exactly the place where Ukrainian counter-offensive strategy is forged, despite National Guard and US Air Force having nothing to do with it, and this is exactly the place where also intelligence information about Israel and South Korea is concentrated, again for some reason as this has nothing to do with National Guard or Air Force, and at the same place the reports about intelligence collected from Russians is sent, and also this is the place which is responsible to reacting to hacker attacks on Canadian energy infrastructure - and in the center of all this sits the master spy, the indispensable man, the nerve center of US intelligence community - 21-year-old super-mega-ultra-agent Texeira, which rules all this spying kingdom. I leave it to you to decide what is more plausible - this scenario or that security compartmentalization and audit practices in US Army are bad, and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link