Assassination Attempt - Secret Service - DEI

[Some Schmo]

I don't think that what Ceeboo says on this board has anything to do with honesty.

I don't either.

It doesn't really matter whether I think ceeboo is honest or not in the grand scheme of things. My perception of his honesty does matter to me, however, in deciding whether I bother to take what he has to post seriously and how much effort I expend attempting to communicate with him.

I'm not telling anyone else to distrust ceeboo. I'm only mentioning why I do.

[Gadianton]

I'm sorry but I won't take the time to read eighteen pages of this thread, so in case I'm repeating old points I'll at least keep my post short.

The only way a sniper can protect a person from another sniper is to kill a human being just for looking suspicious. That's a hard problem.

Secret Service snipers must be thoroughly trained about exactly this problem. They must have clear orders for when to shoot, and when not. Maybe in this case the Secret Service snipers screwed up and they would have shot this assassin sooner if they had all followed orders properly, but maybe the time it took to get the guy shot was properly following procedures for a difficult problem, and the failure was not with the Secret Service snipers but in the earlier breakdown that let this shooter get into position in the first place.

Another example of the "circling the arrow" where it hits. And this is no small thing. It's easy to say after the fact if the suspect should have been killed or not.

Well, unfortunately, this thread has only touched on the snipers, as the main issue from the link provided was the alleged failures of female officers who surrounded the president.

[Kishkumen]

I don't think that what Ceeboo says on this board has anything to do with honesty.

I don't either.

It doesn't really matter whether I think ceeboo is honest or not in the grand scheme of things. My perception of his honesty does matter to me, however, in deciding whether I bother to take what he has to post seriously and how much effort I expend attempting to communicate with him.

I'm not telling anyone else to distrust ceeboo. I'm only mentioning why I do.

You can trust, in my view, that ceeboo is honest. I will once again part with Binger in giving people credit for believing the things that they say, even when we don't see how they could think that way. Not seeing things our way is not lying. Attributing mistaken motives to others because you sincerely believe they have those motivations is not lying. I do hope Binger starts thinking about what the word lying actually means.

The problem is not ceeboo's dishonesty. It is ceeboo's honest belief in the lies he is told by Trump and the GOP. And that is not an honest belief in something that is founded on his media and partisan habitat's honesty, good faith, or sound thinking. It is honest belief in something that meets none of those criteria. It is honest belief in something that is deliberately designed to shortcut reasoning and bamboozle followers with bad thinking and emotional claims.

Look at the role of DEI in this thread. DEI is never dealt with in an effective way here, but that is because it is a scare word in right-wing media. All of this was born in a misleading Megyn Kelly clickbait segment that runs with the general tactic of blaming DEI for everything, so, in a sense, the discussion was doomed from the outset. The truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW whether hiring practices at the Secret Service impacted Trump's security in any meaningful way on that day.

All we know is that police and the Secret Service were warned far enough ahead of time that they should have been able to prevent the shooting. As far as I can tell, that has nothing to do with how tall the women on Trump's Secret Service detail were. Or whether they holstered their guns at the appropriate time, or adjusted their jackets in ways that looked silly to Megyn Kelly.

[Some Schmo]

I don't either.

It doesn't really matter whether I think ceeboo is honest or not in the grand scheme of things. My perception of his honesty does matter to me, however, in deciding whether I bother to take what he has to post seriously and how much effort I expend attempting to communicate with him.

I'm not telling anyone else to distrust ceeboo. I'm only mentioning why I do.

You can trust, in my view, that ceeboo is honest. I will once again part with Binger in giving people credit for believing the things that they say, even when we don't see how they could think that way. Not seeing things our way is not lying. Attributing mistaken motives to others because you sincerely believe they have those motivations is not lying. I do hope Binger starts thinking about what the word lying actually means.

The problem is not ceeboo's dishonesty. It is ceeboo's honest belief in the lies he is told by Trump and the GOP. And that is not an honest belief in something that is founded on his media and partisan habitat's honesty, good faith, or sound thinking. It is honest belief in something that meets none of those criteria. It is honest belief in something that is deliberately designed to shortcut reasoning and bamboozle followers with bad thinking and emotional claims.

I think this is a very generous take.

I suppose my main question is, if ceeboo was really interested in whether DEI played a part in, well, any failure, why would he come here and ask us rather than going to a DEI website and learning about it? Does that strike you as honest?

[ceeboo]

I'm sorry Ceeboo that you have gotten taken in by the DEI boogeyman.

The moron wants to play some more? Okay.

I don't have any problem with trying to determine if DEI has led to lowering of standards, but my guess is it hasn't.

Given what I have learned about you recently, I'm not interested in your guesses. I am going to reject your guesses completely.

Due to the critically important role of the Secret Service, I remain very interested in finding out how this total failure could have possibly happened. In doing so, I am willing to look at everything about the SS, including the DEI policies.

He wore shoe lifts, he panicked to get his shoes. Easy to armchair quarterback that he shouldn't have popped his head up, or cared about his shoes

Trump's shoe lifts and his suggested Panick is where the blame rests? Dwight, maybe you should exchange your superhuman racism detector for a moron eliminating pill. If you do, take 2 pills a day for 90 days.

What special breed of moron tries to deflect the blame from the organization that is literally 100% responsible for protecting the President, and then tries to place the blame upon the guy who was shot in the head - Trying to blame "shoe lifts?" Yeah, a complete and utter moron. Trying to place blame on the guy shot because he, in your opinion, panicked? Yeah, you're a very special flavor of moron to be sure.

[Gadianton]

I suppose my main question is, if ceeboo was really interested in whether DEI played a part in, well, any failure, why would he come here and ask us rather than going to a DEI website and learning about it? Does that strike you as honest?

I think we must separate between "honesty" and "intellectual honesty". A person can be honest without being intellectually honest, which is a higher bar and with a lot more subjectivity to determine.

By the way, I'm not necessarily disagreeing about your decisions as to people who are worth trying to have a discussion with, I'm participating in the aside about those reasons is all.

[Kishkumen]

I think this is a very generous take.

I suppose my main question is, if ceeboo was really interested in whether DEI played a part in, well, any failure, why would he come here and ask us rather than going to a DEI website and learning about it? Does that strike you as honest?

I would prefer that none of us worry about DEI at all. I am not going to waste my time going to learn more about DEI, and I don't expect ceeboo to do the same either. I also have limited time to dedicate to reading Dominionist theology and ethno-nationalist propaganda.

I wish we could get back to worrying about things at the core of our national concerns.

That said, if people raise issues, then they should know what they are talking about, and we can be polite and helpful in working with them.

[Kishkumen]

In doing so, I am willing to look at everything about the SS, including the DEI policies.

How do you think DEI was adversely at play in the police and Secret Service not acting quickly on the intel that there was a suspicious guy with a gun hanging around? I mean, at the end of the day, that is really the only thing that matters here. Trump wasn't shot because some lady in the Secret Service was too short.

[Some Schmo]

I think this is a very generous take.

I suppose my main question is, if ceeboo was really interested in whether DEI played a part in, well, any failure, why would he come here and ask us rather than going to a DEI website and learning about it? Does that strike you as honest?

I would prefer that none of us worry about DEI at all. I am not going to waste my time going to learn more about DEI, and I don't expect ceeboo to do the same either. I also have limited time to dedicate to reading Dominionist theology and ethno-nationalist propaganda.

It's only a waste of time if you don't care to know about it. However, if you're going to accuse it as the source of a problem, knowing about it is critical to the point you're trying to make.

I wish we could get back to worrying about things at the core of our national concerns.

Me too.

That said, if people raise issues, then they should know what they are talking about, and we can be polite and helpful in working with them.

I agree, but I have to at least sense a genuine desire to get to the answer from the people raising those issues.

[Kishkumen]

I think we must separate between "honesty" and "intellectual honesty". A person can be honest without being intellectually honest, which is a higher bar and with a lot more subjectivity to determine.

By the way, I'm not necessarily disagreeing about your decisions as to people who are worth trying to have a discussion with, I'm participating in the aside about those reasons is all.

I think it is a very high bar. This is a practice that one must be truly dedicated in working at to master. I don't know what to do with the fact that the GOP lies as a matter of regular practice, and its voters have abandoned any semblance of a desire to hold them accountable for being honest.

Look at Trump's acceptance speech at the convention. It was a string of lies, and he doesn't care that it is. It doesn't seem that his party or his voters do either.

All I think we can do is refuse to join them in that world, and to practice steadfastly asking substantive questions and dealing with hard evidence. I am not all that hopeful that this will prevail with people who have fully internalized the Trumpian worldview, at least in the short term, but maybe people on the fence can be persuaded that living in Trump's twisted fantasy world will not work so well in the real world.