5 ms·

Given that TSA has never stopped a terrorist, and this is all theater, choosing to continue makes it biased theater.

Gibbon1 8y ago
It's funny not funny that the same people that like to rage about government agency's being increasing intrusive and consuming more and more resources while doing nothing valuable have nothing bad to say about the poster child for that.
- rongenre 8y ago
  Just World Fallacy is great when you're unaffected.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  > the same people that like to rage about government agency's being increasing intrusive and consuming more and more resources while doing nothing valuable have nothing bad to say about the poster child for that. Don't they? The diehard libertarians I've been exposed to are the first and loudest to complain about the TSA. Is there some constituency I'm unaware of that's anti-government action but not anti-TSA?
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    > diehard libertarians They bark and complain and then get on their knees and lick the boot.
    - rongenre 8y ago
      Libertarian koan: Next year, that's gonna be my boot.
      - Gibbon1 8y ago
        The short answer is libertarians are hostile to collective action. The only politically powerful group that aligns with is that of extreme wealth.
recursive 8y ago
There's no way to tell how many terrorists have been dissuaded from making an attempt because of the existence of the TSA.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  How conveniently unfalsifiable.
  - recursive 8y ago
    Indeed. I really don't think there's a way to know. That certainly includes counting the number bomb-carrying would-be terrorists caught red-handed at the TSA checkpoint.
otterley 8y ago
> Given that TSA has never stopped a terrorist This is a pretty bold conclusion to make. Why do you assert this isn't so? There's no way to be certain of this because we can't read people's minds. A potential terrorist may have been thwarted simply because a TSA Agent refused to allow a weapon into the secured area.
- rongenre 8y ago
  Has TSA ever taken credit for stopping something? No. If they could plausibly claim they stopped a "major plot", it'd be 3-4 news cycles. They've caught idiots with handguns and drugs in their luggage, which is fine, but there was no intention of doing anyone harm. So no. They're as useless as a security blanket.
  - otterley 8y ago
    Since we cannot read people’s minds, we prove intent in the legal process through circumstantial evidence, or through direct evidence of intent such as communications or writings. The TSA need not publicize their wins to prove effectiveness. Guilt can only be established in court; deterrence (which is what we’re talking about here) requires a much lower standard.
    - Bluestrike2 8y ago
      Your argument can also apply to the converse position, as well. Given the absence of evidence of success, can we reasonably accept that such successes do in fact exist? It'd be well within the TSA's interests to publicizing their successes, both for the agency's own operations and as a deterrent against would-be terrorists. They wouldn't even have to necessarily get into specifics. Consider the TSA's bad press. There are years of stories detailing pervasive fail rates in detecting smuggled weapons or explosives by inspectors, misconduct and other scandals, and a number of viral videos showing incidents with groping and other bad behavior. If the TSA had major successes under their belt, it'd offer some rather useful political capital to deploy during the game of hardball that is the federal budget process. And the screeners' union, the AFGE, would be positively thrilled to be able to leverage those successes in support of extending full Title 5 protections and collective bargaining rights, not to mention General Schedule pay, to TSA screeners. Pushing back against the idea that screeners are incompetent would be of immense benefit to both the agency and the union. Beyond that, a failed plot on US soil would lead to criminal charges against the conspirators. There should be evidence of major TSA successes in court records, and yet, nothing.

It's funny not funny that the same people that like to rage about government agency's being increasing intrusive and consuming more and more resources while doing nothing valuable have nothing bad to say about the poster child for that.

rongenre 8y ago
Just World Fallacy is great when you're unaffected.
wutbrodo 8y ago
> the same people that like to rage about government agency's being increasing intrusive and consuming more and more resources while doing nothing valuable have nothing bad to say about the poster child for that. Don't they? The diehard libertarians I've been exposed to are the first and loudest to complain about the TSA. Is there some constituency I'm unaware of that's anti-government action but not anti-TSA?
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  > diehard libertarians They bark and complain and then get on their knees and lick the boot.
  - rongenre 8y ago
    Libertarian koan: Next year, that's gonna be my boot.
    - Gibbon1 8y ago
      The short answer is libertarians are hostile to collective action. The only politically powerful group that aligns with is that of extreme wealth.

recursive 8y ago

There's no way to tell how many terrorists have been dissuaded from making an attempt because of the existence of the TSA.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
How conveniently unfalsifiable.
- recursive 8y ago
  Indeed. I really don't think there's a way to know. That certainly includes counting the number bomb-carrying would-be terrorists caught red-handed at the TSA checkpoint.

otterley 8y ago

> Given that TSA has never stopped a terrorist This is a pretty bold conclusion to make. Why do you assert this isn't so? There's no way to be certain of this because we can't read people's minds. A potential terrorist may have been thwarted simply because a TSA Agent refused to allow a weapon into the secured area.

rongenre 8y ago
Has TSA ever taken credit for stopping something? No. If they could plausibly claim they stopped a "major plot", it'd be 3-4 news cycles. They've caught idiots with handguns and drugs in their luggage, which is fine, but there was no intention of doing anyone harm. So no. They're as useless as a security blanket.
- otterley 8y ago
  Since we cannot read people’s minds, we prove intent in the legal process through circumstantial evidence, or through direct evidence of intent such as communications or writings. The TSA need not publicize their wins to prove effectiveness. Guilt can only be established in court; deterrence (which is what we’re talking about here) requires a much lower standard.
  - Bluestrike2 8y ago
    Your argument can also apply to the converse position, as well. Given the absence of evidence of success, can we reasonably accept that such successes do in fact exist? It'd be well within the TSA's interests to publicizing their successes, both for the agency's own operations and as a deterrent against would-be terrorists. They wouldn't even have to necessarily get into specifics. Consider the TSA's bad press. There are years of stories detailing pervasive fail rates in detecting smuggled weapons or explosives by inspectors, misconduct and other scandals, and a number of viral videos showing incidents with groping and other bad behavior. If the TSA had major successes under their belt, it'd offer some rather useful political capital to deploy during the game of hardball that is the federal budget process. And the screeners' union, the AFGE, would be positively thrilled to be able to leverage those successes in support of extending full Title 5 protections and collective bargaining rights, not to mention General Schedule pay, to TSA screeners. Pushing back against the idea that screeners are incompetent would be of immense benefit to both the agency and the union. Beyond that, a failed plot on US soil would lead to criminal charges against the conspirators. There should be evidence of major TSA successes in court records, and yet, nothing.