3 ms·

The only reasonable conclusion I can think of is that the security team had no worry that politicians would be in any danger (e.g. easy, isolated, fast escape r

by 121789 6y ago

The only reasonable conclusion I can think of is that the security team had no worry that politicians would be in any danger (e.g. easy, isolated, fast escape routes) and that it would be hard to rationalize to bring out the troops/big security forces with a threat of violence for a group of people that was supported by the current president and a significant fraction of congress and the senate. The whole situation feels very strange and it feels like I'm missing some key facts.

mistermann 6y ago
I think there are many plausible (but not necessarily "reasonable") alternative explanations. As far as I can tell, this event seems to have had an extremely persuasive effect on the psyche and opinions of the average person. Who might benefit from this change in the mental state of the population, and in what ways? Most people seem to find the very idea of thinking such thoughts to be extremely unpleasant, if not downright inappropriate. But to me, this is simple risk management. The lack of this sort of thinking in society seems downright dangerous to me. I sometimes wonder what the origin of such norms is - is it organic (a common characteristic derived from evolution), or might it be synthetic?
- Twixes 6y ago
  What? Who?
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Hahah, I love the feigned confusion technique.
    - Twixes 6y ago
      I truly am struggling to extract any coherent meaning from that comment. Democrats, controlling just the House – when Repulicans are running the federal gov't with the Senate and the presidency – have instituted this event? Some big capitalists maybe? Putin? The Jews?
      - mistermann 6y ago
        The Democrat/Republican duopoly is mutually beneficial to both party. Grassroots populist candidates (Perot, Trump, Sanders) are a pain in the ass for both of them, as would future ones be. Wouldn't it be convenient if a massive spectacle was to occur, whereby the US public could see in 4K HDR the danger that populist political candidates introduce to the system, how it "threatens our most sacred institution: Democracy. And as luck would have it, along comes a massive throng of obviously angry and delusional Trump supporters, with well advertised (and well known to authorities) plans to descend on the US Capitol, to "rescue Democracy", or some such nonsense. So, what do you do in a situation where you have hordes of angry (and possibly armed) political extremists heading towards a politically strategic location, on a particularly important day (in your democracy)? Do you: a) Beef up security b) Not beef up security It seems like option (b) was chosen. Depending on what variable one is optimizing for, this was a terrible choice, or an excellent one.

by 121789 6y ago

mistermann 6y ago

I think there are many plausible (but not necessarily "reasonable") alternative explanations. As far as I can tell, this event seems to have had an extremely persuasive effect on the psyche and opinions of the average person. Who might benefit from this change in the mental state of the population, and in what ways? Most people seem to find the very idea of thinking such thoughts to be extremely unpleasant, if not downright inappropriate. But to me, this is simple risk management. The lack of this sort of thinking in society seems downright dangerous to me. I sometimes wonder what the origin of such norms is - is it organic (a common characteristic derived from evolution), or might it be synthetic?

Twixes 6y ago
What? Who?
- mistermann 6y ago
  Hahah, I love the feigned confusion technique.
  - Twixes 6y ago
    I truly am struggling to extract any coherent meaning from that comment. Democrats, controlling just the House – when Repulicans are running the federal gov't with the Senate and the presidency – have instituted this event? Some big capitalists maybe? Putin? The Jews?
    - mistermann 6y ago
      The Democrat/Republican duopoly is mutually beneficial to both party. Grassroots populist candidates (Perot, Trump, Sanders) are a pain in the ass for both of them, as would future ones be. Wouldn't it be convenient if a massive spectacle was to occur, whereby the US public could see in 4K HDR the danger that populist political candidates introduce to the system, how it "threatens our most sacred institution: Democracy. And as luck would have it, along comes a massive throng of obviously angry and delusional Trump supporters, with well advertised (and well known to authorities) plans to descend on the US Capitol, to "rescue Democracy", or some such nonsense. So, what do you do in a situation where you have hordes of angry (and possibly armed) political extremists heading towards a politically strategic location, on a particularly important day (in your democracy)? Do you: a) Beef up security b) Not beef up security It seems like option (b) was chosen. Depending on what variable one is optimizing for, this was a terrible choice, or an excellent one.