6 ms·

The cruelty is the point.

uygiugiu 1mo ago
[flagged]
rayiner 1mo ago
It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. The words “temporary” and “nonimmigrant” is plastered all over the laws that govern these visas. People shouldn’t have treated them as permanent immigration visas. And employers shouldn’t have mislead employees into thinking these were permanent immigration visas. It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking.
- wasabi991011 1mo ago
  This entire article is about immigrant visas.
  - rayiner 1mo ago
    No it’s about B-1 and B-2 visas: > The State Department and Department of Homeland Security are reviewing all B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas, he said. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-visitors-for-business/b-1-temporary-business-visitor https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary... (“B-1 Temporary Business Visitor”)
    - nielsbot 1mo ago
      Suspicious given the xenophobic nationalist government the US has in place. "But we're just following the rules!" innocent look
      - rayiner 1mo ago
        American immigration laws are designed to have a small stream of permanent immigration, both to protect american jobs and to protect american culture from foreign influence. That’s what people voted for over decades. The New York Times did a good podcast on the issue. https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w. If you want to define “xenophobic” to encompass that then that’s your choice. I don't think that's a sensible or useful definition. The concept of "xenophobia" only applies to individuals. It's wrong to assume that somebody will be a certain way because of their nationality. That obviously doesn't translate to immigration, which involves the mass movement of people who do have a distinct culture in the aggregate, and do transplant their culture into the U.S.: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant/excerpt/table-contents https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran...
        lanstin 1mo ago
        I know a lot of people that support these cruel and chaotic changes to our immigration laws and they are mostly xenophobic - they don’t like people speaking languages other than English at the store, they don’t like religions different than their own, they don’t like family traditions different than their own.
        rayiner 1mo ago
        Xenophobia is about assuming that people are different because of their national origin. It's not "xenophobia" if there are actual differences, especially if there are actual changes to someone's society. Treating all cultural differences as equally desirable is cultural relativism. Not everyone who rejects cultural relativism is xenophobic. You're allowed to prefer your own culture and to live in a society that reflects your culture. The countries that most immigrants come from treat that principle as axiomatic.
        TimorousBestie 1mo ago
        You’ve successfully mangled the definition of xenophobia. “A strong aversion, antipathy, or fear of foreigners.” Simple as. It wouldn’t be wrong if you admitted that you want some degree of xenophobia. But I suppose that sounds even less convincing than your preferred abuse of terminology.
    - abduhl 1mo ago
      Are we reading different articles? The headline says immigrant visas. The first paragraph says immigrant visas. “The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas, which allow recipients to move permanently to the U.S., to train visa officers on new guidance ensuring that applicants have enough financial means to support themselves after they arrive.”
    - f30e3dfed1c9 1mo ago
      The very first sentence of the article begins "The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas..."
- baby_souffle 1mo ago
  > It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking. That's a very weak analogy for the moral issue here. The consequences are radically different; losing a parking space is a minor inconvenience; losing immigration status can/does involve relocation and upends employment, family, property, and years of life planning / general stability.
  - rayiner 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - baby_souffle 1mo ago
      > The moral issue is the same in both cases: there’s a big sign that says “temporary.” People have chosen to ignore the sign. No. Your analogy works well solely for the concept of temporary authorization. If you're offering up 2h parking as proof that the moral stakes are equivalent...
      - rayiner 1mo ago
        The moral issue is defined by the nature of the rule, not the stakes for someone who has transgressed. Enforcing the rule doesn’t become less legitimate just because someone has invested more in breaking it.
        deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
        debatem1 1mo ago
        Why is that how the moral issue is defined? Seems to me the moral issue is the stakes, and I have no idea why I would cede that judgement to you. What's your basis for claiming moral authority? If you don't, please show your homework: what strange anticonsequentialism underlies your claims, and why should I agree with it?
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- earthdeity 1mo ago
  Rules are well and good, but norms are important too. An immigration system governs people making major life choices, and companies making large investments. Legally, there's very little the state can't do, there could be a bill passed tomorrow revoking all immigrant visas. But businesses, and by proxy the nation, benefit from work done by these workers. Sudden unilateral moves like this are stupid on a social level (cause damage to businesses and communities), and on a moral level. "First do no harm" is a principle just as suited to government as medicine. Even if there is a broad consensus for reducing or eliminating H1B visas, why punish people who followed the system as it exists and contributed? It's perfectly possible to pass a bill, stop handing out new visas, and sunset renewals after some 1-2 year timeframe. It's legal to invite a bunch of guests over and kick them all out after you open the wine, but you're going to lose friends. And ultimately it will be businesses and individuals paying the cost for these needlessly volatile course changes. Tourism and high skilled immigration rates will face lasting harm.
  - rayiner 1mo ago
    > Rules are well and good, but norms are important too Not when the norm is open defiance of the rules for decades. > An immigration system governs people making major life choices, and companies making large investments. And it also governs the right of people to decide who they want to invite into their country and, ultimately, with whom they want to share democratic governance of their home. Those are important stakes, not to be minimized. But you neglected to mention them.
    - earthdeity 1mo ago
      Defiance of the rules? What rules exactly? The law does make clear that H1-Bs are temporary workers. But it's also permitted to renew, and workers are allowed to pursue immigrant status. In fact, until 1990 there was specific language saying that H1-B's (like all visitor visas) are not supposed to want to stay, they must maintain a foreign residence "which he has no intention of abandoning". This language was struck and the visas became, and still are, the most common defacto "seeking green card" status for workers seeking to move the US. To be clear, while a person who enters the US on an H1-B is a temporary worker, they are not prohibited from also seeking a permanent status. So it's fully within the rules, which is why it becomes a question of norms. In the present, the H1-B is (was?) the most popular route to permanent immigration to the US besides family sponsorship. I specifically said that the government (and the citizenry by extension) can decide who it wants to enter and stay, how much immigration, whatever. But changing the rules suddenly, upending peoples lives who have not broken any rules, through a pathway the US state itself freely established, is immoral and short sighted. It should go without saying that there are experts across many fields in industry that any country would benefit from attracting. The US is harming its capacity to attract and keep that talent with these ridiculous theatrics.
- mrguyorama 1mo ago
  >It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. Depends on the rules. "You have no rights and are someone else's property" was once a rule, and it was absolutely cruel.
scoofy 1mo ago
I mean, anyone who is still defending this administration isn't even trying to have a conversation in good faith. I have a Republican friend who appreciates the Supreme Court Justices, and then suddenly has zero clue about any news story involving the administration, and shrugs off the war. This despite meticulously following Benghazi hearings when it was someone he wanted to dislike. He would rather Trump be Romney, but he's not going to do anything about it whatsoever. I blame myself for teasing my Italian friend in college over Silvio Berlusconi, and now I've found myself in the same position :(
- 15155 1mo ago
  > defending this administration "Leave to renew" has been policy for decades.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - foltik 1mo ago
    > isn't even trying to have a conversation in good faith. What about the sweeping halt of all legal immigrant visa processing?
    - scoofy 1mo ago
      Right, the point isn't that "Leave to renew" is some kind of horrible policy. Such bad-fucking-faith on display everywhere. The point is maybe signal to people that we will soon be pausing all visa renewals so people who trivially have good jobs and good records know they ought to literally just plan on moving out of their apartment rather than have to deal with paying thousands of dollars to have someone else move their shit overseas, just to maybe get their visa renewed right when their shit arrives and they have to do the same thing all over again. This would literally just helping law-abiding folks follow the law. But no, the cruelty is the point.
      - 15155 1mo ago
0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
[flagged]
- Mutinix 1mo ago
  To equate immigrants who have followed due process to a homeless person insisting on staying in a property owner's living room is appalling. It's understandable for everyone to have varying views on immigration and immigrants, but this sort of rhetoric is a vile, racist and xenophobic dog whistle.
  - Georgelemental 1mo ago
    An immigrant who has followed due process is equivalent to a homeless person who has convinced the property owner to willingly let the homeless person stay in the property owner's living room. The property owner is allowed to change their mind about the arrangement at any point, unless and until the person obtains part ownership of the property (citizenship).
    - ImPostingOnHN 1mo ago
      The property owner in this case is the American people, who I'm pretty sure don't support this. They may have hired a property manager, but if the manager goes rogue, what the owners say is more important.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
        OK but that's a much different argument from "the cruelty is the point".
        ImPostingOnHN 1mo ago
        The legal perspective doesn't preclude that the cruelty is the point.
        1mo ago
foltik 1mo ago
Look around the thread and notice how little the comments defending these policies have to say about the policies themselves. Instead, what they all have in common is a vague underlying fear of being displaced, or sense that something owed to them is being taken.
- dcow 1mo ago
  The program has always "threatened" to displace citizens. That's not new and if that were the only reason motivating people then why wait till now to complain? Frankly I don't care if I'm fairly displaced. That's meritocracy at work. The reality is the program has been abused and stretched far beyond its intent by corporations in pursuit of cheap (I’d argue slave) labor. You cannot, with a straight face, argue that the spirit of the program is being upheld. Come on. People are upset because they are realizing that they haven't been playing fair--the game's been rigged this whole time. I think that's a very understandable and normal human emotion all things considered. Fraud is illegal. And when people enrich themselves fraudulently it does tend to feel like something has been taken by someone not entitled to it, yes. That works for both the corporations fraudulently hiring H1B and the fraudulent credentialing rings being operated to supply the labor. It is sad that good people and valid visa holders are swept up in this. Aim your ire at the fraudsters, not the people trying to enforce the law and fix the problem.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - eesmith 1mo ago
    Are you calling for open border with no controls? That's the only way to get meritocracy. The system is set up so the casino wins. You cannot, with a straight face, argue the odds are in your favor, but there are rules about how the casino works, both formal and informal. When a casino only investigates cases where someone wins $1 million on the slots, to see if there's a fault in the system, while never investigating all the times that people lose, that's technically within the legal system, but the spirit of gambling is not being upheld, and people get upset. Just ask Katerina Bookman. The immigration system, with the thumb firmly in favor of the interests of capital, is still based on the expectation of good faith by those running the system, as doing otherwise results in orders of magnitude more rules, or an alternate set of unspoken rules based more on vibes. "Pausing" is a bad faith breaking of the spirit of the system.
khazhoux 1mo ago
Like most internet meme phrases, this is both trite and inaccurate. The cruelty is not the point. This administration has decided foreigners are the scapegoat, and wants to get rid of as many as they can. It’s heartless, but cruelty is not the objective.
- pjc50 1mo ago
  Using people as a scapegoat so you can parade their suffering for your fans is intentional cruelty.
- yibg 1mo ago
  Normally I’d agree. For this admin the cruelty does actually look intentional as a deterrent. Making it intentionally turbulent to discourage people from trying in the first place.
- arrrg 1mo ago
  The ultimate goal might be some political aim and in that sense cruelty is not the ultimate point but what is usually meant by this phrase is that the cruelty is not an unintentional oversight, an unintentional side effect. It is intentional (and there to achieve the ultimate political goal).
- jeremyjh 1mo ago
  Cruelty is what their base voted for. This is fan service.
- watwut 1mo ago
  Yes cruelty is the point for this admin and its voters. They think it makes them more manly looking. They openly brag about it. They glee in it. They go out of their way to endanger goals just to be cruel. All of that is in the open, if you listen to what they say and watch what they do.
- enaaem 1mo ago
  Cruelty is the objective, because the America is unwilling to enact the laws that will most effectively stem immigration. These are: 1. Make it illegal to hire undocumented immigrants. 2. Foreign specialists need to earn at least an x% above industry standard (to prove they are specialists). These laws will obviously not fly among corporate donors. Trump will also never deport all illegals because of how much hospitality and agriculture rely on them. In the end it is all show and spectacle. That's what all the tactical gear is for.

[flagged]

It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. The words “temporary” and “nonimmigrant” is plastered all over the laws that govern these visas. People shouldn’t have treated them as permanent immigration visas. And employers shouldn’t have mislead employees into thinking these were permanent immigration visas. It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking.

wasabi991011 1mo ago
This entire article is about immigrant visas.
- rayiner 1mo ago
  No it’s about B-1 and B-2 visas: > The State Department and Department of Homeland Security are reviewing all B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas, he said. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-visitors-for-business/b-1-temporary-business-visitor https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary... (“B-1 Temporary Business Visitor”)
  - nielsbot 1mo ago
    Suspicious given the xenophobic nationalist government the US has in place. "But we're just following the rules!" innocent look
    - rayiner 1mo ago
      American immigration laws are designed to have a small stream of permanent immigration, both to protect american jobs and to protect american culture from foreign influence. That’s what people voted for over decades. The New York Times did a good podcast on the issue. https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w https://youtu.be/xgDdTV7A57w. If you want to define “xenophobic” to encompass that then that’s your choice. I don't think that's a sensible or useful definition. The concept of "xenophobia" only applies to individuals. It's wrong to assume that somebody will be a certain way because of their nationality. That obviously doesn't translate to immigration, which involves the mass movement of people who do have a distinct culture in the aggregate, and do transplant their culture into the U.S.: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant/excerpt/table-contents https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran...
      - lanstin 1mo ago
        I know a lot of people that support these cruel and chaotic changes to our immigration laws and they are mostly xenophobic - they don’t like people speaking languages other than English at the store, they don’t like religions different than their own, they don’t like family traditions different than their own.
        rayiner 1mo ago
        Xenophobia is about assuming that people are different because of their national origin. It's not "xenophobia" if there are actual differences, especially if there are actual changes to someone's society. Treating all cultural differences as equally desirable is cultural relativism. Not everyone who rejects cultural relativism is xenophobic. You're allowed to prefer your own culture and to live in a society that reflects your culture. The countries that most immigrants come from treat that principle as axiomatic.
        TimorousBestie 1mo ago
        You’ve successfully mangled the definition of xenophobia. “A strong aversion, antipathy, or fear of foreigners.” Simple as. It wouldn’t be wrong if you admitted that you want some degree of xenophobia. But I suppose that sounds even less convincing than your preferred abuse of terminology.
  - abduhl 1mo ago
    Are we reading different articles? The headline says immigrant visas. The first paragraph says immigrant visas. “The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas, which allow recipients to move permanently to the U.S., to train visa officers on new guidance ensuring that applicants have enough financial means to support themselves after they arrive.”
  - f30e3dfed1c9 1mo ago
    The very first sentence of the article begins "The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas..."
baby_souffle 1mo ago
> It’s like saying that it’s “cruelty” to remove someone who uses a 2 hour parking spot as their permanent car parking. That's a very weak analogy for the moral issue here. The consequences are radically different; losing a parking space is a minor inconvenience; losing immigration status can/does involve relocation and upends employment, family, property, and years of life planning / general stability.
- rayiner 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - baby_souffle 1mo ago
    > The moral issue is the same in both cases: there’s a big sign that says “temporary.” People have chosen to ignore the sign. No. Your analogy works well solely for the concept of temporary authorization. If you're offering up 2h parking as proof that the moral stakes are equivalent...
    - rayiner 1mo ago
      The moral issue is defined by the nature of the rule, not the stakes for someone who has transgressed. Enforcing the rule doesn’t become less legitimate just because someone has invested more in breaking it.
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
      - debatem1 1mo ago
        Why is that how the moral issue is defined? Seems to me the moral issue is the stakes, and I have no idea why I would cede that judgement to you. What's your basis for claiming moral authority? If you don't, please show your homework: what strange anticonsequentialism underlies your claims, and why should I agree with it?
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
earthdeity 1mo ago
Rules are well and good, but norms are important too. An immigration system governs people making major life choices, and companies making large investments. Legally, there's very little the state can't do, there could be a bill passed tomorrow revoking all immigrant visas. But businesses, and by proxy the nation, benefit from work done by these workers. Sudden unilateral moves like this are stupid on a social level (cause damage to businesses and communities), and on a moral level. "First do no harm" is a principle just as suited to government as medicine. Even if there is a broad consensus for reducing or eliminating H1B visas, why punish people who followed the system as it exists and contributed? It's perfectly possible to pass a bill, stop handing out new visas, and sunset renewals after some 1-2 year timeframe. It's legal to invite a bunch of guests over and kick them all out after you open the wine, but you're going to lose friends. And ultimately it will be businesses and individuals paying the cost for these needlessly volatile course changes. Tourism and high skilled immigration rates will face lasting harm.
- rayiner 1mo ago
  > Rules are well and good, but norms are important too Not when the norm is open defiance of the rules for decades. > An immigration system governs people making major life choices, and companies making large investments. And it also governs the right of people to decide who they want to invite into their country and, ultimately, with whom they want to share democratic governance of their home. Those are important stakes, not to be minimized. But you neglected to mention them.
  - earthdeity 1mo ago
    Defiance of the rules? What rules exactly? The law does make clear that H1-Bs are temporary workers. But it's also permitted to renew, and workers are allowed to pursue immigrant status. In fact, until 1990 there was specific language saying that H1-B's (like all visitor visas) are not supposed to want to stay, they must maintain a foreign residence "which he has no intention of abandoning". This language was struck and the visas became, and still are, the most common defacto "seeking green card" status for workers seeking to move the US. To be clear, while a person who enters the US on an H1-B is a temporary worker, they are not prohibited from also seeking a permanent status. So it's fully within the rules, which is why it becomes a question of norms. In the present, the H1-B is (was?) the most popular route to permanent immigration to the US besides family sponsorship. I specifically said that the government (and the citizenry by extension) can decide who it wants to enter and stay, how much immigration, whatever. But changing the rules suddenly, upending peoples lives who have not broken any rules, through a pathway the US state itself freely established, is immoral and short sighted. It should go without saying that there are experts across many fields in industry that any country would benefit from attracting. The US is harming its capacity to attract and keep that talent with these ridiculous theatrics.
mrguyorama 1mo ago
>It’s not “cruelty” to have and enforce rules. Depends on the rules. "You have no rights and are someone else's property" was once a rule, and it was absolutely cruel.

scoofy 1mo ago

I mean, anyone who is still defending this administration isn't even trying to have a conversation in good faith. I have a Republican friend who appreciates the Supreme Court Justices, and then suddenly has zero clue about any news story involving the administration, and shrugs off the war. This despite meticulously following Benghazi hearings when it was someone he wanted to dislike. He would rather Trump be Romney, but he's not going to do anything about it whatsoever. I blame myself for teasing my Italian friend in college over Silvio Berlusconi, and now I've found myself in the same position :(

15155 1mo ago
> defending this administration "Leave to renew" has been policy for decades.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- foltik 1mo ago
  > isn't even trying to have a conversation in good faith. What about the sweeping halt of all legal immigrant visa processing?
  - scoofy 1mo ago
    Right, the point isn't that "Leave to renew" is some kind of horrible policy. Such bad-fucking-faith on display everywhere. The point is maybe signal to people that we will soon be pausing all visa renewals so people who trivially have good jobs and good records know they ought to literally just plan on moving out of their apartment rather than have to deal with paying thousands of dollars to have someone else move their shit overseas, just to maybe get their visa renewed right when their shit arrives and they have to do the same thing all over again. This would literally just helping law-abiding folks follow the law. But no, the cruelty is the point.
    - 15155 1mo ago

0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago

[flagged]

Mutinix 1mo ago
To equate immigrants who have followed due process to a homeless person insisting on staying in a property owner's living room is appalling. It's understandable for everyone to have varying views on immigration and immigrants, but this sort of rhetoric is a vile, racist and xenophobic dog whistle.
- Georgelemental 1mo ago
  An immigrant who has followed due process is equivalent to a homeless person who has convinced the property owner to willingly let the homeless person stay in the property owner's living room. The property owner is allowed to change their mind about the arrangement at any point, unless and until the person obtains part ownership of the property (citizenship).
  - ImPostingOnHN 1mo ago
    The property owner in this case is the American people, who I'm pretty sure don't support this. They may have hired a property manager, but if the manager goes rogue, what the owners say is more important.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1mo ago
      OK but that's a much different argument from "the cruelty is the point".
      - ImPostingOnHN 1mo ago
        The legal perspective doesn't preclude that the cruelty is the point.
        1mo ago

foltik 1mo ago

Look around the thread and notice how little the comments defending these policies have to say about the policies themselves. Instead, what they all have in common is a vague underlying fear of being displaced, or sense that something owed to them is being taken.

dcow 1mo ago
The program has always "threatened" to displace citizens. That's not new and if that were the only reason motivating people then why wait till now to complain? Frankly I don't care if I'm fairly displaced. That's meritocracy at work. The reality is the program has been abused and stretched far beyond its intent by corporations in pursuit of cheap (I’d argue slave) labor. You cannot, with a straight face, argue that the spirit of the program is being upheld. Come on. People are upset because they are realizing that they haven't been playing fair--the game's been rigged this whole time. I think that's a very understandable and normal human emotion all things considered. Fraud is illegal. And when people enrich themselves fraudulently it does tend to feel like something has been taken by someone not entitled to it, yes. That works for both the corporations fraudulently hiring H1B and the fraudulent credentialing rings being operated to supply the labor. It is sad that good people and valid visa holders are swept up in this. Aim your ire at the fraudsters, not the people trying to enforce the law and fix the problem.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- eesmith 1mo ago
  Are you calling for open border with no controls? That's the only way to get meritocracy. The system is set up so the casino wins. You cannot, with a straight face, argue the odds are in your favor, but there are rules about how the casino works, both formal and informal. When a casino only investigates cases where someone wins $1 million on the slots, to see if there's a fault in the system, while never investigating all the times that people lose, that's technically within the legal system, but the spirit of gambling is not being upheld, and people get upset. Just ask Katerina Bookman. The immigration system, with the thumb firmly in favor of the interests of capital, is still based on the expectation of good faith by those running the system, as doing otherwise results in orders of magnitude more rules, or an alternate set of unspoken rules based more on vibes. "Pausing" is a bad faith breaking of the spirit of the system.

khazhoux 1mo ago

Like most internet meme phrases, this is both trite and inaccurate. The cruelty is not the point. This administration has decided foreigners are the scapegoat, and wants to get rid of as many as they can. It’s heartless, but cruelty is not the objective.

pjc50 1mo ago
Using people as a scapegoat so you can parade their suffering for your fans is intentional cruelty.
yibg 1mo ago
Normally I’d agree. For this admin the cruelty does actually look intentional as a deterrent. Making it intentionally turbulent to discourage people from trying in the first place.
arrrg 1mo ago
The ultimate goal might be some political aim and in that sense cruelty is not the ultimate point but what is usually meant by this phrase is that the cruelty is not an unintentional oversight, an unintentional side effect. It is intentional (and there to achieve the ultimate political goal).
jeremyjh 1mo ago
Cruelty is what their base voted for. This is fan service.
watwut 1mo ago
Yes cruelty is the point for this admin and its voters. They think it makes them more manly looking. They openly brag about it. They glee in it. They go out of their way to endanger goals just to be cruel. All of that is in the open, if you listen to what they say and watch what they do.
enaaem 1mo ago
Cruelty is the objective, because the America is unwilling to enact the laws that will most effectively stem immigration. These are: 1. Make it illegal to hire undocumented immigrants. 2. Foreign specialists need to earn at least an x% above industry standard (to prove they are specialists). These laws will obviously not fly among corporate donors. Trump will also never deport all illegals because of how much hospitality and agriculture rely on them. In the end it is all show and spectacle. That's what all the tactical gear is for.