Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/11490010
Update, yes there are snipers:
So I have a question I sort of posted in there too but figure I’ll bring the conversation over here (in a more respectful way)
These are called spotters/marksman and they have them at football games, the Olympics, presumably political events, etc. to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats
How should we handle these threats without police intervention/snipers to quickly take out a bomber?
Looking for civil discourse if at all possible, but I also understand this is a high stakes discussion and directly affects some more than others
Edit: Asks a legitimate question, without ulterior motives, literally just trying to steer the conversation to a productive, constructive discussion: is bombarded with bad faith arguments, downvotes, accused of being down right disingenuous, and minimal attempts (1 as of this edit) to actually address the conversation. Psychotic experience this was.
“These threats” what threat?? People protesting? These snipers have never once protected protestors from the violent freaks that show up to run people over or shoot people.
Poignant point
The most likely reasoning is also the saddest.
The tensions about israel/palestine are real. Theres a non zero chance that someone who is very pro-israel and very unhinged might decide the pro-palestinians need shooting. You know how I know this? Because this is an American school, people get shot because someone feels that they need to shoot some people, they dont need a wildly divisive issue to spur them on. One anonymous email talking about how the "terrorist supporters are going to get whats coming to them" and the school/police have to do something. If they do nothing and it does happen everyone will be screaming that "They were warned and did nothing! They wanted this to happen!"
But you see that’s not what they’re doing, right? Tearing down protest encampments and arresting everyone isn’t protecting them.
They can want the protests to go away (or make them) AND not want to deal with the bad press of failing to at least pretend to protect them on campus. Even if the protest is unauthorised by administration they still dont want " Nothing was done to prevent OSU mass shooting by police or administration" to be a headline.
Both things can be true.
Both things can be true, but that doesn’t really make it better? Both are completely self serving reasons that trample on the constitutional rights of the students.
From my point of view/questioning, it's the threat of suicide bombers and other terrorist efforts (acid, dirty bombs, driving through a crowd of people) when it comes to protesting middle eastern matters in the states. Hell we have American terrorists doing terrorism here too, how do we better prevent that or are we stuck only responding?
This is a complete distraction. The only people spilling protestors’ blood on American soil right now are cops. And your response to it is to try to justify why they need intimidation snipers on top of that?? Absolutely not.
You did not address what they said and instead made a slew of assumptions about their intent. They actually had a question
That was answered, like several times. I don't care about the intent (from ether party), but what does grind my gears is the wilfully ignoring any answer that does not fit the weird fear mongering position that this guy is here to protect anyone:
This isn't even true (we literally just had several parades/protests where a driver DROVE through the fucking crowd), you completely dodge my question, and then in bad faith tried to paint me like I'm some sort of crazy person who thinks intimidation is somehow a good idea.
I'm done with this conversation. I don't have to tolerate bad faith arguments when I've repeatedly shown I want to have civil discourse. Next time, don't respond if you can't act like an adult and treat someone who's trying to improve themselves and act like an adult.
OK, dude wringing his hands about what if someone brings in a dirty bomb while cops bash in heads. 🙄 The grandstanding like I didn’t bring up violent freaks running over and shooting protestors first is a cute touch, too.
If you want to be treated as a serious person to have a serious conversation with then be fucking serious.
I've repeatedly said that cops using snipers/spotters is not a good solution, and that cops are part of the problem, but okay believe whatever lies you wanna tell yourself I suppose. Thats your prerogative
Actual prevention of terrorism comes by building a just society. People who have basic needs, healthcare, education, and justice do not become terrorists.
And how do you expect a sharpshooter team to stop a suicide bomber, acid attack, or dirty bomb? Even stopping a crowd-driving-maniac would require significant luck. This isn't an action movie.
I never made this claim... I was asking the question literally, which you answered and lead with, before going back to say I was implying something else. I'm confused how we ended up here, but I think we both agree that snipers are a threatening, and apparently not that effective means to prevent these things from happening. And even in reacting, snipers are overkill.
dirty bombs are movie plot threat, bombers, suicide or not are not an issue in usa because alternatives are more easily available. your take sounds weird and disingenuous
The fact you Americans think this is normal for a protest says more then anything I can comment.
A good test is to think of a private entitiy doing this and if that passes the smell test. I don't think deploying snipers at events has ever saved anyone (correct me if I am missing an incident) and in this case if they are there to protect the students why does the school not hire their own sharpshooters?
You bring up a good point. The prevention part - snipers are seemingly ineffective. The reaction/response portion however, does point to guns being used to prevent further damage. 2016 dallas shooting - police used a bomb to take out the shooter after the fact. LA airport shooting in 2013 - taken down with regular guns.
Overall, I think you make a good point, they're ineffective at prevention, and even response can be handled w/o the need of long range or automatic weapons. There's always the argument that "well there aren't any attacks because we have these" that I can see people making but that feels fallacious somehow, just not sure how exactly.
I am still left to wonder, how do you actually prevent the bombing and other attacks from happening. What is effective?
I think you might be mistaken as to the point of the police being on site. Its not really the job of police to protect (and extra so for protesters). The risk of a terror attack on any large group of people is a weak excuse for this sort of response from police.
Something about those who give up liberty for safety deserve nether....
I sorta agree, but wanted to ask for some clarification - what liberties do you see being given up here? They didn't really take anything away, they were just there. It's definitely intimidating, and nobody trusts the police (for good reason, namely lack of appropriate oversight, action, and training) but I can't see how anything was taken away or given up here for the illusion of saftey that the snipers would hypothetically be providing, know what I mean?
You have normalized a police state where as a people you now think it is normal to have things like sniper teams set up at all major events with a lot of people. This has been done as you have stated; "to handle the threat of suicide bombers and other mass-population terrorist threats" even though sniper teams have almost no ability to stop or even just not make the situation considerably worse.
The thing about trading liberties for extra safety is not only about the liberties lost but that it is a fools journey since the things done for safety are more likely to be ether useless, or just bad (think TSA vs militarizing the police).
You are not stopping a mass casualty event at the time and place of the event itself but well before it. This show of force is just control, theatre, a waste of taxpayer money and in the worst case the cause (ironically enough) of a mass casualty event.
When the bomber intends to die in glory, there is no deterrent possible. Death isn't any deterrent. It can only be stopped before they get to the scene.
Why won't anyone answer my question, I know this.
What can be done to prevent
I'm sorry people are being so reactionary and taking your questions as being pro sniper or whatever way they're taking it. Rational discourse is generally better on Lemmy than other places but is still on the Internet, so people don't actually give anyone credit for trying to be calm and rational about events like these.
The cops are the threat to the protestors.
Do these snipers ever actually intervene ?
Also, the solution is simple : outlaw guns.
I think people do not realize that for large gatherings where violence could break out this is pretty standard.
Most Sports stadiums have them.
I do not think it is wrong to be cautious, or at least have some pieces on the table in case something breaks out.
Which I am sorry to say, could very well happen.
1:5 Americans believe that an act of force is justified. RIght wing or left wing, that could be a terrifying concept if someone motivated by zealous anger to attack a protest they don't fully understand.
The police forces would never give up their guns, though.
I think there might've been a miscommunication - I was referring to the threat being suicide bombers and dirty bombs. How do you stop someone from walking into a crowd, pushing a button, and hurting many innocent people trying to peacefully protest?
The cops are literally the ones walking into the crowds hurting the protestors. So you get rid of the cops.
Folks are being deliberately dense and not answering your question. I replied above, but I'll add that Sam Harris does tend to address this at length.
They made an earnest effort to get rid of guns in Northern Ireland. How'd that go down?
There was an updated image that clearly shows the barrel of a rifle, so no. These are not for spotting. They are for sniping.
While it's possible that people shot by guns are bad people, there is very little reason to assume it is likely at a peaceful protest on a University Campus that is ALWAYS crowded. Especially with the current track record of US Police.
A couple of thoughts.
Yes, these are the same people you see at football games (although they usually are better hidden).