“Tactical” Infiltrated Everyday Life
gearpatrol.com
gearpatrol.com
My wife has a janisport backpack that is 25 years old. The same cost backpack nowadays has ripped seams and broken zippers inside a year. But if you can get a timbuk2 or similar pack, it'll last a decade or more. But you have to pay now.
Though they were vastly more expensive my Arc’teryx pants are 6 years old, have seen multiple expeditions and who knows how many thousands of days of wear, and show less wear than my year old Pranas.
https://www.rei.com/product/879230/arcteryx-psiphon-sl-pants...
It has a military influence in looks, but I've never had any comments or dirty looks in any conference/board room I've had it in. It's the best laptop bag I've ever owned. Durable, comfortable and versatile enough for non tech adventures. I've lived out of it for a week at a time when traveling.
It's a little visually obvious that I've used it for ten years (worn down in predictable spots) but it's structurally indistinguishable from the day I bought it, and still quite water resistant. If anything, it fits better.
Is that accounting for inflation? $100 in 1996 is $173 in 2021.
In my experience most civilian-type gear is simply unacceptable in quality. Hiking backpacks can store a lot of stuff but aren't abrasion resistant or extendable. With a good tactical backpack I start with 60L and a load bearing rig, and extend it based on whatever I am doing. I have backpacks from 10 years ago I've dragged on the ground, dropped down the side of a hill, or walked through sticky brush with that are still completely serviceable. Don't get me started on colors either. Every civilian hiking kit looks like a freakin' rainbow. It's ultra tacky and I hate it. I don't want to be seen when I am alone and outdoors. So, my only choice is tactical gear because its the only stuff that comes in flat colors that blend with the environment.
"Tactical" pants are extremely nice as well. They really aren't city-wear but the extra abrasion resistance, pockets, etc is very nice. Some companies like 5.11 sell pants made specifically for EDC/CCW which if you do this you will have realized regular jeans just aren't sufficient for a truly comfortable carry experience.
For firearms tactical gear is very useful. If you do 3-gun, hunt, or anything else the additionally extensibility of a platform is useful. For example, a shotgun for bird hunting is made so much better with a side saddle and improved pump (if you use a pump shotgun). For home defense, a foregrip and flash light can vastly improve your chances to put a solid shot on target thereby improving your overall effectiveness and safety.
This article seems to be trying to make some kind of political message. Certainly there are so-called "LARPers" who just wear it to look cool or dangerous. But this doesn't undermine the legitimate use cases. When deployed properly tactical gear is no different than a custom keyboard or monitors. It enhances the usability and extensibility of the original purpose and design.
It's a clash of priorities. Hiking gear is brightly coloured to help scare off wildlife and increase the odds of being seen by search & rescue.
As a beekeeper, the Deluth firehouse cool max pants were recommended for working bees in the heat. They're so much better than jeans in comfort, cooling, pockets, etc. I now prefer those over jeansjust dor regular wear.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are so many options that are better than jeans today, for any activity or even normal wear.
If "tactical" is now "a call to action"; what's the choice? Find a new word to use in promotional materiel or start restricting who you sell to based on their political correctness?
The problem isn't the language per se. The problem is fetishization. That and we're a large enough population with the ability to connect instantly with every other member of that population so finding other people with the same fetish is easy. And when we're talking about a population of over 300 million people, 0.1% is roughly 330,000. Every group is a large group.
It is estimated that anywhere from 2000 to 2500 people entered the Capitol ground on January 6th. That is about 0.0008% of the U.S. population.
We can no longer ostracize people who don't honor the social contract. We can no longer shame people into behaving civilly. You can always go out there and find someone to validate your beliefs. And not just one, but huge groups of people who will tell you you are doing nothing wrong and that it's the world that's wrong. We've lost most of our social tools for dealing with dangerous and extreme views.
We also can't shame people into being straight, monogamous, christian, etc. So overall I'd say this one is a win, even if it has some downsides.
> We've lost most of our social tools for dealing with dangerous and extreme views.
It was a couple hundred years ago we burned people alive for being witches. Less than a hundred years ago we lynched people for interracial relationships. Less than 50 years ago we arrested people for being obviously gay.
Extreme views aren't new. We didn't crack down on them historically, they actually got baked into the culture and it's norms.
I much prefer this new generally chill thing we are doing as a culture.
But we were getting better about a lot of that stuff even without the level of communication we have today.
We stopped lynching people for "miscegenation" long before the internet. We stopped arresting people for being gay before Facebook.
I wouldn't call storming government buildings all that chill.
And look at what's happening. We've overturned Roe v Wade and they made specific mention of other decisions that affect gay marriage. We are on the road back to making being gay illegal.
You can have too much of something.
This is not a new debate but even as someone who is pro-choice, Roe was bad law.
I don't buy into the Alito theory of substantive due process not being real - and neither do any of the other justices. That being said, yes, congress is supposed to make laws, not the bench. Congress should still enshrine gay marriage.
Bingo. A lot of the people seeking out "tacticool" gear don't need or use any of the additional functionality. They mostly wear it in air-conditioned offices, carrying only the usual complement of keys, phones, etc. Not a lot of extra value for abrasion-resistant nylon and extra pockets/loops/molle for someone who barely even goes outdoors. I have more use for it than they do when I'm hiking but still not in the home or office. No, it's not usually about function or quality. It's about their own form of "virtue signaling" to show how they feel about all things law-enforcement or military, so that people of like insurrectionist mind can find each other.
Law enforcement is a really important voice in emergency management. They manage a lot of the manmade threat analysis, reporting and mitigation, and serve as a huge piece of the response to most disasters. I think any planning endeavor that doesn't get their feedback risks not having an adequate understanding of their capability and their buy-in during a response. That said, the tone of the conversations about how a community should prepare for something like civil unrest can pivot simply on what you call it (civil unrest, uprising, riot, disturbance, etc.) - and if you aren't careful, an honest exploration of what could be done better can come off as an indictment of LE or their involvement.
The biggest areas where I typically see legitimate differences of perspective (and so might change my messaging or introduction of a concept slightly based on 5.11 pants) is in the application of what is traditionally thought of as military technology or terminology to civilian emergency management. For example, whether and to what extent response agencies should have drones (really incredibly useful tool for damage assessment), and managing the privacy concerns around those. Another example of an area I might shift how I frame a discussion is the role, extent, and nature of school shooting drills. In my experience, LE (especially those with lived active shooter experience) seem more comfortable with "real life simulations" that include a person pretending to be a "bad guy", carrying real looking fake guns, and setting off real sounding "gun shot simulators" to train kids how to respond. Final thought, should we call our regular reports "SitReps" and release them as part of our "battle rhythm" - analyzing them during our "hot wash" sessions. None of those terms is offensive in-and-of-itself, but if I'm in a non-tactical pants room I might soften those edges with "regular updates", "operational tempo", or "post-event discussion".
To be clear, judging a person by their pants is about as useful as judging a book its cover - but when I've got to get up in front of a room to start a planning process around a controversial topic area you'll take all the heuristics you can to try and frame things for a productive conversation. That's also, by the way, why I like introductions and ice breakers. They might be dumb for the group, and seem a waste of time, but a good facilitator is shifting message slightly and thinking about framing issues based on those snippets.
> We can no longer ostracize people who don't honor the social contract.
In the specific case of Jan6; how many people have yet to be "ostracized" sufficiently? There's quite a few in jail, and many more that have suffered social consequences regardless of their legal culpability.
Do you feel there's a difference between Jan6 and any of the BLM riots? Is that difference "why people were rioting" instead of "what they did" or "how they were punished"?
Yes, I feel there's a very significant difference between an attempt to overthrow the Republic and establish monarchy with deliberate and explicit murderous intent, and protest gatherings that became violent after police began firing weapons into previously peaceful crowds.
I'm being completely serious here, how rotten by both-sidesism does your brain have to be to think that "prosecute the police" is a mantra just as blameworthy as "kill Pence, kill Pelosi"?
Was "prosecute the police" the message you got from burning police stations? Or would you agree that the violent acts were the responsibility of a few individuals with probably more radical motives who should be punished for those actions, as individuals? And not the responsibility of the movement as a whole?
Doesn't that also apply to Jan6? And any other protest?
Very few stores like that today. They have been hollowed out and are now more like outlet stores that sell stuff that happens to have a camo pattern on it.
Why is this unfortunate?
This seems like a long article that doesn't say much at all, with an author who is confusing their points. At one point they're saying that tactical gear shouldn't be sold to civilians, then they're saying how tactical lacks a definition and is applied to normal stuff, then they mention how mil-spec is regarded as junk by those in the know. So why is it dangerous for civilizations to buy normal stuff that's really not much different from normal stuff?
They make the claim that tactical clothing is somehow "fanning the flames" of violence. Again, how? I don't see any causation in here. I don't even see any correlation. It's just Google search and population level trends. And did they miss the part where violence and crime decreased until the last couple years (looking back to 2002)?
If we can't learn something from this without understanding the authors motives then I'm not sure what media is left to safely learn from.
Having said that, I've been puzzled by the "tactical" label. It used to be that the tactical label just meant it meant some durability requirements and was free of logos or advertising. Now it's really vague and sometimes does come with military functions that no one in civilian life would really care about, but sometimes just seems to be a sort of... cultural signifier? Kind of like how traditional camo started showing up everywhere? People I know have started discussions because they're not even sure what "tactical" means anymore.
So I think it's fair to ask why that particular label, or any label at all. It used to be you could just go to a brand and expect quality and no-nonsense characteristics. There are plenty of brands like that but they're harder to find. So why the police-military association in particular?
I guess I had a different reaction to it, which is that it's about time someone asks what is going on with this "tactical" label. I don't think it's necessarily a cultural distaste issue, it's something that's a little weird to a lot of people, even to people who buy this stuff. I don't know that I think it's a good or bad article, it's just an important question to ask. And if you're being complete in exploring the question, I think it's fair to ask about cultural climate and so forth, because language is cultural.
Another way I look at it is this: "tactical" has become sort of a useless term to me because it's overused. How did it get this way?
[0]: https://us.battlefoam.com/432-p-a-c-k-432-molle-horizontal-w...
> "Most of the stuff we wore and used in the military fucking sucked and broke all the time, so I'm not sure what that even means"
Right? The only "military" thing I would like to also have as a civilian are the Zeiss binoculars. They were old but still really nice (and are expensive, like most good optics). And the cookies from the MRE were quite nice, too. :D
Oh, and lasagna MREs.
Wouldn't that also include the intensity of use?
Personally, a couple of the pictures in the article look like my after-work recreations (the side by side shots from 5.11 Tactical 60% down the page). I live in Utah, and after I log off for the day I drive off-road to my friend's land and we practice shooting and using our concealed carry pistols so that we can actually be effective in protecting ourselves and our families and not endanger anyone in the process. We don't wear "tactical" pants to "LARP", we wear it because it's comfortable, doesn't rip when we fall on a sharp rock, is lightly water resistant, wipes clean easily, and doesn't pick up dirt permanently when I brush against my dirty Jeep. I have a Mystery Ranch pack and have never seen an ad with soldiers in it; I bought it because it's built so well and can comfortably carry heavy gear, and not tear when I do something stupid like fill it with river gravel and go rucking for fitness.
Tactical is often sold as a higher end version of milspec gear. Milspec should be understood as "generally can't be broken". Tactical gear is often that ruggedness with higher quality, more attention to detail and much more modular.
The new velcro molle systems are great too. They're ugly so I prefer bags that only have them on the interior but just absolutely perfect for laying out your bag just right.
As an example, "khakis", the much-reviled uniform of the corporate American worker, started out as uniforms for the British Army to stop standing out so much against the background in the North-West Frontier of (then) India [1].
("Khak" means "soil" or "ground" in Urdu, the "-i" indicating an adjective, i.e. "ground-like". Properly speaking, only the beige or dust-colored chinos should be called khakis.)
----------------------------------------
I was also introduced to a new term TEOTWAWKI or The End Of The World As We Know It. Which I find a hilarious event to try and prepare for. Because everyone assumes that the end of the world as we know it will descend into something predictable. Usually some sort of Mad Max style dystopia or like The Road or The Walking Dead.
No. The end of the world as we know it is a wholly unpredictable event. We won't know what it looks like until it happens. And there's no guarantee of survival. For example, if the event causes us to lose our magnetosphere, it just doesn't matter what you've done. We're all dead.
All doomsday/survivalist prepping is preparing for a single type of event. An event that will be largely corrected by other people. As I've never seen preppers super concerned with agriculture. It's all bunkers, weapons, and non-perishable food.
Many of them already practice what they prepare for by having productive gardens (as one example). You might not know that the person who grew the prize-winning squash at the local fair this year also regularly goes to Gunsite and has a solid grasp of wilderness medicine. The folks down the way who get their protein from hunting might not be hipster-hunters, but instead people who have already ingrained into their lifestyle traits that are handy if societal support structures break down. A surprising number of these "real" preppers are not politically motivated in the way some might think — I've met more than a few that have experienced "Life During Wartime" so to speak and simply don't choose to believe it can't happen here.
big facepalm.
No civilian you can see all tac'd up is someone you should be worried about. He likely doesn't even train, not being able to find a legit range at which he wouldn't be harassed until he'd want to leave and not come back. Dudes who are balls-out tacticool are posers -- most of the gun community agrees on this.
It's embarrassing to generalize all users of quality camping / search and rescue gear as gun-nut psychotics. My wife pokes fun at my "shooter pants" all the time, but I bought them originally for the Urban SAR team I was on, and loved them enough to use them for camping, jogging, yard work, etc etc. Just high quality.
It's equally embarrassing to gatekeep against the guys who "likely don't train" because you are actually validating the "tactical nerd" stereotype they're referring to. You're just saying: "No, they aren't the ones the article refers to, WE are".
>but I bought them originally for the Urban SAR team I was on, and loved them enough to use them for camping, jogging, yard work, etc etc. Just high quality.
I doubt the writer would be concerned about you going camping, with regard to
>You're just saying: "No, they aren't the ones the article refers to, WE are".
The kid who shot up Uvalde was wearing a plate carrier with no plates. It doesn't take training or even a basic understanding of the tools to cause a lot of damage.
I'm not worried about the regular at a gun range or the vast vast majority of the gun community, I'm worried about the subset of weird, isolated, tacticool posers who have done a ton of damage on the basis of people telling them "you need to STAND UP and DO SOMETHING".
I actually wish America were less militaristic but let's face it, the pants are great.
I don't think we're that far from civil war at this point.
Beau Brummel is credited with creating modern mens style of dress, and his whole motif was taking his cavalry officer's uniform and adapting the elements to every day wear, like the shadbelly, waistcoat, and dress boots. Literally, cavalry tactical clothing worn in civilian settings. Riders still dress like Brummel did then, both in competition (shadbelly is still part of upper level dressage competition) and the "equestrian look," has evolved from being the pinnacle of 18th century dandy style, to one that is almost exclusively feminine today.
Equestrian gear was the original tacti-cool as invented by Beau Brummel, and the only mountaineering he ever did was of the social kind.
Today, one of the things that turns men off getting into (english) riding is few are attracted to dressing as though they were a golf pro on the set of Downton Abbey, or wearing clothing that is interchangeably unisex. Simply, most boys don't want to be seen as dressing like their mothers, so there isn't a positive aesthetic reference for them to emmulate that attracts them to the art and sport.
I've got a side project where I'm testing what parts of modern tacti-cool clothing are actually useful and stand up to the needs of working outside with animals. Pants from Carhartt and Duluth Trading are about as good as it gets without adding leather patches to them. Arcteryx makes the best upper body wear for riding, particularly their long sleeved base layers and sun shirts and hoodies, and these come right out of their LEAF (actual tactical) look books.
The line I'm looking to reference in a new product without crossing is when it crosses over into a stolen valor costume. But really if you are a serious rider, you have a depth of competence in the discipline equivalent or greater than most soldiers and fundamentally, these aesthetic references are signals of peer-acknowledged competence. I think taking key notes from other competence disciplines is fair game. If that sounds cavalier, yes, it's because we are what the word means. I would say tacti-cool is a signal of competence and of valuing competence, but it gets cringey when it is not an honest signal. See "mall ninja." There is just an essential element of masculinity where we can't become something merely by dressing up like it, and that's what makes a lot of tacti-cool, camo, and hunter aesthetics seem cringey out of their natural contexts. If I have really cracked it, maybe my next startup will be a clothing brand.
Here in Australia, male horse fashion (outside of equestrian competition) is more along the lines of the cattleman/bushman:
https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.615%2C$multiply_0.7252%...
And yet it still has low participation rates, because you need land for a horse, and the money to support the practice.