3 ms·

How easy the social fabric can be unraveled :(

jacquesm 11y ago
Destruction and creation are a-symmetrical. I had an interesting exchange with another HN'er not that long ago about that very topic. I ran a community of a million people and it took by my estimates less than 50 dedicated assholes to totally wreck it for everybody else. How they managed that and why I couldn't stop it is very much related to how 'open societies' are impossible to defend against a large enough number of idiots hell bent on destroying them. The ease with which you can destroy something has absolutely no bearing on the amount of hard work it took to create it. Societies are no different in this respect.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Unraveling of complex systems is very interesting discipline. We are so fragile. And we intentionally put resilience at the bottom of the priorities. Right now Europe needs people that refuse to be intimidated and simultaneously do not turn into bloodthirsty fiends. But we must have began the process of instilling said culture a decades ago.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  In my years and travels, I've settled on the fact that the only solution to those "assholes" that destroy community fabric is overwhelming force. You cannot reason with someone who has nothing to lose.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Which suggests an alternative (partial) solution: make sure that people in general have lots to lose especially those on the fringes of society.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      There's a reason whether someone has life insurance is used as a signal when determining if they're a terrorist.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      > make sure that people in general have lots to lose especially those on the fringes of society What do you mean by this? It sounds a bit ominous, if you'll pardon me.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        There is nothing ominous about it. A person that is happy, has a life and a means of self-support as well as a family is likely not going to be easily turned against society. On the other hand if every door you try to open is closed and you're being pushed into the corner of having 'nothing to lose' then you might be influenced in a negative way. So better to make sure people have plenty to lose.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Oh. Thank you for clarifying.
        makomk 11y ago
        This will probably never happen, though. Opening doors to people in any way like those who just committed acts of terrorism is far too much like giving in to the terrorists to be politically viable. And so, we'll keep on making sure that there are plenty of people with nothing to lose, and that the recruiters keep on finding plenty of willing recruits.
    - openfuture 11y ago
      Making sure everyone has something to lose means making sure everyone has fulfilling lifes they'd rather not jepordize with hostility. The us and them mentality being used to "combat" terrorism is so harmful because it puts people in a position where they have nothing to lose - they're already being discrimminated against etc. I agree that a few assholes can ruin things for everyone but the reason they can is because they can ruin the trust people have in each other thereby leading to a situation like I described above. The solution is therefore counterintuitive (since they exploit intuition).
    - muraiki 11y ago
      This was actually successfully done. I'm having trouble finding the article, but basically a terrorist group (perhaps in Palestine) had trained some men specifically to be some of their most dedicated and zealous terrorists. However, the situation changed and they found that they no longer needed these zealots and had no idea what to do with them. So they held a mixer where the terrorists got to meet potential brides, and basically said that if they promised to live a normal life, they'd receive some financial compensation to get started on that normal life. All of the trainees ended up getting married and having families, and lost all desire to commit terrorist acts.
      - Wingman4l7 11y ago
        A very brief NPR commentary from 2005 was, I thought, remarkably prescient -- it draws many parallels between terrorists and gang members in the US (backgrounds of poverty, no job / life prospects, encouragement of elder males, etc). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256591 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256591

Destruction and creation are a-symmetrical. I had an interesting exchange with another HN'er not that long ago about that very topic. I ran a community of a million people and it took by my estimates less than 50 dedicated assholes to totally wreck it for everybody else. How they managed that and why I couldn't stop it is very much related to how 'open societies' are impossible to defend against a large enough number of idiots hell bent on destroying them. The ease with which you can destroy something has absolutely no bearing on the amount of hard work it took to create it. Societies are no different in this respect.

venomsnake 11y ago
Unraveling of complex systems is very interesting discipline. We are so fragile. And we intentionally put resilience at the bottom of the priorities. Right now Europe needs people that refuse to be intimidated and simultaneously do not turn into bloodthirsty fiends. But we must have began the process of instilling said culture a decades ago.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
In my years and travels, I've settled on the fact that the only solution to those "assholes" that destroy community fabric is overwhelming force. You cannot reason with someone who has nothing to lose.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Which suggests an alternative (partial) solution: make sure that people in general have lots to lose especially those on the fringes of society.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    There's a reason whether someone has life insurance is used as a signal when determining if they're a terrorist.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    > make sure that people in general have lots to lose especially those on the fringes of society What do you mean by this? It sounds a bit ominous, if you'll pardon me.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      There is nothing ominous about it. A person that is happy, has a life and a means of self-support as well as a family is likely not going to be easily turned against society. On the other hand if every door you try to open is closed and you're being pushed into the corner of having 'nothing to lose' then you might be influenced in a negative way. So better to make sure people have plenty to lose.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Oh. Thank you for clarifying.
      - makomk 11y ago
        This will probably never happen, though. Opening doors to people in any way like those who just committed acts of terrorism is far too much like giving in to the terrorists to be politically viable. And so, we'll keep on making sure that there are plenty of people with nothing to lose, and that the recruiters keep on finding plenty of willing recruits.
  - openfuture 11y ago
    Making sure everyone has something to lose means making sure everyone has fulfilling lifes they'd rather not jepordize with hostility. The us and them mentality being used to "combat" terrorism is so harmful because it puts people in a position where they have nothing to lose - they're already being discrimminated against etc. I agree that a few assholes can ruin things for everyone but the reason they can is because they can ruin the trust people have in each other thereby leading to a situation like I described above. The solution is therefore counterintuitive (since they exploit intuition).
  - muraiki 11y ago
    This was actually successfully done. I'm having trouble finding the article, but basically a terrorist group (perhaps in Palestine) had trained some men specifically to be some of their most dedicated and zealous terrorists. However, the situation changed and they found that they no longer needed these zealots and had no idea what to do with them. So they held a mixer where the terrorists got to meet potential brides, and basically said that if they promised to live a normal life, they'd receive some financial compensation to get started on that normal life. All of the trainees ended up getting married and having families, and lost all desire to commit terrorist acts.
    - Wingman4l7 11y ago
      A very brief NPR commentary from 2005 was, I thought, remarkably prescient -- it draws many parallels between terrorists and gang members in the US (backgrounds of poverty, no job / life prospects, encouragement of elder males, etc). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256591 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4256591