4 ms·

If it were universally ignored, it wouldn't damage the social fabric.

tsunamifury 11y ago
Ignoring it would also destroy the social fabric. A scene from Brazil that explores this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4KFNhxibec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4KFNhxibec
- rogerthis 11y ago
  When I (did) read "a scene from Brazil" I thought the video would be some sort of commom crime we have here, which in certain cases are very similar to terrorism. And people has been always adapting to it, so it's just shit almost nobody cares anymore. And it's growing year after year. Well, just to say my misunderstanding of to which Brazil it was referred.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
thieving_magpie 11y ago
You make it sound quite easy. I am personally not able to ignore something like this even though I understand a robotic reaction would help the situation. The problem is a lasting overreaction, not having feelings of sympathy.
lazaroclapp 11y ago
So, when I first heard the news, my though was that when in France 40 people get gunned down it is a national emergency, whereas in Mexico (where I am from) it is an statistically peaceful day. That's what no reaction or military-first reaction gets you (well, combined with a lot more issues, but having this be "normal" is part of the problem back there). I do think you want to treat it as "murder is a serious crime and needs to be prosecuted and punished" rather than "this is an act of Islamic terrorism and we need to declare War on Terror!". But, universally ignored is hardly how you want to react. You want to close borders and you want to declare emergency and you want to, ideally, apprehend these people using conventional police. You do not want to live in a permanent state of panic or build a police state after the fact, and you definitely don't want to take out your anger on a whole population of people over the actions of a small radical group. But you do want a, rational but concerned, reaction. Right now, you want to get people to safety, help the survivors and catch those responsible, in that order.
- moultano 11y ago
  Certainly, I wouldn't want it ignored by law enforcement and first responders. Beyond that though, the public's reaction is the objective of the terrorists. Reacting to these events is literally "letting the terrorists win."
  - lazaroclapp 11y ago
    I guess I just wish there was a possibility for a better reaction than what we will probably see (this has already been called "an act of war" by Hollande...). I am not a fan of treating terrorism in a "don't feed the troll" sort of way. I do wish our collective reaction were more reasonable, more measured and more humanitarian, though, despite the natural sentiments this sort of thing produces and seeks to produce. I don't think ignoring the problem is the only way to not let the terrorists win. But I do agree responding militarily or by widespread panic is what they most likely want.

Ignoring it would also destroy the social fabric. A scene from Brazil that explores this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4KFNhxibec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4KFNhxibec

rogerthis 11y ago
When I (did) read "a scene from Brazil" I thought the video would be some sort of commom crime we have here, which in certain cases are very similar to terrorism. And people has been always adapting to it, so it's just shit almost nobody cares anymore. And it's growing year after year. Well, just to say my misunderstanding of to which Brazil it was referred.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

thieving_magpie 11y ago

You make it sound quite easy. I am personally not able to ignore something like this even though I understand a robotic reaction would help the situation. The problem is a lasting overreaction, not having feelings of sympathy.

lazaroclapp 11y ago

So, when I first heard the news, my though was that when in France 40 people get gunned down it is a national emergency, whereas in Mexico (where I am from) it is an statistically peaceful day. That's what no reaction or military-first reaction gets you (well, combined with a lot more issues, but having this be "normal" is part of the problem back there). I do think you want to treat it as "murder is a serious crime and needs to be prosecuted and punished" rather than "this is an act of Islamic terrorism and we need to declare War on Terror!". But, universally ignored is hardly how you want to react. You want to close borders and you want to declare emergency and you want to, ideally, apprehend these people using conventional police. You do not want to live in a permanent state of panic or build a police state after the fact, and you definitely don't want to take out your anger on a whole population of people over the actions of a small radical group. But you do want a, rational but concerned, reaction. Right now, you want to get people to safety, help the survivors and catch those responsible, in that order.

moultano 11y ago
Certainly, I wouldn't want it ignored by law enforcement and first responders. Beyond that though, the public's reaction is the objective of the terrorists. Reacting to these events is literally "letting the terrorists win."
- lazaroclapp 11y ago
  I guess I just wish there was a possibility for a better reaction than what we will probably see (this has already been called "an act of war" by Hollande...). I am not a fan of treating terrorism in a "don't feed the troll" sort of way. I do wish our collective reaction were more reasonable, more measured and more humanitarian, though, despite the natural sentiments this sort of thing produces and seeks to produce. I don't think ignoring the problem is the only way to not let the terrorists win. But I do agree responding militarily or by widespread panic is what they most likely want.