5 ms·
Black swan events being unanticipated, it is futile to worry about them. It's commonly retorted that terrorist attacks should be interpreted as unique because o
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Black swan events being unanticipated, it is futile to worry about them. It's commonly retorted that terrorist attacks should be interpreted as unique because of their intent. Yet no one actually fears the intent, only the end result (death, destruction, injury). Intent is relevant to drafting a response, but not to the public fear. Intent without resources or sophistication is also not meaningful. It is further stated that they are special because they're attacks on the social order. Yet this is a truism, because they only have such an effect if people permit themselves to make it so. More mundanely perceived events like business cycles or crime rates (many small events rather than one large event like a terrorist attack) have the same capacity for social ruin, but are not as feared even as they are significantly more protracted. It's all inexcusable bias.
- rayiner 11y agoThe response to terrorism isn't about fear. It's about justice. These assholes are trying to drag us all back to 700 AD and reestablish the Caliphate, and they struck at a bastion of western liberalism to that end. You can't appreciate the human reaction to that by short sightedly looking at the risk of dying in a car accident.
- woah 11y agoUnfortunately, goading western countries into wars we can't win is the basis of their strategy. So if your attitude causes you to short-sightedly support military action out of fear (even if you tell yourself it's anger), you're helping the terrorists win.
- joeclark77 11y agoISIS isn't trying to goad us into war. They're waging war on us, and doing so effectively. The kind of probabilistic analysis proposed by the OP takes terrorist attacks as if they occur randomly at some rate we have little control over, like car accidents. That is not the case when you have an enemy actively killing you and you have to make a decision: fight back, or signal that you won't fight back. If the latter, the number of "micromorts" is going to increase exponentially.
- woah 11y agoNo, goading us into war really is their strategy, whether it fits with your worldview or not[1]. They currently rule over lands whose governments we destroyed, using weapons that we brought there and gave to the "good guys". They are well aware of this, and it is what they want. [1] https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the-management-of-savagery-the-most-critical-stage-through-which-the-umma-will-pass.pdf https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the...
- kevinskii 11y agoOf course it's their strategy. That doesn't automatically mean that by obliging them the French would be "helping them win."
- kevinskii 11y agoYour ability to discern others' true emotions even as they apparently wallow in self-denial is remarkable. So perhaps you could enlighten us all further: is there any act of aggression that you believe would warrant a military response?
- tptacek 11y agoPeople say this all the time, and it's true: our most likely military reaction to terrorist attacks probably is the basis of their strategy; they're not stupid, the response is predictable, and so why strike at all if you don't want a reprisal? But it doesn't follow logically that military response is strategically bad for us! Just because ISIS wants us to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. ISIS could be very wrong about wanting to provoke military escalation. In fact: it almost certainly is. That doesn't mean that military strikes are good, or the right option at this point. It just means that saying "that's what ISIS wants us to do" isn't a dispositive argument.