5 ms·

This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway.

by lhnz 11y ago

This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes. Edit: Everybody is misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "terrorists are more dangerous than toddlers!" or "gun control is bad!". I'm saying that people fear terrorism for different underlying reasons than its impact on fatality, and that understanding this will help communication between the right and left (perhaps allowing your arguments to be heard across political lines.)

ta0967 11y ago
> I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. people fear terrorism because it's virtually nonexistent. we fear the thing we have no experience with more than those we do, because the lack of experience lets our lizard brain have a parade. the movie Alien works with this very well. also... terrorism, aka politically-motivated violence is nothing new. it's just the framing by the mass media that seems to have changed a lot. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_No... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing : In 2000, Magee spoke about the bombing in an interview with The Sunday Business Post. He told interviewer Tom McGurk that the British government's strategy at the time was to depict the IRA as mere criminals while containing The Troubles within Northern Ireland (edited in a failed attempt to fix the list formatting)
mikeash 11y ago
I don't think I've ever seen that assimilation thing. The kind of terrorists that people are afraid of in the US tend to be visitors who come to this country with the purpose of doing violence, not anyone who would be assimilating, even if they were perfectly nice people. It sounds like it's different in Europe, and maybe that's the perspective you're coming from. In the US, it's not generally about the difficulty of assimilation. The 9/11 attackers, for example, lived outside the US and only came here to carry out their attack. For mass shootings, the perpetrators are usually considered to be outright insane, but perfectly well assimilated. This isn't universal; San Bernardino and Fort Hood are two examples of mass shootings by Americans who you could say didn't assimilate well. But for the most part, it's either crazy people in our midst or invading visitors. Look at the ongoing controversy over Syrian refugees for an example. I haven't heard people say that we shouldn't admit Syrian refugees because they'll fail to assimilate and turn into an outsider minority prone to violence. I have heard lots of people say that we shouldn't admit Syrian refugees because terrorists will hide among them and gain access to our country. Anyone I've talked to who is afraid of terrorism is afraid because they don't want to get killed in an attack. It's not really more complicated than that. Some people fear terrorism because they believe that the potential future risks are much higher than past rates. But a whole lot of people fear terrorism simply because they have no understanding of the risks. That's who articles like these are aimed at.
forgotpwtomain 11y ago
> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. The article never made this point. All it said is that they kill more people. In which case it would seem reasonable to ask, can we save more lives, more effectively with enhanced gun control then with enhanced anti-terrorism measures (I suspect governments are more interested in the later because it really is a power grab for global surveillance and other not-yet-legislated powers). > a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. I think 'dominate' is hardly the right word in this case, even relatively uneducated proponents of the ideology must know that such concept is totally fantastical. Rather it is more likely that assimilation is deemed (by some groups or ideologies) so completely impossible (with as you say the 'predominant culture' and I think this is important part to note, because as westerners we tend to forget that it is indeed predominant and forcefully so) that any form of destruction possible is considered preferable. > Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 50 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes. I really don't think any such worry is realistic, these people are marginalized and completely inconsequential to their nations GDP or the progress of civilization - even North Korea, which would seem the closest in this vein to have some kind of defense against as you put it 'assimilation' I think will ultimately mean very little in terms of global developments. > I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. To sum it up, I always thought terrorism was feared because this is an emotion which the government and the media sell.
- lhnz 11y ago
  > The article never made this point. All it said is that they kill more people. If that was the case they would not have mentioned terrorism. The comparison to terrorism exists because it makes the article travel better between members of the Blue Tribe who think anxieties over terrorism are overblown and better gun control would be good. Remove the link to terrorism and the article would have had less currency within this group. > I always thought terrorism was feared because this is an emotion which the government and the media sell. The message already resonates with conservatives as they already have high anxiety about losing their 'way of life'. It's not just a case of a message that has been sold by the government and the media. Real people's innate fears [0]. > I really don't think any such worry is realistic, these people are marginalized and completely inconsequential to their nations GDP or the progress of civilization. Yes - in many cases. But there are a few countries in Europe that will be majority islamic over the next 100 years, and in those places people might lose their 'way of life'. Demographic changes are underway. As you probably realise, fear isn't always rational. Many groups of people are very sensitive to fears of losing their 'way of life'. Even without the existence of a significant threat. [0] http://www.unz.com/pfrost/are-liberals-and-conservatives-differently-wired/ http://www.unz.com/pfrost/are-liberals-and-conservatives-dif...
vidarh 11y ago
It doesn't mean individual toddlers are more dangerous than individual terrorists. But it is largely irrelevant to us given that we don't have an easy way to influence the relative numbers. > Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? Of course not. Which is why it is worth making the point that the degree of our response to terrorism is totally out of proportion, and that the terror should not be our focus. > I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. This is a very odd way of looking at it to me. They are not nearly the only two choices. > Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. Is terrorism increasing? I'm not saying it's not. I genuinely haven't looked at the numbers. What I do know is that in Europe, for example, a long range of terrorist groups that were active in the 60's, 70's, 80's and/or 90's either does not exist any longer or have stopped carrying out attacks. New ones have appeared, but it's not clear to me whether over the longer term are seeing more or less terror. Whether that's true or not probably depends a great deal on what time-frame you look at, and what geographical region you choose to look at.
- douche 11y ago
  The fall of the Soviet Union cut most of the funding and weaponry for the European domestic terrorist groups. The fall of the House of Saud will cut funding for most of the Islamic terrorist groups.
kiba 11y ago
I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. The reason why terrorism works is because of the media bias for extraordinary events becoming familiar events, not solely because a subgroup wanted to be dangerous. Violence by terrorist groups does not accomplish political objectives and often encourages governments to take a hardline approach rather than accede to any political demands that they may have, provoking state-actors to go to war or enact security policies contrary to civil liberties. Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes. Suppose muslim terrorists keep doing what they do. Tit for tat, you got people fearful of terrorists, becoming fearful of Muslims beyond justification. Muslims become more discriminated as alienation went up, encouraging more Muslim youth to join terrorist groups to act out their alienation.
huuu 11y ago
No, it means that you should keep your guns away from toddlers.
jeremysmyth 11y ago
The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes. The ultimate worry is that there won't be a 100 years. Some demagogues and dogmas attract ruthless followers. It only takes one well-supplied psychopath (with access) to cause a huge amount of damage. It might be an idiot with a bomb in his underwear, or it might be a North Korean nuclear submarine captain.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  Or one shit-crazy US president.
  - mineshaftgap 11y ago
    The world is going to pull their own hair out, but that is about all they can do.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Trump or Cruz or both?
threatofrain 11y ago
The point of this article is not that children are more dangerous than terrorists. The point is that terrorism over-dominates national discussion of priorities. Focus on terrorism is worrisome because it kills relatively fewer people than the top national stressors, it distracts the nation in its very limited capacity to discuss anything, it justifies extreme expenditure, and by its covert nature it is difficult to mediate in effect size. Does terrorism warrant attention and expenditure? Yes. But it should get in line behind highly preventable or mediatable stressors like vehicle and gun related deaths. The nation has spent trillions trying to fight terrorism, terrorism that has killed several thousand American civilians in total throughout all years. In response the nation went to war with Iraq, which itself costed thousands of lives on the American side, and over 100,000 deaths to Iraqis. Terrorism has justified massive expansion of executive powers, it has led to opaque operations like extraordinary rendition, torture, and black sites, it has justified mass surveillance, it has led the discussion on privacy and encryption, it has led to new executive departments with budgets in the billions per year, and it justifies the use of secret courts with secret judges and secret warrants. All in the name of fighting terrorists, while severe domestic stressors take a backseat in national priority.
- lhnz 11y ago
  I tried to explain to somebody else here [0] already - "[This establishes] a frame in which stressors are measured solely by their impact on fatality. The extra attention given to terrorism relates more to the conservative fear of losing their 'way of life'. Attempting to measure both of these things solely in relation to their impact on fatality misunderstands the reasons for fear over terrorism and creates a communication problem between the left and right." Effectively the reason terrorism appears to over-dominate the public sphere is that it does so for different reasons than the ones that are visible to you. You can mitigate these reasons but first you have to acknowledge them (otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The "way of life" thing either depends on terrorism killing enough people to destroy our way of life, or it's a self-fulfilling prophecy when we destroy our own way of life by overreacting. Either way, "terrorism doesn't kill very many people, so don't worry about it so much" addresses it. Not that people will listen, but it doesn't fail because it misses the point.

by lhnz 11y ago

ta0967 11y ago

> I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. people fear terrorism because it's virtually nonexistent. we fear the thing we have no experience with more than those we do, because the lack of experience lets our lizard brain have a parade. the movie Alien works with this very well. also... terrorism, aka politically-motivated violence is nothing new. it's just the framing by the mass media that seems to have changed a lot. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_No... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing : In 2000, Magee spoke about the bombing in an interview with The Sunday Business Post. He told interviewer Tom McGurk that the British government's strategy at the time was to depict the IRA as mere criminals while containing The Troubles within Northern Ireland (edited in a failed attempt to fix the list formatting)

mikeash 11y ago

I don't think I've ever seen that assimilation thing. The kind of terrorists that people are afraid of in the US tend to be visitors who come to this country with the purpose of doing violence, not anyone who would be assimilating, even if they were perfectly nice people. It sounds like it's different in Europe, and maybe that's the perspective you're coming from. In the US, it's not generally about the difficulty of assimilation. The 9/11 attackers, for example, lived outside the US and only came here to carry out their attack. For mass shootings, the perpetrators are usually considered to be outright insane, but perfectly well assimilated. This isn't universal; San Bernardino and Fort Hood are two examples of mass shootings by Americans who you could say didn't assimilate well. But for the most part, it's either crazy people in our midst or invading visitors. Look at the ongoing controversy over Syrian refugees for an example. I haven't heard people say that we shouldn't admit Syrian refugees because they'll fail to assimilate and turn into an outsider minority prone to violence. I have heard lots of people say that we shouldn't admit Syrian refugees because terrorists will hide among them and gain access to our country. Anyone I've talked to who is afraid of terrorism is afraid because they don't want to get killed in an attack. It's not really more complicated than that. Some people fear terrorism because they believe that the potential future risks are much higher than past rates. But a whole lot of people fear terrorism simply because they have no understanding of the risks. That's who articles like these are aimed at.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. The article never made this point. All it said is that they kill more people. In which case it would seem reasonable to ask, can we save more lives, more effectively with enhanced gun control then with enhanced anti-terrorism measures (I suspect governments are more interested in the later because it really is a power grab for global surveillance and other not-yet-legislated powers). > a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. I think 'dominate' is hardly the right word in this case, even relatively uneducated proponents of the ideology must know that such concept is totally fantastical. Rather it is more likely that assimilation is deemed (by some groups or ideologies) so completely impossible (with as you say the 'predominant culture' and I think this is important part to note, because as westerners we tend to forget that it is indeed predominant and forcefully so) that any form of destruction possible is considered preferable. > Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 50 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes. I really don't think any such worry is realistic, these people are marginalized and completely inconsequential to their nations GDP or the progress of civilization - even North Korea, which would seem the closest in this vein to have some kind of defense against as you put it 'assimilation' I think will ultimately mean very little in terms of global developments. > I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. To sum it up, I always thought terrorism was feared because this is an emotion which the government and the media sell.

lhnz 11y ago
> The article never made this point. All it said is that they kill more people. If that was the case they would not have mentioned terrorism. The comparison to terrorism exists because it makes the article travel better between members of the Blue Tribe who think anxieties over terrorism are overblown and better gun control would be good. Remove the link to terrorism and the article would have had less currency within this group. > I always thought terrorism was feared because this is an emotion which the government and the media sell. The message already resonates with conservatives as they already have high anxiety about losing their 'way of life'. It's not just a case of a message that has been sold by the government and the media. Real people's innate fears [0]. > I really don't think any such worry is realistic, these people are marginalized and completely inconsequential to their nations GDP or the progress of civilization. Yes - in many cases. But there are a few countries in Europe that will be majority islamic over the next 100 years, and in those places people might lose their 'way of life'. Demographic changes are underway. As you probably realise, fear isn't always rational. Many groups of people are very sensitive to fears of losing their 'way of life'. Even without the existence of a significant threat. [0] http://www.unz.com/pfrost/are-liberals-and-conservatives-differently-wired/ http://www.unz.com/pfrost/are-liberals-and-conservatives-dif...

vidarh 11y ago

It doesn't mean individual toddlers are more dangerous than individual terrorists. But it is largely irrelevant to us given that we don't have an easy way to influence the relative numbers. > Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? Of course not. Which is why it is worth making the point that the degree of our response to terrorism is totally out of proportion, and that the terror should not be our focus. > I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. This is a very odd way of looking at it to me. They are not nearly the only two choices. > Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. Is terrorism increasing? I'm not saying it's not. I genuinely haven't looked at the numbers. What I do know is that in Europe, for example, a long range of terrorist groups that were active in the 60's, 70's, 80's and/or 90's either does not exist any longer or have stopped carrying out attacks. New ones have appeared, but it's not clear to me whether over the longer term are seeing more or less terror. Whether that's true or not probably depends a great deal on what time-frame you look at, and what geographical region you choose to look at.

douche 11y ago
The fall of the Soviet Union cut most of the funding and weaponry for the European domestic terrorist groups. The fall of the House of Saud will cut funding for most of the Islamic terrorist groups.

kiba 11y ago

I don't think the internal logic of the argument works anyway. Do people react to terrorism solely because of the perception of present danger? I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture. The reason why terrorism works is because of the media bias for extraordinary events becoming familiar events, not solely because a subgroup wanted to be dangerous. Violence by terrorist groups does not accomplish political objectives and often encourages governments to take a hardline approach rather than accede to any political demands that they may have, provoking state-actors to go to war or enact security policies contrary to civil liberties. Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes. Suppose muslim terrorists keep doing what they do. Tit for tat, you got people fearful of terrorists, becoming fearful of Muslims beyond justification. Muslims become more discriminated as alienation went up, encouraging more Muslim youth to join terrorist groups to act out their alienation.

huuu 11y ago

No, it means that you should keep your guns away from toddlers.

jeremysmyth 11y ago

The ultimate worry is that in 100 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes. The ultimate worry is that there won't be a 100 years. Some demagogues and dogmas attract ruthless followers. It only takes one well-supplied psychopath (with access) to cause a huge amount of damage. It might be an idiot with a bomb in his underwear, or it might be a North Korean nuclear submarine captain.

tobltobs 11y ago
Or one shit-crazy US president.
- mineshaftgap 11y ago
  The world is going to pull their own hair out, but that is about all they can do.
- baldfat 11y ago
  Trump or Cruz or both?

threatofrain 11y ago

The point of this article is not that children are more dangerous than terrorists. The point is that terrorism over-dominates national discussion of priorities. Focus on terrorism is worrisome because it kills relatively fewer people than the top national stressors, it distracts the nation in its very limited capacity to discuss anything, it justifies extreme expenditure, and by its covert nature it is difficult to mediate in effect size. Does terrorism warrant attention and expenditure? Yes. But it should get in line behind highly preventable or mediatable stressors like vehicle and gun related deaths. The nation has spent trillions trying to fight terrorism, terrorism that has killed several thousand American civilians in total throughout all years. In response the nation went to war with Iraq, which itself costed thousands of lives on the American side, and over 100,000 deaths to Iraqis. Terrorism has justified massive expansion of executive powers, it has led to opaque operations like extraordinary rendition, torture, and black sites, it has justified mass surveillance, it has led the discussion on privacy and encryption, it has led to new executive departments with budgets in the billions per year, and it justifies the use of secret courts with secret judges and secret warrants. All in the name of fighting terrorists, while severe domestic stressors take a backseat in national priority.

lhnz 11y ago
I tried to explain to somebody else here [0] already - "[This establishes] a frame in which stressors are measured solely by their impact on fatality. The extra attention given to terrorism relates more to the conservative fear of losing their 'way of life'. Attempting to measure both of these things solely in relation to their impact on fatality misunderstands the reasons for fear over terrorism and creates a communication problem between the left and right." Effectively the reason terrorism appears to over-dominate the public sphere is that it does so for different reasons than the ones that are visible to you. You can mitigate these reasons but first you have to acknowledge them (otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289173
- mikeash 11y ago
  The "way of life" thing either depends on terrorism killing enough people to destroy our way of life, or it's a self-fulfilling prophecy when we destroy our own way of life by overreacting. Either way, "terrorism doesn't kill very many people, so don't worry about it so much" addresses it. Not that people will listen, but it doesn't fail because it misses the point.