4 ms·

Interesting comment. It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US po

Interesting comment. It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as "Shock & Awe". When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the hypocrisy of the elected leaders of your enemies would be to mirror their tactics as precisely as possible as opposed to escalation. Mirroring puts it in people's mind that they need to oppose further violence from their side to stop future attacks against themselves. Sadly, the other side adopting a strict eye for an eye approach to retaliation (tit for tat) might be the only way that either side can actually avoid making the whole world blind, since it would at least promote dialogue where people on both sides at least ask themselves "When we commit X against them, they commit X against us. Maybe we should try to stop committing X and see if they will too". The current approach of planning out attacks that escalate the conflict just makes things worse. I'm curious if there has been any solid game theory research into the impact of tit-for-tat retaliation versus escalating retaliation.

hellbanner 11y ago
The videogame nuclear-war simulator "Defcon" ran with the tagline "Everybody Dies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE and Civilization simulator ends up with the planet in nuclear-winter, 3 nation-states turning all resources into armies, forgoing peace treaties and maintaining borders via nuclear bombardment. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_same_game_of_civilization_ii/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_play... --- The problem with disarmament, of course, is that if A disarms and B doesn't.. A is vulnerable to B. After being robbed twice, a game developer & his wife seriously considered purchasing a guard dog or a firearm. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of escalation and wondered where it would end. He built "The Castle Doctrine" -- a game where a man with a wife and kids spends his money fortifying his home against invaders, then invades other homes to take their treasure.. to spend on more fortifications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs (interview with the developer) -- Not the scientific rigor you were asking for but an interesting exploration.

hellbanner 11y ago

The videogame nuclear-war simulator "Defcon" ran with the tagline "Everybody Dies": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHC_aInRPE and Civilization simulator ends up with the planet in nuclear-winter, 3 nation-states turning all resources into armies, forgoing peace treaties and maintaining borders via nuclear bombardment. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_playing_the_same_game_of_civilization_ii/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uxpil/ive_been_play... --- The problem with disarmament, of course, is that if A disarms and B doesn't.. A is vulnerable to B. After being robbed twice, a game developer & his wife seriously considered purchasing a guard dog or a firearm. They were very uncomfortable with the idea of escalation and wondered where it would end. He built "The Castle Doctrine" -- a game where a man with a wife and kids spends his money fortifying his home against invaders, then invades other homes to take their treasure.. to spend on more fortifications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBrc8HpPIs (interview with the developer) -- Not the scientific rigor you were asking for but an interesting exploration.