5 ms·

In the last few months we have: 1. Paris 2. Brussels 3. Russian plane back from Egypt 4. Plane en route to Egypt 5. Couple of attacks in Turkey - assorted 6. T

In the last few months we have: 1. Paris 2. Brussels 3. Russian plane back from Egypt 4. Plane en route to Egypt 5. Couple of attacks in Turkey - assorted 6. Turkey airport 7. Orlando 8. Pakistani attack in the kids playing area 9. I am sure I forget a lot more. Any gathering of people is valid terror target. More security won't help. Terrorism is here to stay. We must accept that we won't be safe and we can only do damage control.

wmeredith 10y ago
The real story is that we're all safer than ever[1], but there are huge sums of money being poured into a media structure designed to keep us afraid and tuned in. [1] http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-e...
- thatcat 10y ago
  Wonder why? Considering the conclusion the media generally comes to is: >“Perhaps the most cost-effective measure is policing and intelligence — to stop them before they reach the target,” Mr. Stewart said.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- adevine 10y ago
  > but there are huge sums of money being poured into a media structure designed to keep us afraid and tuned in. Perhaps true, but I see this argument a lot by engineering folks, and I think it misses a major point of human nature. Large, violent, deadly events, in places where you completely don't expect them, are always going to be a lot scarier than the random low-lying "background" events, like car accidents. The fact that the world is so safe only magnifies how unexpected and terrifying it would be to walk around enjoying the mundane events of modern life - going to a concert, taking a trip somewhere, dancing in a club - and suddenly meet a violent death.
- illumin8 10y ago
  “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” - Joseph Goebbels “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” - Joseph Goebbels
raldi 10y ago
> We must accept that we won't be safe But we are safe, at least from terrorism. The probability that you'll be killed by a terrorist on any given day is far lower than the probability that you'll be killed by something mundane. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571077
- Natsu 10y ago
  One could say that we're (mostly) safe from dying, but not safe from the terror of it.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    We really need to start condemning all terrorists. We obviously strongly condemn the few that commit the violent crimes. But we've given a pass to the ones responsible for most of the terror - the ones that sit comfortably behind "news" desks and government podiums.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  But you have sane definition of safety. Which is "relatively safe". If a definition for safety (which media, powers that be and majority of population are using) is "no one ever dying for terrorism" - then we cannot be safe.

wmeredith 10y ago

The real story is that we're all safer than ever[1], but there are huge sums of money being poured into a media structure designed to keep us afraid and tuned in. [1] http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-e...

thatcat 10y ago
Wonder why? Considering the conclusion the media generally comes to is: >“Perhaps the most cost-effective measure is policing and intelligence — to stop them before they reach the target,” Mr. Stewart said.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
adevine 10y ago
> but there are huge sums of money being poured into a media structure designed to keep us afraid and tuned in. Perhaps true, but I see this argument a lot by engineering folks, and I think it misses a major point of human nature. Large, violent, deadly events, in places where you completely don't expect them, are always going to be a lot scarier than the random low-lying "background" events, like car accidents. The fact that the world is so safe only magnifies how unexpected and terrifying it would be to walk around enjoying the mundane events of modern life - going to a concert, taking a trip somewhere, dancing in a club - and suddenly meet a violent death.
illumin8 10y ago
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” - Joseph Goebbels “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” - Joseph Goebbels

raldi 10y ago

> We must accept that we won't be safe But we are safe, at least from terrorism. The probability that you'll be killed by a terrorist on any given day is far lower than the probability that you'll be killed by something mundane. Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571077

Natsu 10y ago
One could say that we're (mostly) safe from dying, but not safe from the terror of it.
- mindslight 10y ago
  We really need to start condemning all terrorists. We obviously strongly condemn the few that commit the violent crimes. But we've given a pass to the ones responsible for most of the terror - the ones that sit comfortably behind "news" desks and government podiums.
venomsnake 10y ago
But you have sane definition of safety. Which is "relatively safe". If a definition for safety (which media, powers that be and majority of population are using) is "no one ever dying for terrorism" - then we cannot be safe.