3 ms·
Terrorism is a real threat to interests abroad and test on the ability of the US to mitigate small risks. If they can't mitigate small risks how would they be a
by ethn 9y ago
Terrorism is a real threat to interests abroad and test on the ability of the US to mitigate small risks. If they can't mitigate small risks how would they be able to mitigate a large risk? Every single human created disturbance (i.e. war) begins with a small group of people cascading into a larger force, with governments it happens with leaders, but it's greatly more unpredictable when it is propagated by an unknown people–especially when that group is in a region which produces 81.5% of the worlds oil supply. You would be quite irrational to not be interested in the domestic and foreign affairs of your own government. Even more irrational to say it's not a problem.
- anigbrowl 9y agoThat's true as far as it goes, but the emphasis on terrorism in the media is wildly disproportionate to the measurable risks. Compare the ubiquity and intensity of anxiety about climate change, whose existential impact is arguably far more widespread and vastly better quantified. Consider in the light of this discussion that rural voters appear (by inference) to be more concerned about terrorism than urban ones, despite the actual impact of terrorism falling far more heavily on the latter group (unsurprisingly, given the lack of meaningful targets in rural areas). http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/are-rural-voters-most-concerned-about-terrorism/article/2602363 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/are-rural-voters-most-conc...
- ethn 9y agoThe article doesn't believe that rural voters are irrational. The article claims that the information given to rural voters falsely portrays terrorism as an active threat to rural voters. You are not disagreeing with me.
- anigbrowl 9y agoThat's why I added '(by inference)', and yes I am disagreeing with you.