3 ms·
> Slightly freer, and slightly less safe is not a winning political argument. It should be when the reality, despite the publicity of occasional terrorist inci
by NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> Slightly freer, and slightly less safe is not a winning political argument.
It should be when the reality, despite the publicity of occasional terrorist incidents (9/11 included), is "slightly freer and slightly less safe against an event so vanishingly unlikely you should simply forget about it. You're hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident or falling off a ladder. We should not let the terrorists win by ruining our way of life and associated freedoms".
Surely that's not that hard a message to sell when it has been a winning message for many years in the past?
No, it's the current fashion. I expect more of politicians. Of course in today's world I am regularly disappointed.
- Ntrails 8y agoYou can argue it's not worth paying the price to catch more murderers, to protect more children from pedophiles, to stop more rapes. But that's a subjective value judgement and society doesn't have to agree with you. Be disappointed all you want, but try actually taking their position seriously first.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago> but try actually taking their position seriously first. That's a mighty big presumption. Upon what grounds do you say I am not?
- theseatoms 8y ago> I expect more of politicians. You might want to update this prior.