7 ms·

I find it funny that there's a bigger uproar against airport security screenings than there is against a war where civilians are injured and killed. Both are re

by scrrr 16y ago

I find it funny that there's a bigger uproar against airport security screenings than there is against a war where civilians are injured and killed. Both are related to terror, but what a difference in perception.

tallanvor 16y ago
It is sad, but it's really the classic NIMBY reaction. --The wars are happening on a different continent, so not nearly as many people feel that they are directly affected by the wars.
zkoch 16y ago
People aren't in uproar simply over 'airport security screenings.' They are in uproar over certain practices that they believe greatly infringe upon their rights. The majority of individuals, myself included, feel that we shouldn't have to make a choice between being touched inappropriately by a stranger or allowing a stranger in a back room somewhere to look at our genitalia to travel by plane. You're probably correct that there should be greater public outcry over civilian casualties in war, but that doesn't mean we can't rally against privacy-invading things like full body scanners.
- timmaah 16y ago
  How come there was no big outcry over The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, CCTV all over, enhanced interrogation, suspension of haebeous corpus.. etc...?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Most people are not that worried about me eavesdropping on half of their cellphone conversation (I wish they were, then they might STFU) or watching them walk from their car to the mall. They probably wouldn't even care if I spied on their banking details as long as I didn't buy stuff with their CC. On the other hand, most people would be bothered if I touched their balls or viewed nude pictures of them on my computer. Apparently some people feel similarly about homeland security doing these things.
  - BigZaphod 16y ago
    This is easy: Most people don't and will never directly feel the consequences of that stuff. Millions of people fly every day and directly experience the TSA nonsense.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    This is just my opinion, and I'd love to hear whether people agree or disagree with it. I think part of the reason for the lack of outrage over The Patriot Act was the timing. When the Patriot Act was created, it was a short enough time after 9/11 that the US was still strongly emotionally effected by it. It was easier to say "This will prevent terrorism" and be believed. Years later, it's become easier to take a rational look at the risks and benefits, and see that it's unlikely that such measures will prevent enough terrorism to outweigh the costs.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I can think of a fairly rational reason for it. In the case of airport screenings, it's pretty clear that cost >> benefit. Cost = sleazy govt employee looking/touching at my balls, and maybe saving the photos. Benefit = risk of death reduced by an amount less than 1 extra gym session per year. In the case of the assorted wars, it's not as clear. Cost = visible casualties of real war in Afghanistan. Benefit = preventing the invisible casualties of 10-15 years more living under the Taliban + invisible civil wars that would have eventually overthrown the Taliban. (Fun fact: on 9/12 or 9/13, shortly after Osama was labelled as the culprit, an Afghani friend IMed me. "I'm very sorry for what happened to your country, but this could be the greatest thing that ever happened to mine." He then expressed a hope that we wouldn't "pull a somalia".)
- dionidium 16y ago
  How does your friend feel about it now?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Haven't spoken with him in a while, but his biggest concern the last time we spoke was that Hillary might beat Rudy and abandon Afghanistan. He drew analogies to Bill abandoning Somalia and Rwanda. His general perspective was that you have war/tyranny regardless of US involvement, but at least with US involvement there is hope for the future. He was also pretty critical of western anti-war types - he thought they cared more not seeing war on TV than actually about the actual victims of war/tyranny. (Note: his perspective was a little unusual by Afghani standards. He wasn't Muslim and only part of his family escaped to US (in 1996) on refugee visas, fleeing persecution. )
bmelton 16y ago
Honestly, I hope that's true. Every recent discussion (outside of Hacker News) that I've seen relating to either the full body scanners or the new pat-down procedures has been riddled with the majority making statements like "They don't bother me, and you should chill out cause it keeps me safe," "If you won't submit to search, you shouldn't have the right to fly" or worse, in my opinion "God I hope you're not slowing my line down with your crazy hippie opt-out."
jdminhbg 16y ago
Not sure how you are measuring 'bigger uproar,' but I haven't seen Iraq War-sized protest marches over this.
- ataggart 16y ago
  And I haven't seen any Iraq War-sized protest marches over Iraq or Afghanistan since January 2009.

by scrrr 16y ago

tallanvor 16y ago

It is sad, but it's really the classic NIMBY reaction. --The wars are happening on a different continent, so not nearly as many people feel that they are directly affected by the wars.

zkoch 16y ago

People aren't in uproar simply over 'airport security screenings.' They are in uproar over certain practices that they believe greatly infringe upon their rights. The majority of individuals, myself included, feel that we shouldn't have to make a choice between being touched inappropriately by a stranger or allowing a stranger in a back room somewhere to look at our genitalia to travel by plane. You're probably correct that there should be greater public outcry over civilian casualties in war, but that doesn't mean we can't rally against privacy-invading things like full body scanners.

timmaah 16y ago
How come there was no big outcry over The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, CCTV all over, enhanced interrogation, suspension of haebeous corpus.. etc...?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Most people are not that worried about me eavesdropping on half of their cellphone conversation (I wish they were, then they might STFU) or watching them walk from their car to the mall. They probably wouldn't even care if I spied on their banking details as long as I didn't buy stuff with their CC. On the other hand, most people would be bothered if I touched their balls or viewed nude pictures of them on my computer. Apparently some people feel similarly about homeland security doing these things.
- BigZaphod 16y ago
  This is easy: Most people don't and will never directly feel the consequences of that stuff. Millions of people fly every day and directly experience the TSA nonsense.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  This is just my opinion, and I'd love to hear whether people agree or disagree with it. I think part of the reason for the lack of outrage over The Patriot Act was the timing. When the Patriot Act was created, it was a short enough time after 9/11 that the US was still strongly emotionally effected by it. It was easier to say "This will prevent terrorism" and be believed. Years later, it's become easier to take a rational look at the risks and benefits, and see that it's unlikely that such measures will prevent enough terrorism to outweigh the costs.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I can think of a fairly rational reason for it. In the case of airport screenings, it's pretty clear that cost >> benefit. Cost = sleazy govt employee looking/touching at my balls, and maybe saving the photos. Benefit = risk of death reduced by an amount less than 1 extra gym session per year. In the case of the assorted wars, it's not as clear. Cost = visible casualties of real war in Afghanistan. Benefit = preventing the invisible casualties of 10-15 years more living under the Taliban + invisible civil wars that would have eventually overthrown the Taliban. (Fun fact: on 9/12 or 9/13, shortly after Osama was labelled as the culprit, an Afghani friend IMed me. "I'm very sorry for what happened to your country, but this could be the greatest thing that ever happened to mine." He then expressed a hope that we wouldn't "pull a somalia".)

dionidium 16y ago
How does your friend feel about it now?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Haven't spoken with him in a while, but his biggest concern the last time we spoke was that Hillary might beat Rudy and abandon Afghanistan. He drew analogies to Bill abandoning Somalia and Rwanda. His general perspective was that you have war/tyranny regardless of US involvement, but at least with US involvement there is hope for the future. He was also pretty critical of western anti-war types - he thought they cared more not seeing war on TV than actually about the actual victims of war/tyranny. (Note: his perspective was a little unusual by Afghani standards. He wasn't Muslim and only part of his family escaped to US (in 1996) on refugee visas, fleeing persecution. )

bmelton 16y ago

Honestly, I hope that's true. Every recent discussion (outside of Hacker News) that I've seen relating to either the full body scanners or the new pat-down procedures has been riddled with the majority making statements like "They don't bother me, and you should chill out cause it keeps me safe," "If you won't submit to search, you shouldn't have the right to fly" or worse, in my opinion "God I hope you're not slowing my line down with your crazy hippie opt-out."

jdminhbg 16y ago

Not sure how you are measuring 'bigger uproar,' but I haven't seen Iraq War-sized protest marches over this.

ataggart 16y ago
And I haven't seen any Iraq War-sized protest marches over Iraq or Afghanistan since January 2009.