4 ms·

I don’t find this kind of thing helpful. The question on things like the TSA policies is one of degree and not absolutes. So his claim that we should “conquer

I don’t find this kind of thing helpful. The question on things like the TSA policies is one of degree and not absolutes. So his claim that we should “conquer our fears because they are the real problem” doesn’t hold a lot of weight with me. Fearing a terrorist attack is perfectly rational the question is how much liberty we’re willing to give up to prevent such attacks. So painting this as a “living in fear” vs “not living in fear” question doesn’t really address the problem. Beyond that there’s the issue of disagreeing respectfully. Though he couches his point in flowery language the purpose of this type of article is to demonize the people who disagree with him. “They are the fear mongers and I am the rational one” is the point he’s making. He’s just making it in a way that sounds nice. That type of statement doesn’t lead to productive discussion and it certainly doesn't do anything to convince people who disagree with him (people who I assume are the intended audience here)

arohner 16y ago
> Fearing a terrorist attack is perfectly rational the question is how much liberty we’re willing to give up to prevent such attacks. How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? children drowning in swimming pools? Both of these kill far more people every year than terrorist attacks against americans. Why is it ok for thousands of people to die every year from drunk drivers, yet I have to take off my shoes at the airport? Schneier's point has consistently been to fight terrorism effectively. Spend our money and resources in areas that actually reduce terrorism and deaths, rather than areas that appear effective, yet are ultimately worthless (taking off shoes, 3oz liquid restriction, TSA circling things on your boarding pass)
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  > How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? children drowning in swimming pools? I'm willing to give up the liberty to not wear a seat belt and to not go as fast as I want to prevent the majority of accidents. I'm willing to give up the liberty to not put a fence around my pool to prevent most children from drowning. But I'm not willing to let the Government take my car entirely or say I just can't own a pool. So again, as I said in my original point, it's a question of degree not of absolutes. As far as your last paragraph that's you projecting. No where in his piece does he talk about methods that are and are not effective. The word effective isn't in the piece one single time.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    Perhaps it is clear that current TSA measures are silly, ineffective and an eggregious infringement of liberty?
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      Well again I go back to the point I raised in my first post on this thread which is you have to consider intent. The whole point of a post like this is to try to re-frame the topic in the minds of people who don't yet agree with you. So while it might be clear to you and it might be clear to the author it's obviously not clear to everyone or there would be no reason for this piece to be written. So if the author's intent was to alter the perspective of people who don't agree with him he shouldn't write under the assumption that it's a clear cut issue (if that's in fact what he was doing)
    - chrischen 16y ago
      Have they been proven to be ineffective?
mtviewdave 16y ago
The point Schneier is making is not that we shouldn't have any fear, or ignore threats. Rather, that living in a free society means that sometimes we choose to live with fear, because trying to stamp it out would force us to give up too much "essential liberty". That's what it means to "conquer" fear: to control it, rather than letting it control you. "...the question is how much liberty we’re willing to give up to prevent such attacks." Indeed, that's exactly right. Or, to phrase it another way: how much fear are we willing to endure to preserve our liberties? That question is politically out-of-bounds, because the idea that we should respond to fear with courage, rather than ever-increasing security measures, is not acceptable to politicians (either Democrats or Republicans), the Washington press corps, etc.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  You're speaking in platitudes. You say... "That's what it means to "conquer" fear: to control it, rather than letting it control you." Well I'm sorry but that's silly in practical application. Fear does control us. I don't cross the street when the red hand is up because I fear getting hit by a car. That's not irrational. It would be irrational if I NEVER crossed a street for the same reason. So again this reinforces my original point which is these things are a question of degree and arguing "against fear" is pointless and counterproductive.
sgoranson 16y ago
Lately I find myself going straight to the comments hovering around -1 because they're frequently the more nuanced, non-circlejerk replies. I smell a Greasemonkey project...

arohner 16y ago

> Fearing a terrorist attack is perfectly rational the question is how much liberty we’re willing to give up to prevent such attacks. How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? children drowning in swimming pools? Both of these kill far more people every year than terrorist attacks against americans. Why is it ok for thousands of people to die every year from drunk drivers, yet I have to take off my shoes at the airport? Schneier's point has consistently been to fight terrorism effectively. Spend our money and resources in areas that actually reduce terrorism and deaths, rather than areas that appear effective, yet are ultimately worthless (taking off shoes, 3oz liquid restriction, TSA circling things on your boarding pass)

TomOfTTB 16y ago
> How much liberty are you willing to give up to prevent automobile accidents? children drowning in swimming pools? I'm willing to give up the liberty to not wear a seat belt and to not go as fast as I want to prevent the majority of accidents. I'm willing to give up the liberty to not put a fence around my pool to prevent most children from drowning. But I'm not willing to let the Government take my car entirely or say I just can't own a pool. So again, as I said in my original point, it's a question of degree not of absolutes. As far as your last paragraph that's you projecting. No where in his piece does he talk about methods that are and are not effective. The word effective isn't in the piece one single time.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Perhaps it is clear that current TSA measures are silly, ineffective and an eggregious infringement of liberty?
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    Well again I go back to the point I raised in my first post on this thread which is you have to consider intent. The whole point of a post like this is to try to re-frame the topic in the minds of people who don't yet agree with you. So while it might be clear to you and it might be clear to the author it's obviously not clear to everyone or there would be no reason for this piece to be written. So if the author's intent was to alter the perspective of people who don't agree with him he shouldn't write under the assumption that it's a clear cut issue (if that's in fact what he was doing)
  - chrischen 16y ago
    Have they been proven to be ineffective?

mtviewdave 16y ago

The point Schneier is making is not that we shouldn't have any fear, or ignore threats. Rather, that living in a free society means that sometimes we choose to live with fear, because trying to stamp it out would force us to give up too much "essential liberty". That's what it means to "conquer" fear: to control it, rather than letting it control you. "...the question is how much liberty we’re willing to give up to prevent such attacks." Indeed, that's exactly right. Or, to phrase it another way: how much fear are we willing to endure to preserve our liberties? That question is politically out-of-bounds, because the idea that we should respond to fear with courage, rather than ever-increasing security measures, is not acceptable to politicians (either Democrats or Republicans), the Washington press corps, etc.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
You're speaking in platitudes. You say... "That's what it means to "conquer" fear: to control it, rather than letting it control you." Well I'm sorry but that's silly in practical application. Fear does control us. I don't cross the street when the red hand is up because I fear getting hit by a car. That's not irrational. It would be irrational if I NEVER crossed a street for the same reason. So again this reinforces my original point which is these things are a question of degree and arguing "against fear" is pointless and counterproductive.

sgoranson 16y ago

Lately I find myself going straight to the comments hovering around -1 because they're frequently the more nuanced, non-circlejerk replies. I smell a Greasemonkey project...