3 ms·

it just is way out of place compared to the frequency of the other acts of terrorism to the point of being silly to include. it's how people "both sides" things

it just is way out of place compared to the frequency of the other acts of terrorism to the point of being silly to include. it's how people "both sides" things and it's dangerous to the focus of where we should be worrying.

pmorici 8y ago
I think his point stands broadly regardless of the specific example you take issue with. The heyday of radical left wing terrorism in the US was the 60's and 70's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
DuskStar 8y ago
> it's how people "both sides" things and it's dangerous to the focus of where we should be worrying. I'd say it's the people going "But not MY side!" that we really need to be worrying about here.
- siosonel 8y ago
  I agree both or all sides engage in self-serving agenda and bad policies. Nobody is perfect. But it is hard not to see that extreme ideology drives the agenda of one or a few sides, while most sides are willing to compromise with reasonable, evidence-based solutions that the ideologists reject outright. It is irresponsible to say in that case that both sides are being unreasonable - that false equivalence promotes an unhealthy stalemate and gives cover to those who blindly delay progress.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Even when available date supports such a claim?
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    Well, the example here was "my side only does this a little, so Not MY Side!"... In other words, the data did not support such a claim.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      It's hard to take such a disregard of proportionality seriously.
- rhizome 8y ago
  There are two ways to take it: the "everybody has been bad" GP used, and "the probability of any one event being X is lower than the rest." For the former, it would make sense to look at how guns are promoted as problem-solvers, and for the latter is worth discussing how group values make a person more likely to inflict firearm injuries. Utility vs. incitement, I suppose.

pmorici 8y ago

I think his point stands broadly regardless of the specific example you take issue with. The heyday of radical left wing terrorism in the US was the 60's and 70's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism

DuskStar 8y ago

> it's how people "both sides" things and it's dangerous to the focus of where we should be worrying. I'd say it's the people going "But not MY side!" that we really need to be worrying about here.

siosonel 8y ago
I agree both or all sides engage in self-serving agenda and bad policies. Nobody is perfect. But it is hard not to see that extreme ideology drives the agenda of one or a few sides, while most sides are willing to compromise with reasonable, evidence-based solutions that the ideologists reject outright. It is irresponsible to say in that case that both sides are being unreasonable - that false equivalence promotes an unhealthy stalemate and gives cover to those who blindly delay progress.
anigbrowl 8y ago
Even when available date supports such a claim?
- DuskStar 8y ago
  Well, the example here was "my side only does this a little, so Not MY Side!"... In other words, the data did not support such a claim.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    It's hard to take such a disregard of proportionality seriously.
rhizome 8y ago
There are two ways to take it: the "everybody has been bad" GP used, and "the probability of any one event being X is lower than the rest." For the former, it would make sense to look at how guns are promoted as problem-solvers, and for the latter is worth discussing how group values make a person more likely to inflict firearm injuries. Utility vs. incitement, I suppose.