5 ms·

Are reasonable defensive measures a panic?

rumanator 7y ago
Why do you even assume that cowarding behind a castle with armed guards to keep neighbors at Bay are "reasonable defensive measures"? Sounds to me you're exhibiting "elite panick" while being completely oblivious to it.
stcredzero 7y ago
No. Sociopaths and opportunists exist. Everyone should be prepared for that remote possibility, because the consequences are potentially large. Almost no one buckles their seatbelt fully expecting to crash in the next 5 minutes. That doesn't invalidate taking the precautions.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Therefore, the sane person lives inside a secured enclosure with military-grade defenses, with the potential threats making of their important decisions for them.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    That's the default. For most of history that was how it worked; anyone who could afford to do so built a secured enclosure and hired military-grade defenses. We've managed to establish more peaceful norms, where most people's threat models don't need to include roving bands of soldiers or brigands on the highways. But these norms aren't infinitely resilient, and can be broken by sustained periods of disorder, as we've seen in many places around the world.
    - Applejinx 7y ago
      Define 'afford to do so'. If you mean 'anyone who has exploited the community around them to the point that they themselves come off as a predator and danger to the community', this would very likely explain why they could 'afford' to build a castle, but might also shed some light on WHY they might practically require a castle, or soldiers.
      - stcredzero 7y ago
        If you mean 'anyone who has exploited the community around them to the point that they themselves come off as a predator and danger to the community' This is the basic trope. Many of the Kulaks were simply peasants who knew how to farm better than their neighbors. Funny, but the same justification is used against (often non-white) store owners in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where their only "crime" was simply running a store in that neighborhood. Some genuinely good people who create value are genuinely creating value. That also doesn't mean they're exempt from receiving delusional accusations of exploitation. By the same token, there are some exploiters as well. However such judgments can only be just on the basis of individual actions. As always, we should be on the look out for those who use overly simplistic and reductionist prejudicial assumptions to make accusations. Over time, they often turn out to be history's villains.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
A lot of things are being described as a panic at the moment, and a lot of it is really just rational risk mitigation behaviour. The factors the influence risk management decisions are all pretty straightforward. You’ve got an assessment on the likelihood of the risk causing an impact, as assessment of the potential magnitude of that impact, a judgement about how much risk you’re willing to accept, and decision about how much resource you’re willing to commit to managing the risk. The way these panic discussions tend to go is first, ignore the fact that different people/organisations have different resources available to commit to risk management, then if you disagree with any of the judgements they make, describe it as a ‘panic’, rather than what it actually is, a rational decision that you might disagree with for some reason.

Why do you even assume that cowarding behind a castle with armed guards to keep neighbors at Bay are "reasonable defensive measures"? Sounds to me you're exhibiting "elite panick" while being completely oblivious to it.

stcredzero 7y ago

No. Sociopaths and opportunists exist. Everyone should be prepared for that remote possibility, because the consequences are potentially large. Almost no one buckles their seatbelt fully expecting to crash in the next 5 minutes. That doesn't invalidate taking the precautions.

mcguire 7y ago
Therefore, the sane person lives inside a secured enclosure with military-grade defenses, with the potential threats making of their important decisions for them.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  That's the default. For most of history that was how it worked; anyone who could afford to do so built a secured enclosure and hired military-grade defenses. We've managed to establish more peaceful norms, where most people's threat models don't need to include roving bands of soldiers or brigands on the highways. But these norms aren't infinitely resilient, and can be broken by sustained periods of disorder, as we've seen in many places around the world.
  - Applejinx 7y ago
    Define 'afford to do so'. If you mean 'anyone who has exploited the community around them to the point that they themselves come off as a predator and danger to the community', this would very likely explain why they could 'afford' to build a castle, but might also shed some light on WHY they might practically require a castle, or soldiers.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      If you mean 'anyone who has exploited the community around them to the point that they themselves come off as a predator and danger to the community' This is the basic trope. Many of the Kulaks were simply peasants who knew how to farm better than their neighbors. Funny, but the same justification is used against (often non-white) store owners in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where their only "crime" was simply running a store in that neighborhood. Some genuinely good people who create value are genuinely creating value. That also doesn't mean they're exempt from receiving delusional accusations of exploitation. By the same token, there are some exploiters as well. However such judgments can only be just on the basis of individual actions. As always, we should be on the look out for those who use overly simplistic and reductionist prejudicial assumptions to make accusations. Over time, they often turn out to be history's villains.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

A lot of things are being described as a panic at the moment, and a lot of it is really just rational risk mitigation behaviour. The factors the influence risk management decisions are all pretty straightforward. You’ve got an assessment on the likelihood of the risk causing an impact, as assessment of the potential magnitude of that impact, a judgement about how much risk you’re willing to accept, and decision about how much resource you’re willing to commit to managing the risk. The way these panic discussions tend to go is first, ignore the fact that different people/organisations have different resources available to commit to risk management, then if you disagree with any of the judgements they make, describe it as a ‘panic’, rather than what it actually is, a rational decision that you might disagree with for some reason.