6 ms·

A number of examples come to mind, but the most prominent is the Red Scare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

throwaway894345 5y ago
Not probably your point, but I’ve always found comparisons between the present moral panic and the Red Scare to be interesting. Notably, the extreme measures and intense paranoia of the Red Scare took place against the backdrop of a credible existential threat—global thermonuclear war. We now have the benefit of hindsight, but it wasn’t clear to people at the time that the situation would stabilize, which is to say their extreme measures make some amount of sense (I can sympathize with abandoning lofty liberal ideals in such a moment). On the other hand, the current moral panic has no similar justification—it’s a naked power grab by a group of ideological authoritarians who can’t even be bothered to pretend to act in accordance with their own stated beliefs. Neither the RS nor the present panic are rightful, but one is at least sorta understandable.
- ryanbrunner 5y ago
  That really all depends on your definition of what constitutes a credible threat. I'm sure any activist would say that continued police brutality against minorities, widespread and increasing hate crimes, etc. represent a credible threat to affected populations. We can argue about how genuine / common these threats really are, but at the end of the day I think it's fair to say at the absolute minimum that activists genuinely believe they are threats.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    While those things are bad, I think we can agree that there is a difference between global thermonuclear warfare and police brutality and hate crimes. At the very least, GTNW is a literal existential threat for every person, while brutality and hate have been pretty normal in human history and liberalism is the antidote (indeed, the rich American liberal tradition is what makes hate and brutality seem so shocking)—giving up liberalism in the name of combatting hate is inappropriate, and IMO very likely the thing which drives up hate crimes in the first place (left wing behavior pushes many people to the right and sets up illiberal precedents for them to follow).
    - trasz 5y ago
      Of course - there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war. Police brutality, on the other hand, is real.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        That’s hindsight.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        >there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war This seems like an odd thing to say. Is it meant as sarcasm? Everyone has heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, so I won't say anything about that. But have you heard of the Sino-Soviet crisis of 1969? Allegedly (I'm neither a historian nor any other kind of authority on it) the USSR was going to launch nuclear missiles at China during a border dispute, and asked the Nixon administration to remain neutral. Instead, Kissinger replied that the US would nuke hundreds of Russian cities in response. This story appears to be reflective of the official Chinese Communist Party historical account. https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved-china-soviet-nuclear-attack https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
        trasz 5y ago
        What I’ve really meant is: there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war, unless started by US. The example above demonstrates this nicely.
        perl4ever 5y ago
        The example above is a counterexample, where the USSR threatened to initiate.
        trasz 5y ago
  - Veelox 5y ago
    Quick question, without checking the numbers, about how many black people do you think were killed by police last year and how many of them were unarmed? I'm interested in knowing what you think the numbers are in reference to them possibly being a credible threat.
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
You mean the first red scare or the one we had for the last four years because it “hurt Trump” to make all manner of connections to Russia?

throwaway894345 5y ago

Not probably your point, but I’ve always found comparisons between the present moral panic and the Red Scare to be interesting. Notably, the extreme measures and intense paranoia of the Red Scare took place against the backdrop of a credible existential threat—global thermonuclear war. We now have the benefit of hindsight, but it wasn’t clear to people at the time that the situation would stabilize, which is to say their extreme measures make some amount of sense (I can sympathize with abandoning lofty liberal ideals in such a moment). On the other hand, the current moral panic has no similar justification—it’s a naked power grab by a group of ideological authoritarians who can’t even be bothered to pretend to act in accordance with their own stated beliefs. Neither the RS nor the present panic are rightful, but one is at least sorta understandable.

ryanbrunner 5y ago
That really all depends on your definition of what constitutes a credible threat. I'm sure any activist would say that continued police brutality against minorities, widespread and increasing hate crimes, etc. represent a credible threat to affected populations. We can argue about how genuine / common these threats really are, but at the end of the day I think it's fair to say at the absolute minimum that activists genuinely believe they are threats.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  While those things are bad, I think we can agree that there is a difference between global thermonuclear warfare and police brutality and hate crimes. At the very least, GTNW is a literal existential threat for every person, while brutality and hate have been pretty normal in human history and liberalism is the antidote (indeed, the rich American liberal tradition is what makes hate and brutality seem so shocking)—giving up liberalism in the name of combatting hate is inappropriate, and IMO very likely the thing which drives up hate crimes in the first place (left wing behavior pushes many people to the right and sets up illiberal precedents for them to follow).
  - trasz 5y ago
    Of course - there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war. Police brutality, on the other hand, is real.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      That’s hindsight.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war This seems like an odd thing to say. Is it meant as sarcasm? Everyone has heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, so I won't say anything about that. But have you heard of the Sino-Soviet crisis of 1969? Allegedly (I'm neither a historian nor any other kind of authority on it) the USSR was going to launch nuclear missiles at China during a border dispute, and asked the Nixon administration to remain neutral. Instead, Kissinger replied that the US would nuke hundreds of Russian cities in response. This story appears to be reflective of the official Chinese Communist Party historical account. https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved-china-soviet-nuclear-attack https://www.scmp.com/article/714064/nixon-intervention-saved... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
      - trasz 5y ago
        What I’ve really meant is: there was never a real danger of a global thermonuclear war, unless started by US. The example above demonstrates this nicely.
        perl4ever 5y ago
        The example above is a counterexample, where the USSR threatened to initiate.
        trasz 5y ago
- Veelox 5y ago
  Quick question, without checking the numbers, about how many black people do you think were killed by police last year and how many of them were unarmed? I'm interested in knowing what you think the numbers are in reference to them possibly being a credible threat.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

You mean the first red scare or the one we had for the last four years because it “hurt Trump” to make all manner of connections to Russia?