5 ms·
> The real threat is lone wolf random attacks on the general public like the DC sniper. That's a very low-cost high-impact attack that paralyzed an entire metro
by wycy 5y ago
> The real threat is lone wolf random attacks on the general public like the DC sniper. That's a very low-cost high-impact attack that paralyzed an entire metro region for nearly a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks
Considering how many crazy, extremely radicalized people are out there, I'm surprised attacks like this aren't much more common.
- arkh 5y ago> Considering how many crazy, extremely radicalized people are out there, I'm surprised attacks like this aren't much more common. Maybe because your base assumption is wrong: there are not many of them.
- ceejayoz 5y agoGo to a local school board meeting on masks and be disabused of this notion fairly quickly. edit: Votes on this one have been a wild ride.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoWhy lump parents that don't want masks with plane bombers and shooters
- ceejayoz 5y agoFair. Terrorists have likely killed far fewer Americans with their actions. We are not good at evaluating the less flashy risks to life. Wearing a seat belt saves a lot more lives than checking shoes at the airport, but we'll fight the seat belt a lot more.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago100yr ago eugenics proponents were saying the same thing while bemoaning societies unwillingness to fully embrace their solutions. 200yr ago people who wanted to build heavy industry were making the same complaints bemoaning insufficient investment. And so on and so on. ~7 billion people aren't stupid. They just don't share your prioritization of whatever the societal issues you perceive to be most important today are. This trope is just a back handed way to call everyone who doesn't agree with you stupid, or some variation thereof.
- ceejayoz 5y ago"This minor temporary inconvenience I don't like is as bad as eugenics" is its own trope.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoIf you can suggest some other ~100yo example of something a lot of people believed would solve a lot of societal problems I'd be happy to edit my comment. In any case, you're either missing the overarching point (the charitable assumption) or you don't want to fight my point head on so you're nitpicking that my examples aren't good enough (the less charitable assumption).
- ceejayoz 5y ago> If you can suggest some other ~100yo example of something a lot of people believed would solve a lot of societal problems I'd be happy to edit my comment. Of the same sort of nature as masking during a pandemic: Vaccinations, requiring docs to wear gloves during surgery, etc.
- saba2008 5y agoIt's a long way from bickering to violence, and then even longer journey from fights to wilful and purposeful killing.
- ctrlp 5y agoAre you suggesting that people who disagree on masking children are radicals comparable to jihadi terrorists?
- ceejayoz 5y agoI am suggesting you can find plenty of "crazy, extremely radicalized people" in your local community in fairly short order.
- aww_dang 5y agoI initially thought he was claiming the inverse, that mask proponents were extremists. From the perspective of 2019, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption, but here we are. Today people are advocating using the force of the state, in other words violence against those who do not share their views on mask mandates.
- stouset 5y agoCan we kindly stop using hyperbole like “using the force of the state, in other words violence” as an argument against literally any governmental policy ever? In this same fantasy universe jack-booted government thugs are beating up people who don’t wear seat belts or who mislabel the nutritional contents on a package of cheese, except that’s just not what ever actually happens in the real world. These kinds of laws can be appropriate when they make society better for us all. To that point, anti-maskers have almost certainly killed more Americans at this point than terrorists could ever have hoped to. You might consider that when attempting to understand why people are seemingly so hard-pressed to get laws requiring their countrymen (and women) to do the literal bare minimum to protect the lives of their neighbors.
- aww_dang 5y agoThere's a distinction between a voluntary practice and a compulsory practice. The distinction centers around individuals being compelled by violence. The kind thing to do would be to minimize our use of compulsion as much as pragmatically possible. >Can we kindly stop using hyperbole... anti-maskers have almost certainly killed more Americans
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoThere are plenty of radicalized people, but valuing your life so little that you'll risk it for the cause and having a cause that wants you to kill random civilians is not very common.
- laurent92 5y agoIncels, school shooters, bechildrened fathers, it happens a few times per year in most countries. Given they are ready to die, it’s surprising to me when they kill 1 instead of 100 people.
- dopamean 5y agoYou're right and the two people who have already replied to you are a great example of how people on the internet love to chime in to "correct" someone about some detail of what they said that misconstrues the point. Obviously when the previous user said "extremely radicalized people" they were talking about the kinds of people radicalized to the point that they're willing to start killing people. You rightly (imo) point out that there aren't that many of them. Then two people chime in to "correct" you. Perhaps writing this reply makes me one of those people as well.
- COGlory 5y agoPerhaps people are less truly radicalized, and substantially more negotiable, than we've been lead to believe. It certainly benefits both the media and politicians to sell us a story that there are an extreme number of radicalized people out there. I've certainly never met any neo-Nazis. Not to say they don't exist, but if they are truly as common as I've been told, I think I'd have encountered some.
- BobbyJo 5y agoThrowing your average Joe on screen garners much fewer eyeballs and therefore isn't profitable. As some who had been lucky enough to live many years in both rural Florida and urban California, I can tell you beyond a doubt people are mostly (99%) reasonable, and mostly the same, they are just acting on different priorities, beliefs, and data :)
- weswpg 5y ago> I can tell you beyond a doubt people are mostly (99%) reasonable And yet, actual fascist governments have come to power even in nominally democratic countries. People might only be "reasonable" when left to their own devices but there could always come a day when propaganda, sectarianism and social turmoil gets so out of hand that people don't see so reasonable anymore.
- weswpg 5y agoHow many people do you encounter? In which parts of the country? How much do you know about their political views? How do you know whether someone is a Nazi if they don't announce it? You could have met plenty and not known it. Or your sample size of acquaintances doesn't include people who frequent 4chan.
- sgc 5y agoThis is such a terrible argument. 1. You very well might never know you have. People with extreme views don't advertise them everywhere and at all times. 2. There is plenty of video evidence of literal crowds of such people in various places and they quite obviously exist in large enough numbers to draw these crowds (no group has anywhere near 100% participation in events). Your anecdotal experience is irrelevant. Now you might think the threshold for an "extreme number" is much higher than drawing this type of crowd, but there are enough people for whom that is a big deal, that it makes for compelling news that gets views. Way too many for me, that's for sure.
- taway234qt 5y ago>> Considering how many crazy, extremely radicalized people are out there, I'm surprised attacks like this aren't much more common. They are extremely common, except the main stream "liberal" media's definition of "radicalized" and "attack" doesnt include the most common incidents. If "radicalized" means brown, yes, it isnt common. If "radicalized" could be expanded to literally hundreds of incidents of ethno-religious-nationalist crazies who kill with guns -- it is actually really common in the US. Except whenever this happens, people instead just talk about how perps were "deeply disturbed" and needed help, rather than classifying it as "attack" or "terror"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- BurningFrog 5y agoThe DC sniper were two people, with a specially built murder car. So neither lone wolf or low effort. My guess is that crazy, extremely radicalized people are not competent at carrying out high impact attacks. Also, very few of them actually want to do such things.
- mlindner 5y ago> Considering how many crazy, extremely radicalized people are out there, I'm surprised attacks like this aren't much more common. The media overreports on how radical these people are. There's very few. However if COVID restrictions keep pushing forward I think that may change. Many people are at their breaking point right now. I'm fully vaccinated and I've already decided I'm never going to wear a mask again and avoid stores that actually enforce mask rules (most don't, even if they put labels on doors mandated by the state).
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoEven vaccinated folks can have the virus colonizing their airways, completely symptom free. Intentionally performing acts that could lead to the sickness or death of those around you seems pretty anti-social to me.
- mlindner 5y agoYes and I'm only a danger to unvaccinated people. If they choose to harm themselves that's their choice but I'm not going to sacrifice for them.