3 ms·
>Local sports is more harmless because local identity isn't often a part of tribal conflict in the modern day. How do you justify this statement, or the premis
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
>Local sports is more harmless because local identity isn't often a part of tribal conflict in the modern day.
How do you justify this statement, or the premise? In the modern day, homicide kills many times more people than conflict between nations. In the USA at least, local identity is the primary driver of gang violence.
- hackerlight 4y agoHomicide isn't a catastrophic tail risk. War between great powers is. The type of war that comes from revanchism and nationalism and so on. It hasn't happened in the modern era yet because of nukes, but the risk is there, and we had numerous close calls with the Soviet Union.
- oarabbus_ 4y agoThat's a fallacy, similar to claiming driving in a car is safer than flying in a plane because you're more likely to survive a car crash than a plane crash. It seems you're attempting to suggest that local sports are less harmless than the Olympics, by somehow equating the latter to an increased risk of apocalyptic nuclear war? Please provide evidence if you're going to make such an outlandish claim. One could just as easily claim (similarly without evidence) that the Olympics actually reduces the tension between nations and reduces the risk of apocalyptic tail events compared to local sports which provide no such relief of international tensions.
- hackerlight 4y agoWe're straying too far from the point I was trying to make. National identity is plausibly a dangerous thing to hold up as a virtue, irrespective of the comparison to local identity. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's designs over Taiwan, WW1, WW2, trade protectionism, closed borders, and so on. These things are not all about national identity, but national identity does play a non-trivial role.