3 ms·
This might explain the political response to terrorism, but I'm not sure it applies to the individual. Fear of setting a bad precedent which could lead to the
by tuxidomasx 14y ago
This might explain the political response to terrorism, but I'm not sure it applies to the individual.
Fear of setting a bad precedent which could lead to the undermining of civil order seems to be a more complex feeling than that of being the victim of an attack. It's been my experience that the most common fears of an individual are related to sudden/unexpected pain and/or death, not concern for the social good.
And if people are truly concerned over the long term social effects of a threat, why does this not also apply to large percentages of the population routinely dying of preventable causes? Surely this is just as relevant to the well-being of society.
- rayiner 14y agoBecause people aren't just worried about death. They're worried about social order. Yes, not just governments but individuals worry about social order. It is a luxury of growing up in the west that allows people to say stuff like only governments worry about social order. Highway accidents don't have the potential to undermine social order the way terrorism does.
- gknoy 14y agoI think it's more that they fear random death: crazy snipers on rooftops, bombs at the park. They don't fear things that they (mistakenly) think they have a lot more control over. heart disease: "But I eat healthily ... usually" traffic accidents: "I'm a good driver! I won't get in an accident." It's a combination of poor risk assessment and Dunning-Kruger mischaracterization's of one's skills. I'm sure there's more to it than that.