5 ms·

while I like the sentiment, I don't think Carter's framing of the issue will be successful. right now the issue is framed as: sacrifice liberties = being 'toug

by riggins 13y ago

while I like the sentiment, I don't think Carter's framing of the issue will be successful. right now the issue is framed as: sacrifice liberties = being 'tough on terrorists'. what's needed is some rhetorical jiu-jitsu. frame it as follows Non pants wetter = I'm not afraid of terrorists and to the extent I am afraid, I'll overcome my fears and take the risk of a terrorist attack to preserve our great american traditions. Pants wetters = everyone who's so afraid of terrorists that they'd sell out what it means to be american

mpyne 13y ago
Your improvement on framing the issue will be to call those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters". OK, good job.
- riggins 13y ago
  I'm not trying to have it both ways. I used to be in the WTC on a weekly basis (although I wasn't there on 9/11). I don't expect anything from others that I don't expect from myself. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters" obviously if terrorists have hijacked planes and are in the air, and you work in a potential target, it's reasonable to get out. That's what happened on 9/11. I'd note that IMO, airplanes flying into buildings can never happen again. 9/11 was a one-time shot which only happened because prior to 9/11 the consensus advice for how to deal with a terrorist hijacking was to 'not be a hero'. As you saw from United 93, that's a one-time window that lasted about 60 mins. Outside of reinforced cockpits and air marshals, I'm confident that we've got plenty of American heros who will die fighting before they let another terrorist fly a plane into a building. So if your claim is that everyone who works in a skyscraper is justified in sacrificing our most cherished American ideals because they're scared of a terrorist flying a plane into the building, we'll have to agree to disagree.
- gknoy 13y ago
  You're right. I'd prefer to call those who allow fear of terrorists to govern their lives (and political decisions) cowards. I would not want to insult those who wet pants by comparing them with such people.
  - pekk 13y ago
    I'd prefer to call relatively reasonable, unintrusive, low-cost attempts to prevent lethal attacks on large numbers of civilians "prudent". My own "courage" doesn't give me the right to hand over the lives of others and my politics certainly don't either. Any framing which disregards the trade-off is harmful. That trade-off needs to be discussed.

by riggins 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

Your improvement on framing the issue will be to call those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters". OK, good job.

riggins 13y ago
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I used to be in the WTC on a weekly basis (although I wasn't there on 9/11). I don't expect anything from others that I don't expect from myself. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters" obviously if terrorists have hijacked planes and are in the air, and you work in a potential target, it's reasonable to get out. That's what happened on 9/11. I'd note that IMO, airplanes flying into buildings can never happen again. 9/11 was a one-time shot which only happened because prior to 9/11 the consensus advice for how to deal with a terrorist hijacking was to 'not be a hero'. As you saw from United 93, that's a one-time window that lasted about 60 mins. Outside of reinforced cockpits and air marshals, I'm confident that we've got plenty of American heros who will die fighting before they let another terrorist fly a plane into a building. So if your claim is that everyone who works in a skyscraper is justified in sacrificing our most cherished American ideals because they're scared of a terrorist flying a plane into the building, we'll have to agree to disagree.
gknoy 13y ago
You're right. I'd prefer to call those who allow fear of terrorists to govern their lives (and political decisions) cowards. I would not want to insult those who wet pants by comparing them with such people.
- pekk 13y ago
  I'd prefer to call relatively reasonable, unintrusive, low-cost attempts to prevent lethal attacks on large numbers of civilians "prudent". My own "courage" doesn't give me the right to hand over the lives of others and my politics certainly don't either. Any framing which disregards the trade-off is harmful. That trade-off needs to be discussed.