3 ms·

But terrorism induces terror and people don't want to live in terror. So either 1) we need to make a serious attempt to cause people not to care about it and ac

But terrorism induces terror and people don't want to live in terror. So either 1) we need to make a serious attempt to cause people not to care about it and acknowledge its a tiny risk 2) we need to stop terrorists or 3) we need to make people feel like we achieved 2. None of those options are easy and I've never seen a real proposal to seriously attempt 1. Other than statistics, how would you go about it?

acqq 13y ago
Refuse to be Terrorized (Bruce Schneier, 2006) http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act. And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want. (...) Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror. And giving up your freedoms "because of the terrorism" is the worst thing imaginable.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  Although some politicians generate terrorism fears for political advantages, the media report it for ratings. Think about all the "innocent white girl kidnapped" headlines. The media reports what people will tune in to and people will definitely tune in for that. So what, do we place limits on reporting?
  - acqq 13y ago
    From your 1, 2 and 3 "options" in your parent question, 1 is the only doable and worth doing. It's not a multiple choice. That's a first thing to understand. And controlling the press by "placing limits" is the opposite of democratic. If anything, most of the press is even now too limited in their approach, effectively supporting the interest groups who benefit from having "terror threat."
    - anologwintermut 13y ago
      I agree 1 is the ideal option, but it's really difficult. The effect of the press is best measured not by what reporters are allowed to do, but by what people actually end up watching. More freedom of the press is not going to eliminate the if it bleeds it leads philosophy. In fact, if we assume that cable news and newspapers have gotten shriller to deal with competition from the internet, it might do the opposite. There is a reason this comic exists[0] [0]http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3081#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3081#comic
- venus 13y ago
  I think all of us here at HN can agree with the wisdom of Mr Schneier's words. The problem is how to somehow transmit said wisdom into the brains of those 99.9% of the population who do not read HN or Bruce Schneier or otherwise think deeply on these matters.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
badman_ting 13y ago
I don't think it's that. People like to think that they are special, because there is a certain pain in acknowledging that one's whole existence is unimportant and mundane. So we imagine some bad guy is out there trying to blow us up. Dying from too many cheeseburgers is totally unsexy, and as a bonus implies that there may be consequences to doing what we want all the time. Booooooriiiing.
ferdo 13y ago
Most of the "terror" I've seen in the US in the past 12 years comes from the government and the media scaring the hell out of people.
rdtsc 13y ago
Terrorism is an industry with thousands and thousands of people (TSA employees, military industrial contractors, drone pilots, policy makers) that get paid as long as there is terrorism. While their superficial mission is to "eliminate" terrorism. The incentives are quite the opposite. 1) Will not happen from above. There won't be a White House policy to as a war on Fear of Terrorism. It will have to come from the citizens.
adventured 13y ago
I'd start with focusing on electing a government that doesn't abuse its citizens psychologically in the name of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary security theater. The Bush White House spent five years practically emotionally torturing America with its color codes and terrorist threat propaganda to justify a massive expansion of the military industrial complex.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  The Bush administration did those things. But I remember idiots on 9/12 in bum fuck, Nebraska, going "if it could happen in NYC, it could happen here." People were genuinely scared. I think the terror happened without the government, they just milked it to increase budgets, get new powers, and invade Iraq.

acqq 13y ago

Refuse to be Terrorized (Bruce Schneier, 2006) http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act. And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want. (...) Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror. And giving up your freedoms "because of the terrorism" is the worst thing imaginable.

anologwintermut 13y ago
Although some politicians generate terrorism fears for political advantages, the media report it for ratings. Think about all the "innocent white girl kidnapped" headlines. The media reports what people will tune in to and people will definitely tune in for that. So what, do we place limits on reporting?
- acqq 13y ago
  From your 1, 2 and 3 "options" in your parent question, 1 is the only doable and worth doing. It's not a multiple choice. That's a first thing to understand. And controlling the press by "placing limits" is the opposite of democratic. If anything, most of the press is even now too limited in their approach, effectively supporting the interest groups who benefit from having "terror threat."
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    I agree 1 is the ideal option, but it's really difficult. The effect of the press is best measured not by what reporters are allowed to do, but by what people actually end up watching. More freedom of the press is not going to eliminate the if it bleeds it leads philosophy. In fact, if we assume that cable news and newspapers have gotten shriller to deal with competition from the internet, it might do the opposite. There is a reason this comic exists[0] [0]http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3081#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3081#comic
venus 13y ago
I think all of us here at HN can agree with the wisdom of Mr Schneier's words. The problem is how to somehow transmit said wisdom into the brains of those 99.9% of the population who do not read HN or Bruce Schneier or otherwise think deeply on these matters.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

badman_ting 13y ago

I don't think it's that. People like to think that they are special, because there is a certain pain in acknowledging that one's whole existence is unimportant and mundane. So we imagine some bad guy is out there trying to blow us up. Dying from too many cheeseburgers is totally unsexy, and as a bonus implies that there may be consequences to doing what we want all the time. Booooooriiiing.

ferdo 13y ago

Most of the "terror" I've seen in the US in the past 12 years comes from the government and the media scaring the hell out of people.

rdtsc 13y ago

Terrorism is an industry with thousands and thousands of people (TSA employees, military industrial contractors, drone pilots, policy makers) that get paid as long as there is terrorism. While their superficial mission is to "eliminate" terrorism. The incentives are quite the opposite. 1) Will not happen from above. There won't be a White House policy to as a war on Fear of Terrorism. It will have to come from the citizens.

adventured 13y ago

I'd start with focusing on electing a government that doesn't abuse its citizens psychologically in the name of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary security theater. The Bush White House spent five years practically emotionally torturing America with its color codes and terrorist threat propaganda to justify a massive expansion of the military industrial complex.

anologwintermut 13y ago
The Bush administration did those things. But I remember idiots on 9/12 in bum fuck, Nebraska, going "if it could happen in NYC, it could happen here." People were genuinely scared. I think the terror happened without the government, they just milked it to increase budgets, get new powers, and invade Iraq.