Hacker News Reader

I think that calling this "whataboutism" is wrong. It is good to weigh the actual risk something presents and putting it into perspective.

The truth is that terrorism is a minor threat compared to others in our life yet a disproportionate amount of effort and fear stems from it. Your assertion that they would eventually take over is an overstatement. There have been countries under occupation with strong resistance movements that were orders of magnitude more active and disruptive and had far more popular support than the terrorist threat we are facing now, and those movements by themselves did not manage taking over, it seems unlikely terrorists would manage this now.

> (Compare for example with the reaction to the AIDS epidemics in the early 1980s. The lazy whatabout-ist could have said (and indeed did say): "Oh AIDS just affects a few gays and needle-sharing heroin addicts, whatabout the orders of magnitude more who die of the flu and cancer, no need to worry about AIDS".)

In a way, this example is also flawed. If, a comparatively similar amount of effort and research would have gone into developing cures and treatments for the other diseases, the benefits would have also been, probably, order of magnitudes greater. Would that not have been a logically superior choice?

On the other hand, I find very interesting you approaching this as a disease that has to be controlled and quarantined so it does not spread, it might have some merit. But we are not proposing ignoring the issue, but acting in a way proportional to its actual threat level, some way that the costs of acting are balanced with its actual benefits. I will give you that terroristic attacks are most costly not because of human lived but because of, well, spreading terror. I we could all see the threats as relatively minor to other threats, maybe their effects would be diminished. I think that they would loose their effect if they become common enough, because people get used to them and continue their lived, same way people continue their lives in war zones.Then, the precieved risk(or at least, the fear of this risk) would be smaller even if the risk itself would be higher.

   If, a comparatively similar amount of 
   effort and research would have gone 
   into developing cures and treatments 
   for the other diseases, the benefits 
   would have also been, probably, order 
   of magnitudes greater.

I don't believe that this is true. AIDS was a major threat in the early 1980s.

Sorry, I was ambiguous when expressing my ideas. I'm not trying to debate an actual historical fact or to say that resources were misplaced in curing AIDS. I trust you the actual importance placed on AIDS was merited.

I'm rather trying to debate that a more common affliction should have priority over a less common one and thus, pointing out that efforts is disproportionately spent in a field compared to another it not whattaboutism.

I've been trying to illustrate that under the assumption that some affliction _would_ be an order of magnitude more common than another (as the whattaboutists in your AIDS illustration assert). Adding to this the assumption that results would be proportional with exerted effort for both affliction treatments (not always true), it would make greater sense to expend more effort for the more common one, thus the percentage an affliction is present compared to another does matter.

Granted, there are a number of assumptions to my illustration, and in particular cases they can be true or false, but it does prove that the percentage of population a certain issue affects does deserve a part in the equation of how much effort we should expend into fixing some situation and can not be readily excluded from the conversation by simply shouting "whattaboutism".

AIDS didn't attack humanity seeking to provoke reactions and overreactions.

One of the very goals of terrorism is to provoke. To be in the media. To gain ears and mindshare. No such thing as negative publicity. Putting terrorism's actual impact into context is exactly what we should do, rather than play into the game of lock-down-chicken.

> If we continue policing as we do now, terrorism will increase, up to a point where the terrorists take over and are the new rulers.

That cannot be accepted as an 'axiom' without proof.

Exactly what would you accept as proof? A deduction in ZFC or Homotopy Type Theory?

Or an empirical experiment, where we split the world into two parts, one were we police terrorism as the french are doing now, and one where terrorists are treated like random robberies and crimes of spurned lovers; then wait for 200 years and see which side does better?

Does the snark mean you don't have an actual argument supporting the 'axiom' (really just a premise) that "terrorists will take over the world"?

You can't avoid the need to prove your premises by calling them 'axioms'.

I was not addressing the question of whether the axioms are true or not, although I have an opinion on this matter. I was addressing lazy "whataboutism".

You still have not given an workable account of what you would accept as "proof". I imagine that that's because you have not actually though about this issue.

The question of regime change has been thought about deeply for millenia, but there has never been a "proof". Instead, those who think about politics usually look at the history of regime change. This is not because they don't want to have higher standards of evidence, but because nobody knows how to do better.

Proving this is nearly impossible, that's why the discussion never ends.

The argument 'If we don't ban encryption, the terrorists will take over the world' is compelling, if you believe it. But it is simply a dire prediction of the kind that can be made (and often is) about anything.

Even regular murders. Not so long ago politicians were talking about crime waves and 'superpredators'.

One feels that there is a certain ... tension between your

   That cannot be accepted as an 
   'axiom' without proof.

and your

   Proving this is nearly impossible

I say the actuarial risk of dying from terrorism in Europe is very low. Everything else is emotion and irrational fear, which as others pointed out, is the aim of terrorism. If you don't believe me, and you think the mortality risk is high, please get in touch; I'll sell you an insurance policy.

> If we continue policing as we do now, terrorism will increase, up to a point where the terrorists take over and are the new rulers.

I hate to be this guy, but with enough knowledge about our ancestors going far into the past, how do we know similar acts did not take place?? Look at USA alone - they were asian tribes that got wiped by indians with arrows. Indians got wiped by whites with guns.. whoever comes for us now... I say... let it be! We will of course arm to teeth and defend, but if its written somewhere in stars that we are doomed to fail, no amount of policing will change that.

Whatever will happen today, it will happen and those living in year 2,500 would not see it any other way. Just as empires fell before, who says Isis or other ideology will not fail similarly one day?

> Oh AIDS just affects a few gays and needle-sharing heroin addicts

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's still the case today, no?

Unless I have unprotected sex with multitude of partners (stats shows homosexuals tens to spread AIDS more than hetero) and won't inject stuff with borrowed needles, my chances of getting AIDS are still super drastically slim.

I mean sure I can be a virgin and never even smoke a joint, and get affected by riding a subway with infected person who happened to touched a pole with their bloody finger and I happened to touch it after him/her with open wound in a short period of time before the virus dies given there was enough blood to get affected in the first place. But again chances are probably the same as walking in random park in a random European country at a random day and being blown up into peaces by a random person, who happens to randomly stand next to me and turn out to be a terrorist. I sure take my chances.

   how do we know similar acts 
   did not take place??

We are pretty sure that many pre-democratic changes of political power did come about in this way. Revolutions and other political power-struggles have been studied very carefully e.g. [1], the Marxist tradition is pretty full of such studies, e.g. [2, 3].

   but that's still the case today, no?

Yes, precisely because of the intense counter-measures taken to prevent AIDS from spreading further. Need-sharing has mostly disappeared, at least in western Europe, because taking Heroin has been effectively decriminalised. Moreover, free Methadon substitution for addicts, and the provision of free needles (and space to shoot up) are all reactions to the AIDS epidemic.

So the fact that "that's still the case today" is a great success of not going whatabout-flu-and-traffic-deaths when AIDS arrived.

[1] E. N. Luttwak, Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook.

[2] Võ Nguyên Giáp: People's war, people's army.

[3] S. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.

Please don't start on AIDS, you can find studies that say one thing and the other about which population is more exposed to risk. It's really far from trivial and they already have been several comparatives critical studies about theses studies.

Only 2 fact are undeniable: 1.AIDS can biologically affect anyone even if odds are low 2.If you use condoms (before you and you partner get tested), you'll never have to worry about it.

Otherwise is just betting with odds and trusting strangers, do as you wish but don't complain later on, nor shall you encourage others to be careless.

> If we continue policing as we do now, terrorism will increase, up to a point where the terrorists take over and are the new rulers.

Are you seriously expecting that ISIS will take control of France?

Yes I do. Let's not forget that ISIS almost managed to take over Syria and Irak, what makes you think they would not take over France if the French let them?

A hand full of socialist revolutionaries took over Russia, and ruled for nearly a century.

Francisco Pizarro with took over the Inca empire with just 168 men, 1 cannon and 27 horses! The Inca empire was one of the largest seen in human history at the time.

Actually a handful of revolutionaries took over France in 1789.

You forget that in both instances of the 'handful of revolutionaries' you quote had full popular support on their side. The terrorists have neither popular support nor superior weaponry (the pizarro example). I also doubt that this is a goal of these groups, the goal is to spread fear so that popular opinion in France turns against the muslim minority. This in turn, gives these groups a pool of new recruits.

I think Pizarro had some religious support too. The Incans had a prophecy about 'white people' coming from the gods, and he just happened to turn up at the right time...

This is just nonsensical.

The main reason why the Spanish were successful was political: the Incas (which means "rulers") had forged their empire with violence and the tribes they subjugated were only too happy to get rid of the Incas, so collaborated on a case-by-case basis with the Spanish. In addition, the ruling family (i.e. the Incas) was quarrelling amongst each other, with some of them collaborating with the Spanish to get rid of the other side of the family. The idea was: (1) let the Spanish do the dirty work of getting rid of the other side, and (2) then get rid of the Spanish. Part 1 worked very well, Part 2 ... not so much.

It's pretty clear that Pizarro was in a fairly weak and tenuous position. If the Incas had worked together, rather than fighting among themselves, they would have defeated Pizarro easily.

I was wrong about Pizarro. With the 'mistaken for a prophecy' bit, I was thinking of Cortés and Montezuma.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/cortes_hernan....

ISIS have neither popular support nor superior weaponry? Are you sure? ISIS is supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar (who are probably money laundering fronts for certain other states that shall remain anonymous).

Pizarro had one cannon, and cannons at that time were awkward, especially in the mountains.

I'm sure Donald Trump said that the other day...