Fear of "random acts" as a driver of policy

[Brisketexan 105041]

We are animals, and animals are best motivated by fear, hunger, and sex.  I’ll leave the hunger and sex to other boards.  This post is about FEAR.  We fear death.  But interestingly, our greatest fear is not about the things that are most LIKELY to kill us – cancer, heart disease, a car accident, etc.  I think that’s because in SOME way, we can control those – we can take steps to limit our risk of heart disease and cancer, we can drive carefully, etc. (and yes, I understand that often those things are an illusion – bad genetics can mean heart disease or cancer are gonna git ya no matter what, and you can only control your car on the road, not the idiot who runs a blind red light and t-bones you).  The point is that we buy the illusion, and as a result, we don’t fear those things as much.

So what causes us the greatest fear?  The risk of RANDOM death, that we do not control.  And even worse, random death brought about by an EVIL act.  Your plane or train gets blown up by a terrorist bomb.  Your kid gets blown away in a school shooting, trying to hide in her algebra class.  I suspect that our level of fear about these things is tied to our complete lack of control.  There’s nothing I can do to control whether someone parks a truck bomb outside my building.  My daughter can’t control whether someone shows up and shoots up her class.  That scares the shit out of us.  These things don’t just cause us fear, they motivate POLICY.

Patriot Act!

Muslim ban!

Ban assault rifles!

My take: I don’t have a problem with fear motivating policy, BUT, any policy response should be proportional to risk and should (as any policy should) balance rights.  So, I do NOT agree with some of the flying-off-the-handle anti-terrorism measures we’ve taken (sorry, the “Muslim ban” is just stupid…and a good bit of the Patriot Act, particularly how it has completely opened up unconstitutional domestic surveillance, is as well).  My chances of being blown up by a terrorist bomb are really, really small.  I don’t want that to happen.  I do want us to have a robust intelligence and law enforcement effort to try to reduce that risk – just because the risk isn’t high doesn’t mean that you don’t take reasonable measures.  When it comes to the other “random act” that motivates fear these days, school shootings, I feel generally the same.  The risk is low, but I still want us to take reasonable measures.  I think that we need to re-evaluate our entire mental health system, I think we need to create measures (with appropriate due process) that make it easier to prohibit gun ownership or possession by an unstable person, etc.  And, yes, I believe that we need to make the NCIS system more robust, we should look at increasing the minimum age for purchases, and we should look into ways that we could implement a limitation on high-capacity magazines.  And no, not every measure will work or will pass muster.

I also find it interesting that folks argue the counterpoint to policy action (“the risk is so small, why are we doing all this stuff?”) with respect to one such issue (say, gun control), but not the other (terrorism), and vice-versa. So, perhaps the sub-point here is that when the fear plays into something you naturally have a cultural aversion to (lots of Americans, often from white-bread rural or suburban communities, fear “scary foreigners;” likewise, lots of Americans, often from urban environments with little exposure to firearms other than as instruments of crime, fear “scary guns”), those groups are tailor-made to be motivated to fear random violence involving their pre-existing discomfort.

But the TLDR point is this: we have a disproportionate sense of fear about random causes of death.  While such matters may merit response and changes in policy, they should not drive disproportionate responses, which is a very real risk we have seen come true time and time again.

[TwiceHorn 31435]

Don't forget the drug war, most criminal laws, especially federal ones, enacted in the last 25 years, and sex offender registries.

[Turkleton 145]

Fear is a very powerful motivator. 

[Brisketexan 105041]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Don't forget the drug war, most criminal laws, especially federal ones, enacted in the last 25 years, and sex offender registries.

All good points.

The "sex offender" one especially.  See how our society has reacted to fear of child predators (your kid could be snatched by a murderous pervert right from the front yard!)  Statistically speaking, kids are LESS likely to be the victim of a random kidnapping etc. than in previous decades...but our response to the fear is WAY out of whack with the risk.  So, kids don't wander the neighborhood and play outside till dark, etc.  

Yep, I'm sure we can add to this list, easily.

[Incredulity 11643]

Yeah,  but somebody needs to do something.

Think of the children.

[TwiceHorn 31435]

And of course it's not just our collective fearfulness, it is the grotesque willingness of politicians to prey on that fearfulness to enact laws and policy of dubious value just to curry favor with the electorate while ignoring serious problems that the electorate doesn't understand or give a rip about.

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We are animals, and animals are best motivated by fear, hunger, and sex.  I’ll leave the hunger and sex to other boards.  This post is about FEAR.  We fear death.  But interestingly, our greatest fear is not about the things that are most LIKELY to kill us – cancer, heart disease, a car accident, etc.  I think that’s because in SOME way, we can control those – we can take steps to limit our risk of heart disease and cancer, we can drive carefully, etc. (and yes, I understand that often those things are an illusion – bad genetics can mean heart disease or cancer are gonna git ya no matter what, and you can only control your car on the road, not the idiot who runs a blind red light and t-bones you).  The point is that we buy the illusion, and as a result, we don’t fear those things as much.

So what causes us the greatest fear?  The risk of RANDOM death, that we do not control.  And even worse, random death brought about by an EVIL act.  Your plane or train gets blown up by a terrorist bomb.  Your kid gets blown away in a school shooting, trying to hide in her algebra class.  I suspect that our level of fear about these things is tied to our complete lack of control.  There’s nothing I can do to control whether someone parks a truck bomb outside my building.  My daughter can’t control whether someone shows up and shoots up her class.  That scares the shit out of us.  These things don’t just cause us fear, they motivate POLICY.

Patriot Act!

Muslim ban!

Ban assault rifles!

My take: I don’t have a problem with fear motivating policy, BUT, any policy response should be proportional to risk and should (as any policy should) balance rights.  So, I do NOT agree with some of the flying-off-the-handle anti-terrorism measures we’ve taken (sorry, the “Muslim ban” is just stupid…and a good bit of the Patriot Act, particularly how it has completely opened up unconstitutional domestic surveillance, is as well).  My chances of being blown up by a terrorist bomb are really, really small.  I don’t want that to happen.  I do want us to have a robust intelligence and law enforcement effort to try to reduce that risk – just because the risk isn’t high doesn’t mean that you don’t take reasonable measures.  When it comes to the other “random act” that motivates fear these days, school shootings, I feel generally the same.  The risk is low, but I still want us to take reasonable measures.  I think that we need to re-evaluate our entire mental health system, I think we need to create measures (with appropriate due process) that make it easier to prohibit gun ownership or possession by an unstable person, etc.  And, yes, I believe that we need to make the NCIS system more robust, we should look at increasing the minimum age for purchases, and we should look into ways that we could implement a limitation on high-capacity magazines.  And no, not every measure will work or will pass muster.

I also find it interesting that folks argue the counterpoint to policy action (“the risk is so small, why are we doing all this stuff?”) with respect to one such issue (say, gun control), but not the other (terrorism), and vice-versa. So, perhaps the sub-point here is that when the fear plays into something you naturally have a cultural aversion to (lots of Americans, often from white-bread rural or suburban communities, fear “scary foreigners;” likewise, lots of Americans, often from urban environments with little exposure to firearms other than as instruments of crime, fear “scary guns”), those groups are tailor-made to be motivated to fear random violence involving their pre-existing discomfort.

But the TLDR point is this: we have a disproportionate sense of fear about random causes of death.  While such matters may merit response and changes in policy, they should not drive disproportionate responses, which is a very real risk we have seen come true time and time again.

You nailed it, and as has been said "Never let a crisis go to waste..."

Combine the above fear you describe with politicians (and their constituencies) demanding that they "DO SOMETHING!"  And you get shit laws.  There's a bias towards action versus inaction in people's minds; "doing something" e.g. passing a new law, banning a gun, banning brown people, etc is "meaningful" - even if it doesn't actually change anything.

Here's the problem: nothing will change.  It would require laws on the order of 100x the scale of what we're conceiving (probably unconstitutional) to move the needle.  The raw truth that the population can't handle is this: People (including kids) dying in shootings is the price of the freedom embodied in the 2nd amendment.  Terrorists blowing buildings up is the cost of our free and open society.  These things will continue so long as we remain a free and open society - and even turning into a dictatorship can't stop it (see: terrorists still attack Russia ala the theater attack).

It's called reality - many have trouble dealing with that.

[TwiceHorn 31435]

I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!

[Brisketexan 105041]

55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!

I'd sleep much better at night if I knew the steady hand of General Beringer had the wheel....

[formermav43 4606]

It’s a bit of a tangent, but I believe it’s this fear of random evil that is at the root of many who buy into conspiracies. We get crackpot theories like the government perpetrating 9/11 or all of these school shootings being hoaxes because the idea of a sinister cabal secretly pulling the strings, as terrifying as it is, is more palatable than the haphazard reality.

We want SOMEONE to be in control.

Edited April 2, 2018 by formermav43

[bernorange 8359]

Quote

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain

I would posit there is a greater point about enacting "bad" policy based upon emotion period (fear, outrage, jealousy, anger, etc.).  Strong emotions are anathema to reason, logic and strategic thinking.

[F250 28761]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Yeah,  but somebody needs to do something.

Think of the children.

In the end it comes down to this. People need a sense of security even if it's a false sense of security.

[Brisketexan 105041]

1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

It’s a bit of a tangent, but I believe it’s this fear of random evil that is at the root of many who buy into conspiracies. We get crackpot theories like the government perpetrating 9/11 or all of these school shootings being hoaxes because the idea of a sinister cabal secretly pulling the strings, as terrifying as it is, is more palatable than the haphazard reality.

We want SOMEONE to be in control.

Great point.  I thought it was interesting that this sort of thinking took root most easily among those who are already among the powerless (e.g., look at how much the "street" in the Middle East loves them some conspiracy theories), but then watching the well-educated white folks (who have it pretty good here in the USA) fall for anti-vax bullshit threw a wrench in that.

I still think there's something to your point, but it's complicated.

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

I would posit there is a greater point about enacting "bad" policy based upon emotion period (fear, outrage, jealousy, anger, etc.).  Strong emotions are anathema to reason, logic and strategic thinking.

They are completely anathema.  And I know we love to joke about the Jack Nicholson line about how he writes women so well: “I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”  But stick with me, there's something to that, with respect to "speaking different languages."

How many of us had relationship challenges because we were speaking in cold reason and logic (without much emotional empathy), when our partner was speaking entirely in terms of emotions and feelings?  Not only did we not get anywhere, we ended up getting pissed at each other.

Our country is experiencing (and to some degree, always has experienced) that disconnect.  Trump is the embodiment of the "pure emotions" president.  He has little use for reason, logic, or facts.  But he is a MASTER at playing the crowd and emotions.  I say that with due admiration -- he pulls the strings like very few men can.  We simple critters LOVE us some emotion.  Tell a crowd of Texas fans "OU SUCKS!", and you'll get a loud cheer (I mean, sure, that also happens to be factually true, but that's not why we cheer -- we cheer because it's awesome and fun to hear).  Tell a crowd of riled up angry folks that someone else is to blame for everything they fear, and they LOVE it.  It's time-honored, over thousands of years -- it's winning politics.  Because we're simple animals.

[Brisketexan 105041]

35 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I'm with y'all up into the incredulity about sex offenders and their registry. I like having them being held accountable and having to register in a fully transparent way so that I can know what neighborhoods to avoid or neighbors, specifically, to avoid when buying a home or who's who in the zoo. I get that rehabilitation works and that some have changes of heart and mind and even more are railroaded by the state for being 17 and having sex with a 15 year old gf, but I'd rather just avoid the whole situation entirely when it comes to keeping kids away from pedo's. Before anyone comments, I know this likely means having to turn down scholly's for my athletic kids to Mich St and Penn St...

Sure.  Groovy.  But riddle me this: are kids more or less likely to be kidnapped/molested/etc. by a repeat offender in modern times (even before the prevalence of such registries) than they were 40 years ago?

Nope.  There's a very, very small chance that a kiddie diddler is gonna grab your kid walking back from the 7-11.  That chance was going DOWN when sex offender registries were implemented, and from what I have seen, the trend line didn't change.

It's just an infinitesimally small risk, so small that it shouldn't really influence your behavior.  Telling your kids to scream and fight like hell if an adult tries to grab them is vastly more effective at making them safe.

Your thinking is EXACTLY the thinking we're talking about here.

"I'll just avoid anyplace that might be a target of evil muslim terrorists, so no thank you, I won't be travelling to DC, New York, Paris, London, etc."  Nevermind that the statistical chance of you being a victim of a terror attack in any of those places is so small as to be statistically insignificant.  Layer on top of that the fact that you could be a victim in other places, too -- don't go to San Bernadino, Manchester, Barcelona, Columbus Ohio, Orlando, etc.  The real, and logical answer is "it's not a statistically significant threat in the West, and to the extent that it is a threat, it can happen most anywhere."

I hunt and shoot with my kids.  Accidental shooting deaths are around 700 per year.  Accidental hunting deaths are around 75-80 per year.  My kids are more likely to be killed doing either one of these hobbies than in a terrorist attack.  And with respect to both (firearms safety and terror attacks), we exercise training and common sense.  Follow gun safety rules.  If you're at the train station in Berlin, and see a backpack leaning up against a post with nobody nearby, report it and GTFO of that location.  Reason and logic, not fear.

[TwiceHorn 31435]

Yeah, stranger danger is a myth.  And they've already been held accountable with prison sentences and prison records.

The general public does not have the tools to deal with the information they can glean from the sex offender registry.  The authorities do, to a certain extent, but they already have that information.

Any purpose such registries serve is false security and whatever infinitesimal bit of good they do is far outweighed by dehumanizing people.

A key fact is that the federal legislation creating the federal sex offender registry is named after the child of the host of Americas Most Wanted, for fucks sake.  And Adam Walsh wasn't molested and apparently was abducted and killed by a serial killer who wouldn't have been on the sex offender registry anyway.

Shit, why don't we just have a murderer registry?  Or a DUI registry?  The fuck?

Edited April 2, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 105041]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, stranger danger is a myth.  And they've already been held accountable with prison sentences and prison records.

The general public does not have the tools to deal with the information they can glean from the sex offender registry.  The authorities do, to a certain extent, but they already have that information.

Any purpose such registries serve is false security and whatever infinitesimal bit of good they do is far outweighed by dehumanizing people.

Good post.

And look, crime is a great lens through which we can examine fear, and risk mitigation.  My family has been a victim of crime.  Hell, just last year, my daughter had her luggage ransacked during our layover in Kiev.  They didn't take much, but they took a couple of things she cared about, and damaged some of her stuff, and she was really upset when we arrived and she found her bag in that shape.

Clearly, the risk factor of having that happened is higher in a den of crappiness like Ukraine.  And the "fault" is on the criminals on the ground.  BUT...we exhibited poor situational awareness.  All of our fellow travelers on that flight were doing the "plastic wrap your bag for 2 euros" routine in the Vienna airport.  We should have followed their cue.  And/or, I could have read up a bit on airport security before we flew, and I would have seen that Kiev has a problem with that issue.  And we could have wrapped our bags, and all would have been fine.

It's a low risk in general.  In certain locations (Kiev), it's a higher risk.  But you can reduce that risk through some simple reasonable measures.  Don't let fear run the show -- use reason, and it's much more effective.

[Sawbonz 27525]

 

[Brisketexan 105041]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I didn't say that kids are more likely to be kidnapped/molested/etc and I agree that it's probably the same likelihood, my only point being that likelihood is still unacceptable because it's largely not a random event (in my eyes). It's not an accident or misadventure or unforeseen mechanical failure/human error, it's a sad mental illness that can be manifest itself into criminal, honorific behavior. I'd like to know if someone has given in to that mental illness before and acted out their criminal fantasies so that I can avoid them because I think there is probably a chance that person could do it again. The same way I'd like to know if someone has been convicted of random terrorism so I could potentially avoid their grocery stores and bus stations (to use your terrorist example).

Again, my point is and you can disagree and not necessarily be wrong, as far as my kids are concerned, the chances this had of happening in the 1970s and the chances of it happening now, whether they are the same or not, is too high for me and I'd like to be empowered to avoid it. All this being said, I realize there still isn't much by way of control one can have over this happening randomly, but why not curate a list to let others avoid people convicted of this behavior if they want to?

Because residential proximity is not a particularly correlative factor in whether your kid will be molested.

IF molestation is going to happen, the order of likely suspects is (1) family member, (2) church or other activity supervisor/contact, (3) (and WAY down the list) stranger in your community.

And even then, "in your community" is pretty damned broad.  I live on one side of Mopac,.  Maybe there are few registered offenders in my hood.  But on the other side of Mopac, there are more.  Do you think that if Chester the Molester wants to nab a kid walking back from the 7-11, is he more or less likely to do it at the 7-11 a block from his house, or the one across the freeway?

In fact, the data that is available seems to show that proximity to "targets" has no material correlation to recidivism -- those offenders who do repeat do so at random locations that have no connection to where they reside.

Facts.  Evidence.  Data.  Not "won't someone think of the children!"

[bernorange 8359]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

... Hell, just last year, my daughter had her luggage ransacked during our layover in Kiev.  They didn't take much, but they took a couple of things she cared about, and damaged some of her stuff, and she was really upset when we arrived and she found her bag in that shape. ...

Off topic, but that reminds me of a funny (to me) story that happened roughly 20 years ago.  I was doing some consulting work at a client site in the Carribean.  They were hiring hundreds of contractors and a bunch had just arrived from the States from a flight that originated in Miami.  One of the new contractors was a funny dude - funny as in hapless like Lou Costello.  He was late to the gate because TSA or whoever in the Miami airport had gone through his luggage and stolen (or misplaced) his Nomex suit and one boot.  We couldn't stop laughing as we pondered what some TSA agent was doing with just one well worn construction boot.

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

.... Shit, why don't we just have a murderer registry?  Or a DUI registry?  The fuck?

Dafuq?  You trying to give peeps some bright ideas?  Why would you even say (type) such a thing? Scarlet letters anyone?

[Brisketexan 105041]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Facts. Evidence. Data... that is all a registry is-- facts and data. And, like you argue, facts and data are ideally used to inform decisions so you can make smarter, more intelligent decisions. Right?

I guess I'm lost here with why you think having a sex offender registry is bad and why you wouldn't want to check it before moving into a specific area and get a view into "who's who in the zoo" and what potential bad actors (based off previous data/evidence/facts) to avoid. I guess my question is, why not? I guess I'm from the camp that having "too much" data is better than "not enough".

And let me edit to be clear; this isn't necessarily born from fear anymore than using heuristics and stereotypes to inform behavior is born of fear. It's just wanting to leverage some known conditions to minimize risk-- even if the risk is already minimal as you are saying.

Because data point one (registered sex offenders living in zip code X) doesn't correlate to data point two (likelihood of a registered sex offender committing a sex offense in zip code X).

Residential sex offender data is effectively useless for the purpose of "avoiding my kids being molested by a repeat offender."

I don't entirely oppose "sex offender" registries.  I think they should be LIMITED (as you yourself noticed, if a teen couple gets frisky in the back seat of dad's Buick, or if a girl sends her boyfriend a pic of her boobs, it does nobody any good for those folks to be in the database).  AND, I think the database is most useful for situations where there IS a statistical correlation to recidivism: positions of trust.  Your kids aren't likely to be molested by a neighbor just because he lives nearby.  They ARE more likely to be molested by their church youth director.  So, the church should be able to use the registry to make hiring/volunteer decisions.

But note that my distinction is driven by facts and data.  Data as to sex offenders in my hood?  Useless.  Data as to sex offenders who may end up working with my kids?  Useful.

[Brisketexan 105041]

I just did some intergoogles homework.  There were at least a couple of papers out there that I found right off the bat.

And it actually logically makes sense.  The old "don't shit where you eat" rule.  If Paul Pervert lives at 200 Pecan Street, and kids start to disappear from 300 Pecan, and 400 Pecan, and the cross street at 500 Pecan...he damned well knows he's gonna be the first place the law looks.

Sure, there's gonna be some outliers out there, but among the recidivists, they were MORE likely to choose random locations, not those in proximity to their homes.

Again, if you're going to make a decision based on data meaning something, do some homework to find out if the data indeed actually means what you HYPOTHESIZE that it means.

[NWBuck 8551]

Another element is the confirmation bias that comes with these types of situations... There's one shoe bomber, so now we all need to take our shoes off (if you're the non TSA-approved poors).

TaDa, there's no more shoe bombings! And of course that's not because statistically there weren't going to be any in the first place (one in the history of flight???), but it's because we've enacted new TSA guidelines. We're safer!

Like the old joke about the guy who snaps his fingers to keep the elephants away... when told that there aren't any wild elephants in Texas, he replies "See? It works unbelievably well, doesn't it?"

Edited April 2, 2018 by NWBuck

[jettrink 40]

We fear random acts of depravity because they are a hell of lot more prevalent and at a much larger scale than they were 50 years ago.

[NWBuck 8551]

2 minutes ago, jettrink said:

We fear random acts of depravity because they are a hell of lot more prevalent and at a much larger scale than they were 50 years ago.

And also because we're a lot more aware of things that happen outside of our 45 mile radius of news than we were 50 years ago.

[Brisketexan 105041]

Just now, jettrink said:

We fear random acts of depravity because they are a hell of lot more prevalent and at a much larger scale than they were 50 years ago.

Data please?

And here's just a simple question to get you thinking about what that data might show....is it that random acts of depravity (say, kidnapping and raping random kids) are more prevalent, OR, is it that coverage of such events is much bigger and better than before?

Check the data.  There's never been a safer time to be a child in America.  Heck, in just the past 15 years, sex crimes against children have dramatically DECLINED.

The statistical truth is undeniable: you are safer now in America than at any time in our history.

[jettrink 40]

30 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

And also because we're a lot more aware of things that happen outside of our 45 mile radius of news than we were 50 years ago.

Yep.  The stuff could have been going on and not reported, but I think most metros covered this type of activity routinely.  There have always been gangs and shit, but some Joe Blow walking up and killing 30 people in a restaurant type of incident just didn't happen.

[Brisketexan 105041]

5 minutes ago, jettrink said:

Yep.  The stuff could have been going on and not reported, but I think most metros covered this type of activity routinely.  There have always been gangs and shit, but some Joe Blow walking up and killing 30 people in a restaurant type of incident just didn't happen.

Data shows that mass shootings are getting deadlier (higher body count), but not more frequent.  So, that's absolutely a bad piece of data that motivates fear.

But, when considered in terms of total risk of a person being a victim of a violent crime, we are STILL in the lowest-risk period of our history.  Yes, even accounting for school shootings, the Orlando shootings, the Killeen Luby's, etc.

What you are talking about is the RANDOMNESS aspect of it.  Which is absolutely something that motivates fear.  But it's not a rational fear, it's an emotional one.

My body doesn't care whether it is killed in a random act of violence or in a perfectly ordinary statistically likely way (wreck on my way home, shot by someone I know, killed by a deadly disease).  And by that measure, my body is safer than it ever has been.

[bernorange 8359]

I don't know how comprehensive it is, but it's a fascinating and macabre read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(Americas)

First mass shooting in the USA?  1903.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

We are not animals. This is how you go from Darwin to eugenics so easily. Disgusting. 

[Brisketexan 105041]

15 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

We are not animals. This is how you go from Darwin to eugenics so easily. Disgusting. 

We react to fear stimulus in entirely predictable and manipulable manners.  That ain't one of our "higher life form" traits.  And coming from you, that's a rich criticism.  You beat the fear drum as loudly as anyone on this board.  You beat the drum of animalistic, tribalist bullshit louder than anyone.

And that fact ain't how you get to eugenics.  It's how you get manipulated by Trump and his ilk.  Beat the fear drum to a fever pitch, reap rewards.  Not a new script at all.  

You are either a sucker, or a perpetrator.  Either one looks ugly on you.  

Edited April 2, 2018 by Brisketexan

[jettrink 40]

I am not citing stats Brisket, I am citing life.  Suppose I don't believe the stats?  There is one other thing you may find of interest.  If you think the police are out of control now, you should have lived then.  Maybe that's why I believe crime was controlled(or at least isolated), and people could let their kids run the entire neighborhood without fear.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We react to fear stimulus in entirely predictable and manipulable manners.  That ain't one of our "higher life form" traits.  And coming from you, that's a rich criticism.  You beat the fear drum as loudly as anyone on this board.  You beat the drum of animalistic, tribalist bullshit louder than anyone.

And that fact ain't how you get to eugenics.  It's how you get manipulated by Trump and his ilk.  Beat the fear drum to a fever pitch, reap rewards.  Not a new script at all.  

You are either a sucker, or a perpetrator.  Either one looks ugly on you.  

People reacting to fear in predictable manners doesn't mean we are animals. 

There is a difference between

Man and God

Men and Women

Man and Animals

When you ignore these it is always an insane leftie arguement. I know, I know, Trump is literally Hitler and we want Eugenics. But if your social Darwinism theory is correct, isn't it just the people with genes that adapt to allow more reproduction survive? You can't eliminate morality in humans, or else you walk a slippery "Hitler wasn't wrong" slope.

 

[David Dennison 18837]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

People reacting to fear in predictable manners doesn't mean we are animals. 

There is a difference between

Man and God

Men and Women

Man and Animals

When you ignore these it is always an insane leftie arguement. I know, I know, Trump is literally Hitler and we want Eugenics. But if your social Darwinism theory is correct, isn't it just the people with genes that adapt to allow more reproduction survive? You can't eliminate morality in humans, or else you walk a slippery "Hitler wasn't wrong" slope.

 

There is no such thing as God.

We are animals.

[TwiceHorn 31435]

If you dont like the stats, then you don't like the facts.  You choose to live in fear.

There are hordes of kids running the worst neighborhoods in the country wholly unsupervised by their parents or any adults and they aren't being abducted or mass murdered.  They are becoming gang-bangers, though, but that was predictable.  Using the stats.

Edited April 2, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Data please?

And here's just a simple question to get you thinking about what that data might show....is it that random acts of depravity (say, kidnapping and raping random kids) are more prevalent, OR, is it that coverage of such events is much bigger and better than before?

Check the data.  There's never been a safer time to be a child in America.  Heck, in just the past 15 years, sex crimes against children have dramatically DECLINED.

The statistical truth is undeniable: you are safer now in America than at any time in our history.

Thank God. Its a vicious cycle, as the ones abused as kids tend to abuse kids.

You must admit the Trump admin has gone after pedophiles and human traffickers hard. I think more arrests in 2017 than in the past four years combined. Plus executive orders on freezing their funds and such.

[Brisketexan 105041]

I am not citing stats Brisket, I am citing life.  Suppose I don't believe the stats?  There is one other thing you may find of interest.  If you think the police are out of control now, you should have lived then.  Maybe that's why I believe crime was controlled(or at least isolated), and people could let their kids run the entire neighborhood without fear.

You’re free to “not believe stats”....but that doesn’t make them any less true.

As for cops, I damn well know they were even worse in the past. We just have better video coverage now.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you dont like the stats, then you don't like the facts.  You choose to live in fear.

There are hordes of kids running the worst neighborhoods in the country wholly unsupervised by their parents or any adults and they aren't being abducted or mass murdered.  They are becoming gang-bangers, though, but that was predictable.  Using the stats.

Can you post statistics on this?

I would counter with 

http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/

...as soon as you abandon traditional culture that got civilization this far (marriage) you return to chaos.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There is no such thing as God.

We are animals.

Strike a nerve? I have an avatar for you. I think you can crop out just the fedora.

Brisket - sorry for shitting up your thread bringing up religion.

Edited April 2, 2018 by SmokeyBear1861

[Brisketexan 105041]

Also, I think it needs to be said in the interest of being a good internet friend; you aren’t getting good wood on the ball and hitting the sweet spot like you think you are when you post these “accusations-cum-wisdom”, if that is what you are thinking is going on. It just seems like you feel a bit too good about your positions and your arguments/persuasion when some real work is needed. Especially when your posts towards the end of the shag were the epitome of fear-based.
 
 It does pain me to see a poster of merit and respect like twiceHorn take up your water here.

I’m human. I’m often guilty of the same emotional reactions as the rest of you.

But I’m trying to do better.

As for my read on what a shitshow our president and his followers are....I’m predicting the likely outcome. It’s not “fear” to see the titanic approaching an iceberg and saying “that bodes ill.” Irrational fear is saying “there’s a crisis of icebergs everywhere” when the data shows they aren’t.

[TwiceHorn 31435]

29 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Can you post statistics on this?

I would counter with 

http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/

...as soon as you abandon traditional culture that got civilization this far (marriage) you return to chaos.

That is an ENTIRELY different argument.

 

And brisket and I agree far more often than we disagree.  Like 95-5.  I think he may be a tad unhinged about the state of affair represented by Trumpworld, but I can't say definitively that he's wrong.

Edited April 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[SKJ 1311]

You nailed it, and as has been said "Never let a crisis go to waste..."
Combine the above fear you describe with politicians (and their constituencies) demanding that they "DO SOMETHING!"  And you get shit laws.  There's a bias towards action versus inaction in people's minds; "doing something" e.g. passing a new law, banning a gun, banning brown people, etc is "meaningful" - even if it doesn't actually change anything.
Here's the problem: nothing will change.  It would require laws on the order of 100x the scale of what we're conceiving (probably unconstitutional) to move the needle.  The raw truth that the population can't handle is this: People (including kids) dying in shootings is the price of the freedom embodied in the 2nd amendment.  Terrorists blowing buildings up is the cost of our free and open society.  These things will continue so long as we remain a free and open society - and even turning into a dictatorship can't stop it (see: terrorists still attack Russia ala the theater attack).
It's called reality - many have trouble dealing with that.

Or, you could see it the other way... I mean, really. Obama's presidency caused a run on fucking ammo by people so fearful...

And how the NRA use fear to sell more and more guns.