Stop Hysteria over Terrorism: Get Facts, Vote Wisely

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perception and response to terrorism, particularly in relation to societal fear and political manipulation. Participants explore the implications of fear tactics used by various groups and the comparison of these tactics to those employed in environmental debates. The conversation touches on the psychological and economic impacts of terrorism and related fears, as well as the broader cultural context of fear in American politics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the fear of terrorism is exaggerated compared to other risks, such as car accidents, suggesting that this hysteria is driven by media and political narratives.
  • There is a comparison made between the fear tactics used in discussions about terrorism and those used by environmentalists regarding climate change, with some suggesting both sides amplify potential consequences to incite fear.
  • One participant notes that while there may not be a rational basis for fear of terrorism, the psychological aftermath of events like 9/11 continues to influence public perception and political decisions.
  • Concerns are raised about the economic damage that could result from terrorist acts, particularly through the use of dirty bombs, which could instill widespread fear and disrupt daily life despite potentially low physical casualties.
  • Another participant questions the framing of environmentalists as an opposing side to anti-terrorism advocates, suggesting that fear is a common theme across various political issues.
  • There is a suggestion that the culture of fear in American politics drives consumption and societal behavior, with terrorism fears being more impactful than environmental concerns like climate change.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and impact of fear surrounding terrorism and environmental issues. There is no clear consensus on whether the fear is justified or how it should be addressed, indicating ongoing disagreement and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various societal fears and their implications without resolving the complexities of these issues. The discussion highlights the interplay between fear, political narratives, and public behavior, but does not settle on specific definitions or outcomes.

Dissident Dan
Messages
244
Reaction score
1
Stop buying duct tape and water bottles. You have more chance of dying in a car accident than dying in a terrorist act. Terrorism is a serious problem, yes, but it does not warrant the current hysteria. Some people who have little to no serious threat to fear are seriously scared for their lives due to the scaremongering of the admin and the media and will vote solely based on that fear (a fear which interferes with their rational processes for deciding who and what actions will do the best job to prevent terrorism).

It's been going on for a long time, and will continue as such. People in many countries get it much worse than we do.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are these scare tactics along the same lines as those offered by environmentalists? You know... SUVs are dooming the planet, and we must do something about it now or risk global catastrophe. That sort of stuff.

Both sides play up the consequences. We have been told repeatedly that the world is now coming to an end because the Arab/Muslim population doesn't like us any more (as if they ever did).
 
There might not be a rational reason to be scared of terrorism, but the after effects of an attack like 911 could be scary. I think the biggest scare tactic today tho is an after effect which hasnt happened, but ppl are suggesting is going to happen if Bush does another 4yrs.
 
on the subject of scare tactics... i was reading an article in a magazine that was saying 'they don't need to kill a lot of people to cause damage'. the article was about dirty bombs and how everyone is paranoid about bad radiation that if a terroist group blew a few off in urban cores, the damage to the actual buildings would be small, the casualtys would be realitivly small but the economic damage would be Huge, suddenly no one would want to go to work because they don't want to get radiated, people start using rad resistant suits and using gas masks and the next thing you know, the land value dropes, people lose jobs because they don't want to go to the shops close to the blast. most of the damage would be because people had unfounded fears
 
... or, if icebergs melt, Bangladesh will be flooded and millions will lose their lives.

As I said, both sides use scare tactics. They are an American way of life in politics.
 
What I don't get is how enviromentalists are the 'other side' of anti-terrorists.

I don't even know why there is another side, the bottom line is, in the worlds of Marlyn Manson, "it's just this campaign of fear, and consumption, and that's what I think it's all based on, the whole idea of 'keep everyone afraid, and they'll consume"

As a side note: Fear of terrorism seems to have a much larger effect then the melting of the ice caps.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 114 ·
4
Replies
114
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 193 ·
7
Replies
193
Views
24K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
29K