-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“F” for statistical rigor. Terrorism is not Gaussian; means are not comparable. Mr. Pinker, u should know better than to spread this junk.
-
A reaction to people calling him the darling of the alt-right maybe, bcos this is rather out of character.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is an asinine assessment of facts. The number is low because of thwarted threats, most of which are never covered by news or even declassified. Here's a statistic for you, your home has had 0 break ins, you are wasting money on locks and alarms, leave your door open at night
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This is confusing. At least 3000 Americans were killed by terrorists in 2001. How do we arrive at 6 per year? Average over 500 years of our history? I agree that we shouldn't exaggerate, but the quoted statistic seems in error.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
It’s also a bit dishonest to only measure deaths after 9/11. The terror threat to lives is very discontinuous and infrequent. So if you want a more honest assessment you need a long period including many large death events
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I disagree. Diseases do not aim to harm, terrorists, do. If you ignore - to cure a disease that kills 5 in a year, it will (probably) keeps killing 5 a year. - terrorism that kills 5 in a year, it will (probably) be killing orders of magnitude more in the next year.
-
Similarly; one can ignore a small burn on hand, but one should not ignore a small melanoma.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In principle I see the logic. But terrorism isn’t about causing deaths but about causing fear. And it has caused far more fear than any disease that has lead to the same or greater number of deaths.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Steven, That reasoning is an instance of false equivalency of costs. A disease that kills even 100k will not escalate to interfere with the velocity of cooperation (externalities) - nor be curable. While terrorism can both escalate and be cured.
-
(I know you're trying to educate the vox populi on relative risk, but likewise I try to do the same by illustrating that comparison of costs requires full accounting of the seen and unseen.)
-
I'd be appreciative of a laymen explanation.
-
(a) We spend a lot of money on anti-terrorism (the islamic counter-revolution against modernity, which is the latest iteration of the Ashkenazi counter-revolution (marx, freud, boaz, cantor), and the German( Kant, Hegel, etc), French v1(Rousseau) and v2 (Derrida et all).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
By the same logic, we shouldn't exaggerate the threat posed by nuclear weapons...pic.twitter.com/vuun8C5edr
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Dumb article. The indirect effects from terrorism are HUGE, including traffic deaths as ppl substitute towards car transport.
-
Correct. According to one study after 911 the fear of flying alone caused additional 1500 killed in traffic on just one year. Thats 1500 divided by 17 years. A lot more than 6 deaths per year which Mueller ignored.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.