I live in greece, but france is my country and I haven't heard back from my sister who lives around there. I know the odds are she's fine, but there's still the doubt in my mind.

It certainly feels different when you feel affected. You want to be reactionary. You want to have a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe I now understand why people are so quick to try to blame the issue on a certain cause.

But inside me I've spent my time fighting against this. I know that those attacks are not done "just for fun", they are driven by what makes them so effective: The fear they instill. The panic. The people who want to start putting the blame on a marginalized group that is prone to violence by their own situation.

Part of me wants to elaborate, but another part of me feels too sick to actually write more about this. I just want to go to bed, forget it happened.

I would like to ask the HN community to please not be reactionary about it. Please don't be xenophobic. Please don't marginalize groups.

And I have actually only seen one comment talking about car accidents, in a very different light than what you imply... so add to that, please don't make shit up.

Is she on Facebook? You can try https://www.facebook.com/safetycheck/paris_terror_attacks/ . J'espère que tout vas bien.

Thank you. It didn't help unfortunately.

Your reasoned reaction here, is exactly how I would hope to act in the same situation. Thank you and I hope you will hear from your sister soon.

Why? You'd prefer racism and hatred?

The point of terrorism is to provoke a reaction. To quote the German RAF terrorist Ulrike Meinhof on the subject: "A war 6 against 60 million can not be won. All we [the terrorist] can do, is to tear down the mask of democracy and expose the fascist face of the state." So what is damaging is not the terror itself, what damages the social fabric is the overreaction. Terrorists should just be tried like other criminals, not given the reaction they want.

> Terrorists should just be tried like other criminals, not given the reaction they want.

Exactly, and very important, not given the platform they want, the media are very much a part of this as well.

Yup - when I expressed similar sentiments about the killing of Jihadi John, somebody sarcastically said I was trying to bring about world peace (I wouldn't mind).

We have to fight for enlightenment values, and need to lead by example - we can't make martyrs out of people.

Only because people let it. There is little danger form actual terrorism, but there is massive danger from people's reactions to terrorism.

I think you underestimate the impact this type of terrorism has. The real massive danger is constantly trying to downplay it. The simple fact is, when facing an irrational enemy the last thing you can do is try to shift the blame to those who react.

It's practically impossible to underreact to terrorism, since its goal is to incense you and provoke a reaction. Mourn the loss, and take reasonable steps to prevent it, but dont put deaths to terrorist attacks on a pedastal as more tragic than other losses or make the perpetrators into some sort of demonic antiheroes.

What impact? They kill a few people. That's terrible, but it's not even enough to dent the murder statistics. Let alone all causes of premature death.

The only impact is people's reaction to it. Blame should be shifted to those who react. It absolutely should be downplayed.

There were less than 100 homicides in Paris in 2012 and 2013 [1]. More than 100 might have been killed today.

[1] http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/05/05/01016-201...

And compared to the average for that block it's even worse.

The point being of the people murdered in France this year less than 1/5th of them where killed by terrorists. Yet, the other 4/5th don't make international news.

Yes, this is a tragedy, so are all those other deaths.

PS: Even at over twice the normal rate, the average US city is far worse every year.

There are around 700 people murdered in France each year. But in most cases it's someone from your family killing you, or someone that hates you for some reason, or you're involved in criminal activities.

Maybe there are 100 people killed in France in a typical year by complete strangers. And we're talking about 180 people (maybe more) killed in 2015 by complete strangers and in the name of Allah. I don't think that can be easily ignored.

Most people ignore the 400,000+ people murdered every year.

What's hard, is accepting that things like this happen, but there not reason to alter policy in any meaningful way.

> It absolutely should be downplayed.

Wait till you live in Iraq or Afghanistan where these incidents occur on a daily basis and see if you will still stand by your statement or revisit it very soon.

But we aren't talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. We are talking about Western countries where terrorist attacks are not that common.

The enemy is not irrational. The moment you understand that, you'll understand why fear is not the answer.

Try convincing fear is not rational to the people close to the attacks today. I understand what your point is, but the fact is that fear is exactly what people will feel.

I know. :(

Someone blowing himself up is not irrational?

The ones blowing themselves up are the pawns. They are driven to do this generally by the environment.

The pack leaders are the rational ones. The ones that stand to gain the most from organizing these horrors.

>The real massive danger is constantly trying to downplay it.

No, it's not. The danger is over reacting, as history has proven time and time again. Fear is not the answer.

Well it's true that France doesn't need to pass their own patriot act tomorrow and start restricting freedoms, under reacting is also possible. The fact is they were attacked and a response is necessary. It doesn't need to be reactionary, it can be thoughtful and measured, but something needs to be done.

I don't think anyone is saying that there should be no response, people just think we shouldn't over react. Closing off the borders and refusing to take more Middle Eastern refugees is a sane response, starting more wars is an insane response.

I think you'd feel differently if you had a loved one in the towers on 9/11

In times of tragedy it is especially important to think rationally. This does not demean ones loss, but prevents further loss from occurring.

I have no idea what your point is. If I lost a loved one to a vending machine accident, I might develop a really irrational fear of vending machines. It doesn't mean vending machines are a threat to our society.

I know someone who is deadly afraid of putting shoes on tables. Because her friend did that before dying in a traffic accident.

Why are you so convinced that terrorism is not a threat to society? Lots of Romans probably thought the Huns were a laughable foe as well.

Well I'll start with these two gwern essays:

Terrorism is not Effective: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective

Terrorism is not About Terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror

Just look at the statistics. The total number of people killed by terrorists is negligible. And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals.

I remember the Boston bombing. That same week, there was another explosion at a chemical plant that killed many more people, and blew up a nursing home. Guess which event got more press, by a large amount? Which event are people more likely to remember? Can you even name what city the chemical plant exploded in or remember any details about it?

Why is this? It's because people react to violence much differently than they react to accidents. Because thousands of years ago, violence was the one cause of death you could do something about. If you got an infection, or if a natural disaster struck, or a famine broke out, etc, those are all out of your control. But if someone was a threat to your family or tribe, you could fight them, or flee from them.

We have many emotions and social instincts whose entire purpose is to deal with other humans that threaten us. Like paranoia, anger, and hate. No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. People hate the Tsarnaev brothers.

I think that you have all the answers to the questions you posted here on why people in general have disproportionate reactions to death caused by violence and death caused by accidents.

It's all about human agency and intentions. Terrorist attacks are carried out by HUMANS with the clear INTENTION of inflicting harm on the populace. Accidents on the other hand lack these essential factors. When I walk by a chemical plant, it never crosses my mind that the plant would attack me or be capable of doing such a thing and therefore I am not worried to be around but on the other hand if I happen to be walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, I would be very wary of people around me because I know very well that some of them might inflict harm on me for any reason.

So, I think that the comparison you drew between these two categories is not that solid and that people have every right to be "terrified" of terrorism and take all the precautionary measures to stop/prevent it.

I don't think that bit about 0 groups achieving goals through terrorism is true. For example, didn't the Medellin cartel effectively use terrorism?

>And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals.

Hmm. Wasn't it Bin Laden's goal to restore the Islamic Caliphate?

> No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it.

Don't speak too soon. We have several political movements dedicated to this.

Exactly. Look at what the Shining Path did in Peru.

Blow up enough people often enough and fear and panic will become pervasive. People stop opening their shops, investments stop coming.

Terror is a pretty effective way to overthrow a gov't.

Algeria.

Great example.

Another is South Vietnam.

Although there was a war going on the NLF did a great job of terrorizing the local population and installing their own shadow government. The terror attacks fractured the populations allegiance to the South Vietnamese gov't (what good is a gov't that can't protect you?).

Terrorism can be an effective tool in guerrilla warfare.

The point is that the effect that attack has had on the US for the past 14 years has been massive. Probably thousands of new security protocols are in place, that arguably wouldn't have stopped an attack like that had they been in place previously.

Every time they strike they put us on edge, and we make new laws and protocols to protect ourselves, giving up freedom in the name of security.

He might feel differently. He's still right that the overreaction causes more damage than the terrorist attack did.

I even think that if you had a loved one in the towers on 9/11 you could feel inclined to go to a third unrelated country, like... lets say Irak, and start to killing thousands of innocent civilians, also loved by somebody. This would be a bad idea of course.

Flashing the towers card here sounds a little embarrassing in retrospective. Sadly, the I.Snake is also the bastard son of Bush great plans for Irak and the Guantanamo shame.

> Terrorist acts damage the social fabric far beyond the death toll. That's the whole point of terrorism.

And that's why we very much should not react by further damaging the social fabric ourselves, but that is extremely hard, especially when everybody will be clamoring for some kind of reaction.

Wait, so you're disappointed that people are downplaying the situation because they're defeating the purpose of terrorism?

If it were universally ignored, it wouldn't damage the social fabric.

So, when I first heard the news, my though was that when in France 40 people get gunned down it is a national emergency, whereas in Mexico (where I am from) it is an statistically peaceful day. That's what no reaction or military-first reaction gets you (well, combined with a lot more issues, but having this be "normal" is part of the problem back there).

I do think you want to treat it as "murder is a serious crime and needs to be prosecuted and punished" rather than "this is an act of Islamic terrorism and we need to declare War on Terror!". But, universally ignored is hardly how you want to react. You want to close borders and you want to declare emergency and you want to, ideally, apprehend these people using conventional police. You do not want to live in a permanent state of panic or build a police state after the fact, and you definitely don't want to take out your anger on a whole population of people over the actions of a small radical group. But you do want a, rational but concerned, reaction.

Right now, you want to get people to safety, help the survivors and catch those responsible, in that order.

Certainly, I wouldn't want it ignored by law enforcement and first responders. Beyond that though, the public's reaction is the objective of the terrorists. Reacting to these events is literally "letting the terrorists win."

I guess I just wish there was a possibility for a better reaction than what we will probably see (this has already been called "an act of war" by Hollande...). I am not a fan of treating terrorism in a "don't feed the troll" sort of way. I do wish our collective reaction were more reasonable, more measured and more humanitarian, though, despite the natural sentiments this sort of thing produces and seeks to produce.

I don't think ignoring the problem is the only way to not let the terrorists win. But I do agree responding militarily or by widespread panic is what they most likely want.

Ignoring it would also destroy the social fabric.

A scene from Brazil that explores this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4KFNhxibec

When I (did) read "a scene from Brazil" I thought the video would be some sort of commom crime we have here, which in certain cases are very similar to terrorism. And people has been always adapting to it, so it's just shit almost nobody cares anymore. And it's growing year after year.

Well, just to say my misunderstanding of to which Brazil it was referred.

You make it sound quite easy. I am personally not able to ignore something like this even though I understand a robotic reaction would help the situation. The problem is a lasting overreaction, not having feelings of sympathy.

I'm disappointed that people always use tragedies to try to censor other opinions.

yes. the damage goes way beyond the death toll. it will be interesting to see how (if) this impacts current policies towards the middle east/syria/isis, personal freedoms/surveillance laws etc.

maybe it will also have a side-effect of uniting people and countries against a common threat to all humanity.

State of emergency and closing borders are already personal freedom restrictions.

> maybe it will also have a side-effect of uniting people and countries against a common threat to all humanity.

I don't think that will happen. Remember "Je suis Charlie"? How long did that sentiment last?

It's a matter of time before people will be writing 'Je suis Francais', and then promptly forget it a few days or weeks later.

What a shitty outlook.

Even worse is that I agree.

Can we do anything to change it?

That is the million dollar question. And it's a hard one. I believe that yes, we can do something but I don't believe there is a magical incantation or a simple and short thing that we can do. It will take many years (decades) to slowly un-wind this mess and in the meantime it could get a lot worse and that lone might be enough to lose the plot on any plan that isn't perceived as a silver bullet but that actually has a chance of working.

>That is the million dollar question. And it's a hard one. I believe that yes, we can do something but I don't believe there is a magical incantation or a simple and short thing that we can do. It will take many years (decades) to slowly un-wind this mess and in the meantime it could get a lot worse and that lone might be enough to lose the plot on any plan that isn't perceived as a silver bullet but that actually has a chance of working

I admire your patience for sure. The hope that we have decades to unwind this mess.

I fear, though, militant religious sects may not have the same self control.

I fear that the inability or lack of willingness to meet violence with violence may be the downfall of rationality. We rightfully shun violence in place of discussion, but as is evident (again), we are not dealing with rational actors.

I think a discussion about how we can realistically meet this violence with violence is warranted. Sam Harris made a good argument for this in this podcast: http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-...

We have in a way changed the paradigm already. A bad actor brandishing a box cutter on a plane is to be sure to be met with resistance that wouldn't have been seen pre 9/11.

> I fear, though, militant religious sects may not have the same self control.

But that could actually be an advantage. The more people see them for the nutcases they are the shorter the path to a possible solution.

> I fear that the inability or lack of willingness to meet violence with violence may be the downfall of rationality. We rightfully shun violence in place of discussion, but as is evident (again), we are not dealing with rational actors.

The danger in dealing with non-rational actors is that rational people will either do one of two things: they will join the non-rational actors and will respond non-rationally themselves, or they will persist in setting up a rational frame of reference for dialogue with the non-rational actors, which clearly will not work.

So the solution is to treat non-rational actors as exactly what they are: crazy, and deal with them accordingly.

>But that could actually be an advantage. The more people see them for the nutcases they are the shorter the path to a possible solution.

Sorry for not being clear. I'm not speaking about others perception; we can easily discern they are out of shape. They, though, don't care what the rest of us rational people think.

>So the solution is to treat non-rational actors as exactly what they are: crazy, and deal with them accordingly.

Agreed. What I'm arguing is that that may involve reciprocating violence -- which we (rightfully) inherently tend to avoid. You can't rationalize with irrational people.

In that situation, we need multiple people to be willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. In today's world, the modus operandi is to cower and hope things pass over or to sympathize with the attackers views. This will not work going forward as the attackers could give a fuck what you think or how you feel so long as your death plays into their idea of making the world right.

Only because people like you seem to think it's such a big deal. If people were to look at it as it is and comprehend the scope of the matter, it wouldn't damage the social fabric.

This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack, and the answer isn't just "stop making such a big deal about it". When I get into a car, I'm putting myself in a situation that could be dangerous, and am accepting those risks for the reward of not having to walk to work. When these people sat down to have a drink, watch a soccer game, or enjoy a concert, they were doing so with the implicit safety that those venues and events provide. It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected", and your answer can't just be "stop making such a big deal", because if we didn't make a big deal, the attacks would get bigger, broader, and more damaging until they got the reaction that they wanted. It's a complex problem with a lot of moving pieces, and this answer just takes away from that and presumes that there's a simple answer to a very hard problem.

> It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected"

No it's not - people die from unexpected accidents completely unaware of the risks all the time - intuitive risk perception doesn't work really well - caveman instincts and all that - risk perception is not the problem - if this was indeed an isolated incident that would not repeat it would be sad but not very relevant - an example of this is Breivik murders.

But obviously this is not comparable - people behind this will try to repeat it if not dealt with - this is why it's a big deal.

"This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack,"

Unfortunatley from a mathematical standpoint you are incorrect, from an irrational human standpoint you have a point however.

The human mind is much worse at reasoning and reality than anticipated, how you and others perceive the world is not as real as you'd like to think, thats the whole point of math and science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

I don't agree. There's a stark difference between a car accident and a fellow human being pumping rounds into people in your local restaurant. The other driver is not trying to kill you typically.

Then the relevant detail to compare to would be the number of other violent crimes that occur on a far too regular basis.

Why does intention matter?

> Terrorist acts damage the social fabric far beyond the death toll.

Intention is all that matters, and why its attempting to damage social fabric.

London. Paris. Madrid. New York. Why are these the cities terrorists have targeted? Perhaps because, say, a Londoner who dies in a graphic way will cause more notoriety-- i.e. stir more terror-- than a Bangladeshi. It maximizes their bang for... uhh... their bang. Given the size of the world's suicide problem, starvation problem, poverty problem, rape problem, etcetera etcetera, of course terrorism actually isn't of much relative consequence. It intends to make people like you freak out, viscerally (just as CNN et al does when they cover these so much).

I'm not changing a damn thing in how I live my life, and not even out of courage (i.e. the "we can't let the terrorists win" bromide that took over in America in late 2001). It just shouldn't matter that much to you, and it only prevails insomuch as you let these irrational fears get to you.

But people like you who are over reacting are the people who are allowing the social fabric to be damaged.

So if I intend to kill you horribly, but instead serve you a nice cup of chamomile tea and a comfy pair of slippers, is intention still all that matters?

I'm not trying to be flip. I'm saying that by any viable moral theory, you are catastrophically wrong.

That's exactly the attitude with which we will get the situation Michel Houellebecq describes in his "Submission" novel.

Absolutely, it's a horrible horrible thing. Makes you think of all those unnecessary shootings in the US.

You have a point, but what kind of reaction do you want/expect?

Most of HN can't wait for the complete automation of society so I guess acting and feeling like robots or cold algorithms would do it.

While this is a horrible attack, they are completely right. Terrorism is not something that is happening everywhere and when we let our selves succumb to fear we risk over-reacting. The reason so many terrorists exist is in large part due to Western intervention.

I think a lot of people are afraid that these incidents will lead to more wars in the Middle East, create more terrorists, and cause more attacks. This will further erode our fourth amendment freedoms and probably the second too, which is exactly what the terrorists want.