7 ms·

I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world. Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism? You have a gre

I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world. Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism? You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism and yet you'd give up your right to free speech for some remote threat? That kind of thinking is the cause of north korea and nazi germany. Authoritarians always use remote threats to justify taking your rights away.

adbge 7y ago
It's also produced Singapore.
- int_19h 7y ago
  I would argue that Singapore is an example of a benevolent dictatorship. The problem with all such, that was already noted by Ancient Greeks, is that you have no guarantees that the next dictator is going to be benevolent.
ploika 7y ago
That's a pretty silly example. North Korea is North Korea precisely because of the extremism.
- ameister14 7y ago
  I don't understand that statement. I believe North Korea is a totalitarian state with concentrated power in few hands and no tolerance for dissidence. Are you saying they allow non-state actors to speak and take action freely to promote extreme ideologies there?
  - atoav 7y ago
    The poster probably means that NK is NK, because of its own extremist ideology. So the only way to really get rid of extremists seems to be to become more extreme than them.
    - ameister14 7y ago
      If that's the meaning, then extremism led to the US, France, and a number of other countries.
      - atoav 7y ago
        I didn't say it was the only way of getting rid of extremism. I'd even argue that getting rid of extremism by installing a extremist regime makes as much sense as chopping a leg off because you want to get rid of a headache. It is important to remember, that no nation no matter how great its tales of freedom or historic shame might be is immune against extremism.
- basetop 7y ago
  North Korea became north korea because of censorship. It is the most censored country in the world. And the point is that there is not "extremism" in north korea because censorship allows only "authoritarianism". That's the world you want to live in? I agree with you that censorship is extremism and it should be fought against.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Extremism to a Westerner perhaps. Certainly, the ideology behind North Korea would be censored in most of the proposals on this thread, but given that the government of north korea would not and it is the only government with any control over the country of North Korea, I don't understand by what metric you could possibly say it's extremism. Unless you're appealing to divine justice or something, which would be great, but I sincerely doubt it.
bilbo0s 7y ago
>You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism... I know this is pedantic, but you got me curious so I went to check the numbers. Odds of death in mass shooting (US only): 1 in 11,125 Odds of death by lightning strike (US only): 1 in 161,831 So it seems that it's actually a lot more likely for an American to die in a mass shooting than it is for us to die in lightning strikes. Edit: Sorry. The source was the National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, and the Cato Institute. https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics...
- tomp 7y ago
  From the same source: Odds of death by police: 1 in 7700 Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315 I'd agree with basetop, I'd rather live in a world free of censorship and "full" of extremism.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    These seem like very high odds. Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315 Per the source, "any motor vehicle incident" is actually 1 in 108.
    - tomp 7y ago
      They're lifetime odds, not yearly. > 1 in 108 Oops you're right, I picked the wrong line :D
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  edit: I mixed up yearly statistics vs "lifetime likelihood". I'll leave what I wrote for posterity If the US population is 328,000,000, and each of us has a "1:11,125 odds" of dying in a mass shooting, that would seem to indicate that there are 328m/11,125 = 29,483 "mass shooting deaths" in any given year (I'm happy to accept corrections on my math here, maybe I'm completely missing something). That's patently false, and quite a spurious definition of "mass shooting". My definition of "mass shooting" is an unprovoked attack for terroristic reasons. i.e. NOT a { jealous spouse/drug dealers/gang bangers }. I don't keep an active tally, but I would estimate the number on an "average" year to be about 50, double that during the year we had the vegas shooting. 50/year puts the odds at rougly 1:6,560,000, or about 40x less likely than getting killed by a lightning strike.

adbge 7y ago

It's also produced Singapore.

int_19h 7y ago
I would argue that Singapore is an example of a benevolent dictatorship. The problem with all such, that was already noted by Ancient Greeks, is that you have no guarantees that the next dictator is going to be benevolent.

ploika 7y ago

That's a pretty silly example. North Korea is North Korea precisely because of the extremism.

ameister14 7y ago
I don't understand that statement. I believe North Korea is a totalitarian state with concentrated power in few hands and no tolerance for dissidence. Are you saying they allow non-state actors to speak and take action freely to promote extreme ideologies there?
- atoav 7y ago
  The poster probably means that NK is NK, because of its own extremist ideology. So the only way to really get rid of extremists seems to be to become more extreme than them.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    If that's the meaning, then extremism led to the US, France, and a number of other countries.
    - atoav 7y ago
      I didn't say it was the only way of getting rid of extremism. I'd even argue that getting rid of extremism by installing a extremist regime makes as much sense as chopping a leg off because you want to get rid of a headache. It is important to remember, that no nation no matter how great its tales of freedom or historic shame might be is immune against extremism.
basetop 7y ago
North Korea became north korea because of censorship. It is the most censored country in the world. And the point is that there is not "extremism" in north korea because censorship allows only "authoritarianism". That's the world you want to live in? I agree with you that censorship is extremism and it should be fought against.
tathougies 7y ago
Extremism to a Westerner perhaps. Certainly, the ideology behind North Korea would be censored in most of the proposals on this thread, but given that the government of north korea would not and it is the only government with any control over the country of North Korea, I don't understand by what metric you could possibly say it's extremism. Unless you're appealing to divine justice or something, which would be great, but I sincerely doubt it.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism... I know this is pedantic, but you got me curious so I went to check the numbers. Odds of death in mass shooting (US only): 1 in 11,125 Odds of death by lightning strike (US only): 1 in 161,831 So it seems that it's actually a lot more likely for an American to die in a mass shooting than it is for us to die in lightning strikes. Edit: Sorry. The source was the National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, and the Cato Institute. https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics...

tomp 7y ago
From the same source: Odds of death by police: 1 in 7700 Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315 I'd agree with basetop, I'd rather live in a world free of censorship and "full" of extremism.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  These seem like very high odds. Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315 Per the source, "any motor vehicle incident" is actually 1 in 108.
  - tomp 7y ago
    They're lifetime odds, not yearly. > 1 in 108 Oops you're right, I picked the wrong line :D
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
JudgeWapner 7y ago
edit: I mixed up yearly statistics vs "lifetime likelihood". I'll leave what I wrote for posterity If the US population is 328,000,000, and each of us has a "1:11,125 odds" of dying in a mass shooting, that would seem to indicate that there are 328m/11,125 = 29,483 "mass shooting deaths" in any given year (I'm happy to accept corrections on my math here, maybe I'm completely missing something). That's patently false, and quite a spurious definition of "mass shooting". My definition of "mass shooting" is an unprovoked attack for terroristic reasons. i.e. NOT a { jealous spouse/drug dealers/gang bangers }. I don't keep an active tally, but I would estimate the number on an "average" year to be about 50, double that during the year we had the vegas shooting. 50/year puts the odds at rougly 1:6,560,000, or about 40x less likely than getting killed by a lightning strike.