Viliam comments on [Link] Op-Ed on Brussels Attacks - Less Wrong

-6 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 02 April 2016 05:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (52)
Tags: politics bias attention intentionalinsights wordspreading raisingsanitywaterline rationality

Comments (52)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 09:19:14PM 2 points [-]

First they came for the radical imams and I didn't say anything because I wasn't an imam...

Comment author: Viliam 02 April 2016 09:49:18PM 5 points [-]

Feel free to suggest a better strategy. (Note: It must work reliably, and it must be morally flawless.)

Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 10:07:46PM 0 points [-]

Note: It must work reliably, and it must be morally flawless

Interesting conditions you set.

Comment author: Viliam 02 April 2016 10:15:32PM 6 points [-]

Those are minimum conditions to avoid being immediately criticized here. I probably forgot something, such as the strategy should only be a short inferential distance away from the average reader, etc.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 10:26:27PM *  1 point [-]

Those are minimum conditions to avoid being immediately criticized here.

Ah. No, I don't think they would help you much with avoiding criticism :-/

But I'm not sure what you expected when your suggestion for dealing with people who speak words you don't like is "Just kill them".

Comment author: Viliam 04 April 2016 07:53:13AM *  0 points [-]

Well, now we have at least two options: (1) kill the radical imams, and (2) do nothing and keep the status quo. Anyone is free to suggest more options.

Each option has some disadvantages. You hinted at the problems with 1, which are that if the strategy works, it is likely to go down a slippery slope. First we assassinate Osama bin Laden, then we assassinate our local jihad preacher Abdullah, then we assassinate everyone who criticizes Hillary on Facebook, and then we start building concentration camps for all wrongthinkers. A few times in history a similar thing actually happened, so it is a useful outside view to have.

But there are also problems with 2, and thousands of people are already dying as a consequence of militant islam, to say the obvious.

If you suggest that the option 2 is better than the option 1, I am interested in hearing your arguments. If you have a better option 3, I am also interested in hearing arguments for it.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 April 2016 02:37:05PM *  3 points [-]

Well, now we have at least two options

Imagine something is wrong with your leg. You come to a doctor and tell him about the weird pains in your leg, and how it cramps up occasionally, etc. The doctor thinks for a moment and says: Well, now we have at least two options, (1) cut off your leg, and (2) do nothing. Would you feed that was a reasonable approach to the situation?

I hope you don't think that the problem of dealing with a subversive movement is new. Ruling elites had to figure out what to do about them since time immemorial with regular successes and regular failures. There is no universal answer, never mind a simplistic one. Treating them with kid gloves has been tried (ask the Germans how well did that work with respect to the brown shirts), treating them harshly has been tried (ask the Romans how well did feeding Christians to the lions work). It's complicated.

I am not going to develop a strategy for fighting islamists here, but I strongly suspect that a successful strategy would have the following attributes:

  • Not expressible in a single sentence. Or a single paragraph.
  • Has many parts, in particular both carrots and sticks
  • Changes with time, specifically in response to feedback
  • Somewhat localized -- the US solutions are unlikely to be exactly like the European solutions.
  • Is patient and doesn't expect to fix everything in a month

Why do you expect trivially simple solutions to complex problems?

Comment author: Viliam 06 April 2016 07:57:42AM 0 points [-]

I expect that in order to solve any complex problem, there must be an actionable first step. Otherwise, the problem is likely to get unsolved. (Unless some solution appears randomly in the future.)

In this situation, as the first step I would probably try to establish an organization aimed at reducing islamic terrorism. Maybe just a department within some existing secret service.

Maybe it already happened.

Saying "it's difficult" may be perfectly true, but doesn't bring us any closer to solving the problem.

Comment author: Lumifer 06 April 2016 02:45:33PM *  0 points [-]

I expect that in order to solve any complex problem, there must be an actionable first step.

Sure. Usually it should be "understand what's happening".

Saying "it's difficult" may be perfectly true, but doesn't bring us any closer to solving the problem.

Who is "us"? I am not going to solve that problem. Neither are you. The appropriate national security agencies aren't terrible interested in your or mine (or the whole LW's) opinions.

One of the reasons why politics is discouraged on LW is that in almost all cases you just talk about it, but do not actually do (and cannot do) anything.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 02 April 2016 09:52:32PM 0 points [-]

Agreed with Viliam here. No strategy is going to be morally flawless. We need to figure out what strategy will optimize for the best balance of utilons.

I suggest we talk in numbers here, as opposed to generalities. Give your estimates for what will happen with your theory, and see what other people think.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit