= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (275)
What terrorists want is irrelevant. "Don't play into enemy hands" is irrelevant. The entire discussion is irrelevant.
The correct response to enemy action is the response that furthers your own ends. It doesn't matter what effect this has on your enemy, good, neutral, or positive; your long-term ends matter.
"The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this." A particularly relevant quote from Musashi, used by Eliezer on at least one occasion in the sequences.
Avoiding doing what the enemy wants is mere parrying. Stop mere parrying, and cut.
There is an interesting argument that the Western countries have lost the capability. Europe leads the way and the US is now following it.
Not the capability in a technical sense, but the will. Not offending the Muslims who arrived in the last few decades seems to be of much higher importance to many politicians, than anything else.
Yes. Notice the important part in the quote in the grandparent post: "the primary thing is ... your intention to cut the enemy".
So, figure out why that is and fix it. I suspect a large part of the problem is pseudo-rationalists like Gleb arguing that "fighting terrorists is playing into their hands".
LOL. How about this: you go tell Cthulhu he's swimming the wrong way, and I stay here and watch X-)