Hacker News Reader

>The safer our society gets the more afraid we become and the less tolerant we seem to become of risk.

I completely disagree. Even with our crime rates being much lower than decades ago, the US is still nowhere near as safe as Japan, yet in Japan they're not remotely as risk-averse as we are (particularly in regards to kids being outside without their parents). It's very much part of their culture to have kids walk themselves to school at an early age.

I'm pretty sure it's similar in western European and Scandinavian countries: they're very safe too (particularly the Scandinavian ones), and don't treat kids and parents this way.

This is something unique to the US.

And this really touches on something I think Americans are really, really horrible at: thinking about the rest of the world. Instead of looking at our brains and trying to use psychology to figure this out, why not just look at what other humans in other countries are doing? Americans are not biologically unique. This is a cultural problem.

The thing that doesn't work with that argument is that our crime rates really were substantially higher back when we let our kids roam free. We aren't as safe as some countries but we're a lot safer than we were in, say, 1980 or 1990.

The urban crime wave of the 1970s - 1990s really was pretty awful.

So what you're saying is...the kids were the real criminals all along.

Everything is fine now that we got all those little hooligans off the streets.

> This is a cultural problem.

Obviously.

> why not just look at what other humans in other countries are doing?

Like some sort of top-down policy...what exactly are you referring to?

---

api conjectured about the cause of the US culture shift over the past few decades, but never said that child protectionism had a univariate relationship.

> Things were much more dangerous in the 60s through the early 90s and people felt a lot safer.

I seriously think that the glut of sick and twisted TV shows and movies that depict the most horrific crimes imaginable are partly to blame.

When I go to my parents' house and they're watching primetime network TV, I'm shocked at the content. Blood and guts and torture and sex crimes all over the place.

Skepticism is always warranted around speculations like this, but I've wondered for many years if there isn't a deliberate campaign to keep people in a state of fear.

There's a fairly decent BBC piece that explores this idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTg4qnyUGxg

It basically argues that people no longer buy into utopian political ideologies so politicians and political parties have pivoted toward using negative arguments (fear, hate) to motivate the people to follow them. It's not really an elaborate conspiracy theory per se... think of it as a marketing pivot.

Conspiracy? Honestly, I think it's just very entertaining content made by adults who grew up as kids addicted to slasher films, violent video games, and police procedurals.

Yeah I found that quite surprising, too. It's not like I'm not consuming action-blood-guts-media, but that's generally more disconnected from reality (scifi, WW3, fantasy etc.). I can see how watching crime shows depicting this-could-really-happen-in-your-neighborhood crimes on a daily basis could shift perception. These often tend to heavily lean on stereotypes and tropes, too, so I wouldn't be surprised if these shows reinforce them.

I've recently moved to the US from the UK, and I've had several Americans mention that they would like to visit Europe but are worried about the danger of terrorism. I tried to explain that any increased risk of terrorism is massively outweighed by the large decrease in risk of dying in a car accident, but that wasn't terribly successful.

If you're visting Kabul you've got a legit reason to be afraid of terrorism — if you're afraid of terrorism in Munich, Berlin, Hamburg or Hanover you're simply a propaganda victim.

> massively outweighed by the large decrease in risk of dying in a car accident

Death by car is kind of the concern....

> simply a propaganda victim

Last 3 years: [1]

* Car attack by the Islamic State in Barcelona (24 killed, 152 injured)

* Car + knife attack by the Islamic State in London (11 killed, 48 injured)

* Bombing by the Islamic State in Manchester (23 killed, 250 injured)

* Car attack by the Islamic State in Berlin (12 killed, 56 injured)

* Car attack by the Islamic State in Nice, France (87 killed, 434 injured)

* Bombing by the Islamic State in Brussels (35 killed, 340 injured)

* Shooting and bombing by the Islamic State in Paris (137 killed, 368 injured)

Yes, you're right....a dozen here and hundred there means nothing in the overall picture of Western Europe.

But it doesn't exactly take a propaganda machine for that to have a significant physiological effect. Especially when looking at the details: these weren't back-alley muggings, bad-part-of-town shootings, or gang turf struggles. They were in tourist-friendly, public places in broad daylight, with substantial law enforcement presence. (Four unarmed police officers died trying to stop the stabbers on London Bridge.)

The story of the few seems to naturally have a large effect on the human mind. HN top 20 currently has a story of a mishandled justice for a single person https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17625385 See the comments for extrapolation onto the judgment of the US justice system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe#Deadliest_...

In the US, there's a legitimate propaganda effort to paint Europe as a den of "Islamic terrorism". You'll see these talking points echoed online, in memes, by politicians and on TV.

You can watch, in hilarity, as propagandist YouTubers go into European "no-go zones"[1], where they're met with casual street traffic, children playing and, often times, absolute peace and tranquility[2]. These "no-go zones" are supposed dens of radical extremists that assault and kill anyone who is not from the Middle East or Muslim.

Or, you can read the hundreds, if not thousands, of attempts to paint Sweden as a den of sexual assault against natives by scary foreigners. They completely ignore that the rise in sexual assault numbers have to do with recent recategorizing of what are legally recognized as sex crimes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area, do a quick Ctrl-F for Fox, CNN, etc and you'll see how widespread of an effort is being taken to paint Europe as dangerous to exist in if you are light-skinned or not Muslim.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pochreLwrQs

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/..., an op-ed piece complaining about the fact that CNN was quick to parrot the "no-go zone" talking point without first checking their facts

Did you read Wikipedia? While there has been a lot of smoke, the Belgian home affairs Minister and the German chancellor both said there were "no-go areas" in their countries.

And while not Western Europe, a reporter was stopped (even without camera crew) from going the most Muslim part of Sydney, for fear she would offend the residents and they would commit crimes https://youtu.be/LqY4Z1fTrMc

Did you watch the video?

The officer's words: "The local community walks around here without any fear, I walk around here without any fear."

She's a professional provocateur with a clear anti-Muslim agenda. The officer stopped her because he believed she was disturbing the peace, and I'd have to agree.

Try doing what she's doing at a New York City synagogue and see how long it takes until the cops are called.

Somehow, I don't believe, "I'm just trying to criticize International Jewry!" would fly in that situation.

This is another example of a neighborhood where there's casual street traffic, children playing and absolute peace and tranquility if we ignore the woman gawking at people while loudly decrying their presence, ethnicity and religion on camera. I'd call the police, too, if such a person was trying to make an example out of me while wholly disturbing the peace.

You can basically do anything in NYC.

That's where Candid Camera did all their antics.

I refuse to believe Candid Camera did anything as heinous as harassing people for their religion and ethnicity and then making a show out of going to their place of worship to "just criticize" an international conspiracy they purport as existing.

That YouTuber has been banned from entering the UK for inciting racial hatred. I don't believe it's wise to take anything she says or shows on her channel at face value.

I find it concerning that you're willing to put her brand of divisive hate on par with Candid Camera's pranks, as if what she's doing is just silly antics.

But...surely you were joking about contrary opinions near religious centers?

* Protest outside Christian Church, claiming they incite violence [1]

* Protest outside Mormon Temple, claiming Nazi agenda [2]

* Protest outside Jewish synagogue claiming subversive global influence [3]

* Protest outside Catholic Church claiming heretical views [4]

* Protest outside United Church of Christ claiming pedophilia [5]

...and many, many more full-on sign-waiving, chant-shouting, screaming protests.

Not a person traveling past a mosque who is well known for her criticism of Islam.

[1] http://ewn.co.za/2017/01/29/lgbti-members-demonstrate-outsid...

[2] https://www.hjnews.com/anti-lds-protesters-stake-out-prime-s...

[3] https://www.newsweek.com/charlottesville-police-refused-prot...

[4] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholics-protest-at-kaine...

[5] http://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2017/11/man-spewing-...

Take a look at that YouTuber's channel[1] and tell me with a straight face that using terms like "antics" and "contrary opinions" accurately describes what she's doing or the positions she holds.

What's your agenda?

> But...surely you were joking about contrary opinions near religious centers?

Surely, you aren't trying to strawman a position that's literally one post above yours.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCla6APLHX6W3FeNLc8PYuvg/vid...

> tell me with a straight face that using terms like "antics" and "contrary opinions" accurately describes what she's doing or the positions she holds

[Straight face]

There's no question she is an ardent critic of Islam. She said as much during her conversation with law enforcement, which said she couldn't freely go in the Muslim neighborhood.

As for comparison, yes, I believe her actions in Sydney were less antagonistic than the many examples I listed.

Being afraid there is as reasonable as being afraid in every American skyscraper because of 9/11. The latter might actually be, purely from a casualty statistics perspective, more reasonable.

Also not all countries in Europe are the same. E.g. France, UK and Belgium have more issues in general with islamists and thus more terrorism than e.g. Germany, Italy, Poland, ...

For example, in Germany the only significant islamic terrorist attack remains the Breitscheidplatz attack with 12 dead.

There's a strong recency component.

Indeed, following 9/11:

* Delta, Northwest, United, and US Airways filed for bankruptcy

* New York City lost $320m in tourism revenue

* New York City jobs were cut by 450,000 and wages by $2.8b over three months

* Even unrelated tourism was affected.. I lived near Orlando, FL, and the entertainment parks were near ghost towns for weeks.

Assuming Europe stops the regular cadence of large Islamist terror attacks, this fades from memory and in a decade everything is back to normal in the public mind.