To add another point, not only does this Steven-Pinkerism or whatever name this ideology deserves ignore tail risk, it also fails to analyse things from any point of view that isn't ten mile birds-eye utilitarianism.
The primary motivation behind terrorism, is as the name suggests, not material violence but psychological damage and attack on the nerve centers and political systems and ideologies of targets. The physical violence is only secondary and a tool. So to evaluate terrorism in terms of body count, and not generated fear, is quite myopic.
It also of course ignores that systems aren't uniform and can take blows at any point with equal consequence. Terrorism at a political focal point of 10k people can collapse a nation state a thousand times as large, ask Franz Ferdinand and Europe. The effects aren't linear.
It's quite frightening to see how shallow and superficial the analysis of people has become who are apparently in charge of our institutions, because this thinking is extremely prevalent.
This is a really interesting point. It reminds me of the story of the American soldier meeting a former Vietcong many years after the Vietnam war. The American said, "Every time we met you guys in the field we beat you. You never won a battle." The Vietcong replied, "That is true. It is also irrelevant." Vietnam was a great example of how misleading measures and statistics could be.
This article was about causes of death. They perfectly reproduced the causes of death versus the reports.
The interpretation that we should not discuss certain causes of death as much was only added in this thread. The only implication discussed in the article seemed to be "Perhaps we should provide more context".
I would say that people dying from outlier events is newsworthy because they are outliers, not that we should cover events in the proportion of their occurance in real life. That'd be awfully dull.
The primary motivation behind terrorism, is as the name suggests, not material violence but psychological damage and attack on the nerve centers and political systems and ideologies of targets. The physical violence is only secondary and a tool. So to evaluate terrorism in terms of body count, and not generated fear, is quite myopic.
It also of course ignores that systems aren't uniform and can take blows at any point with equal consequence. Terrorism at a political focal point of 10k people can collapse a nation state a thousand times as large, ask Franz Ferdinand and Europe. The effects aren't linear.
It's quite frightening to see how shallow and superficial the analysis of people has become who are apparently in charge of our institutions, because this thinking is extremely prevalent.