Live data from Hacker News

State of emergency in France

gist.github.com

51–60 of 239 posts

Re: State of emergency in France

#51
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draconian measures targeted against large ethnic groups has been historically unsuccessful in Europe. It also grievously violates the core principles of an open and liberal society, which are presumably what we are supposed to be defending. Vehemently disagreeing with your opinion is a crucial necessity for anyone who stands for democracy and liberty.

Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…

I strongly vote for #1. The attack, while tragic, was small-scale, and should not be treated as anything else as organized crime. Have the police find all responsible and bring them to justice. Anything else is basically doing what the terrorists want you to do - overreact.

We should learn from the mistakes of the United States: two long, bloody and expensive wars, bombing third country and terrorizing fourth, mass surveillance and transportation security theatre - all tallying up to orders of magnitude more innocent deaths than caused by 9/11 attacks, which themselves amounted to something around 3-4 month's worth of traffic-related deaths in the US.

Re: State of emergency in France

#52
post #28
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is to monitor all Muslims living in Europe And Christians, of course (Brevik). Probably atheists and Jews as well, just in case.

Please don't partially quote me as it alters the meaning: > is to monitor all Muslims living in Europe who have the potential to be radicalised The last part of that is important. I'm talked about targeted surveillance.

Most of my Muslim friends are not particularly religious. But they can't really discuss that in the company from "the old country", both because of social problems and because it might be physically dangerous. I heard a Muslim girl say that her boyfriend had to change religion because her relatives back home would get problems otherwise...

In Europe we are getting areas where immigrants live, so this will be conserved to a large part between generations.

My point is -- many of the children of my secular friends will grow up with social input which might end up making (even) them radicalized.

This is a big problem, which the Muslim community better solve before a bad backlash starts. :-(

Re: State of emergency in France

#53
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draconian measures targeted against large ethnic groups has been historically unsuccessful in Europe. It also grievously violates the core principles of an open and liberal society, which are presumably what we are supposed to be defending. Vehemently disagreeing with your opinion is a crucial necessity for anyone who stands for democracy and liberty.

Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…

0. We should try to counter the radical ideology by allowing everyone to air their grievances in public without condemning or shouting down those we disagree with. Debate should be welcomed and encouraged not stifled and stigmatised otherwise those with extremist views will still be able to seek out the impressionable and monopolise the narrative they hear.

As I see it this is the most important solution. Trying to catch people just as they are about to commit an atrocity doesn't go anywhere to help solving the root problem. Extremists have been using secure lines of communication for a while and will continue to do so regardless of whether is is decreed legal or illegal and this is to say nothing of offline communication.

You may prevent some fraction of the attempts, but many will be successful and all we will be doing is treating the symptoms whilst probably severely aggravating the cause. No one has their privacy routinely violated and feels more sympathetic to those violating those rights.

We have been involved in a battle of ideas and we need to start formulating a response on this front. Everything else is secondary.

Re: State of emergency in France

#54
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draconian measures targeted against large ethnic groups has been historically unsuccessful in Europe. It also grievously violates the core principles of an open and liberal society, which are presumably what we are supposed to be defending. Vehemently disagreeing with your opinion is a crucial necessity for anyone who stands for democracy and liberty.

Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…

I always wonder why I never see this one on lists of choices:

5. Stop killing large numbers of Muslim people in the Middle East every week and see if that doesn't make them less likely to kill comparatively small numbers of people in Western cities every couple of years.

Re: State of emergency in France

#55
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Could both of you let the bodies cool down before you start rambling about what they might and might not do? There is no "prime cause" that is easy to work on, the situation is much more complicated than terrorism is the outcome of US/Western US policy. So unless your solution for the "prime cause" is glassing the middle east a large portion of asia and africa there won't be just one simple solution. Not to mention t…

> So unless your solution for the "prime cause" is glassing the middle east a large portion of asia and africa there won't be just one simple solution.

And even that won't work since our societies have become quite intermingled.

Re: State of emergency in France

#56
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draconian measures targeted against large ethnic groups has been historically unsuccessful in Europe. It also grievously violates the core principles of an open and liberal society, which are presumably what we are supposed to be defending. Vehemently disagreeing with your opinion is a crucial necessity for anyone who stands for democracy and liberty.

Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…

Surveillance is not going to fix the issue. If we want to have fewer terrorist attacks, we have to prevent radicalisation by fixing the social issues that cause it. If we continue to do nothing, the problems will get worse, and surveillance will be futile.

Fixing social issues is not easy. Masses of youths without education or perspective, racism, increasing segregation between the middle and lower classes can't be fixed with simple methods.

Where do we start? I'd suggest starting with schools. Make sure that kids go to school. Send social workers to schools, that talk to students. Offer courses in the native language of migrant children, to make sure they are not left behind and drop out early. Make sure that every student has a grown up at school that they can talk to, that they relate to.

Next, housing. Rents in most european cities are skyrocketing. I assume that this is caused by the current low interests rates, which lead to more and more people to use real estate as an investment. Low interest rates also make credit cheap, increasing the amount people can pay for housing, again increasing prices. This means that even the middle class is struggling to afford housing, and people working low income jobs have to live in very low quality housing, in poor areas. Fixing this is probably not easy, and probably requires a number of unpopular measures like rent control, or subsidised housing (for example you could require real estate developers to offer a percentage of affordable appartements when they apply for a permit to construct a new building).

Also, jobs. I really don't know how to fix this. A starting point would probably be to require minimum wages even for contract employees, or better to outlaw the current practices of hiring people as "independent contractors" instead of proper employees.

Anyway, these are just some suggestions. Note that all these measures are about helping people, rather than harassing them. Happy people don't become terrorists, and happy people don't need to be put under surveillance.

Re: State of emergency in France

#57
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draconian measures targeted against large ethnic groups has been historically unsuccessful in Europe. It also grievously violates the core principles of an open and liberal society, which are presumably what we are supposed to be defending. Vehemently disagreeing with your opinion is a crucial necessity for anyone who stands for democracy and liberty.

Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…

#1 seems acceptable to me.

Yes, these attacks are horrific and I wouldn't wish this on any nation. But it's not worth sacrificing our essential values to save a few lives.

Automobiles kill way more people than terrorists ever will, yet I don't see anyone calling for the evisceration of liberty to protect us from it.

Re: State of emergency in France

#58
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draconian measures targeted against large ethnic groups has been historically unsuccessful in Europe. It also grievously violates the core principles of an open and liberal society, which are presumably what we are supposed to be defending. Vehemently disagreeing with your opinion is a crucial necessity for anyone who stands for democracy and liberty.

Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…

5. Close borders, transfer populations, and return to ethnostates. Use Israel and her 20' concrete border walls as a template.

Re: State of emergency in France

#59
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…

This makes zero sense to me. No offense. Reality is far more complicated. No single solution could possibly work. Your suggestions (that people 'accept' your perspective as their reality) are equally naive.

No offense generally means "I'm about to be a cunt and expect you to suck it up." You aren't being a cunt but you completely failed to address any arguments. All you've got are assertions.

Re: State of emergency in France

#60
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draconian measures targeted against large ethnic groups has been historically unsuccessful in Europe. It also grievously violates the core principles of an open and liberal society, which are presumably what we are supposed to be defending. Vehemently disagreeing with your opinion is a crucial necessity for anyone who stands for democracy and liberty.

Do you have an alternative? All I see is naïve suggestions. As I see it we have several options: 1. We accept the fact that we will have more terror attacks in major European cities as a given. We such it up and we continue to live in a free and liberal society. 2. We accept total surveillance of our society. As the technology becomes more honed, terror attacks might be easier to prevent before they start. 3. We acce…

You're asking for more ideas and this is something I've had to painstakingly talk to people about all day, so here's a shot at this.

First of all, identify the problem. Why are there terrorist attacks? Saying "religious nuttery" achieves nothing. Nuttery always exists but is in majority not enough to push people to suicide bombings. Terrorist attacks exist because of political power and influence. They're efficient, because we let them be efficient.

Compare it to the drug trade. [Cartels|terrorist cults] thrive because there is [money|power] to be made. Going after the [cartels|terrorists] is not enough long term. [Jailing|Discriminating against] [potheads|muslims] only serves to worsen the situation for them, pushing them even further out of society, but does nothing to solve the problem. Criminalizing the components such as [drugs|encryption] only makes the problem worse for your citizens, doesn't affect the bad guys. You need to take care of the problem at the root by removing the bad guys' incentives.

In the case of terrorist cults, religion is a mask. It's just whatever's currently marginalizing people as much as possible. You see, marginalized people make for excellent subjects. Just like any other cult, they prey on the weak. They prey on the ones who are feeling alone, those feeling rejected by everybody even their own country. Those who have nowhere else to go find a place they're taken care of, where they're cheaply promised great rewards (in the afterlife) and where they can find a purpose. Not just that, but somewhere they can take revenge on the country that hates them.

"Muslim" terrorists know quite well that their attacks only make the lives of muslims worse. They only serve to get them more subjects so they can get even more political power.

So you want an idea? You take care of that problem. You start teaching others about how those cults really work - know your enemy. You make people understand that more hatred, more blood, are exactly what the terrorists want. That's why we call them terrorists: Politics through terror. Education. Teaching to be more critical of media - media has complete control over the narrative through most mediums, and as long as some media outlets stand to gain from instilling fear of your neighbour, they'll keep doing it and readers will not be any less impressionable for it.

I dunno, maybe it'll make a difference. Maybe it won't. I want to believe it will, but today, as a French person, I have seen more xenophobia than I care to admit. I'm hating humanity pretty badly right now. HN has been the only place where I've found mostly reasonable reactions.

Post reply on HN