[basetop]

I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world.

Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism?

You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism and yet you'd give up your right to free speech for some remote threat?

That kind of thinking is the cause of north korea and nazi germany. Authoritarians always use remote threats to justify taking your rights away.

[bilbo0s]

>You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism...

I know this is pedantic, but you got me curious so I went to check the numbers.

Odds of death in mass shooting (US only): 1 in 11,125

Odds of death by lightning strike (US only): 1 in 161,831

So it seems that it's actually a lot more likely for an American to die in a mass shooting than it is for us to die in lightning strikes.

Edit:

Sorry. The source was the National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, and the Cato Institute.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics...

[tomp]

From the same source:

Odds of death by police: 1 in 7700

Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315

I'd agree with basetop, I'd rather live in a world free of censorship and "full" of extremism.

[solidsnack9000]

These seem like very high odds.

Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315

Per the source, "any motor vehicle incident" is actually 1 in 108.

[tomp]

They're lifetime odds, not yearly.

> 1 in 108

Oops you're right, I picked the wrong line :D

[s1artibartfast]

Not all mass shootings stem from extremism. Gang violence also falls under the same definition.

Also from the business insider:

"There is no broadly accepted definition of a mass shooting. The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as a single incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are "shot and/or killed" at "the same general time and location."

Another source suggests that death rate from "Islamic terrorism" in the US is somewhere around 1 in 3,500,000. If you presume other types of extremism are similar, there is still a significant difference from the mass shooting rate.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-mass-shootings-in-a...

https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/since.html

[tomp]

> Another source suggests that death rate from "Islamic terrorism" in the US is somewhere around 1 in 3,500,000.

Yeah, that can't be right. Or, it can be, if one only takes into account years after 2001, when at least 3000 people were killed, or 1 in 100 000 US residents.

[s1artibartfast]

The 1 in 3,500,000 rate is for years 1975 to 2015 and includes the 9/11 attack. Since 2001, the rate is about 6 deaths per year for a total of 100 over 17 years. This gives a post 2001 rate of less than one in 50 million.

See page 4 of the previously referenced document.

[tomp]

Ah, so you're likely using the annual rate. Parent was using lifetime risk.

[s1artibartfast]

Very good point, I missed that

[JudgeWapner]

edit: I mixed up yearly statistics vs "lifetime likelihood". I'll leave what I wrote for posterity

If the US population is 328,000,000, and each of us has a "1:11,125 odds" of dying in a mass shooting, that would seem to indicate that there are 328m/11,125 = 29,483 "mass shooting deaths" in any given year (I'm happy to accept corrections on my math here, maybe I'm completely missing something). That's patently false, and quite a spurious definition of "mass shooting". My definition of "mass shooting" is an unprovoked attack for terroristic reasons. i.e. NOT a { jealous spouse/drug dealers/gang bangers }. I don't keep an active tally, but I would estimate the number on an "average" year to be about 50, double that during the year we had the vegas shooting. 50/year puts the odds at rougly 1:6,560,000, or about 40x less likely than getting killed by a lightning strike.

[s1artibartfast]

Gang violence also falls under the same definition. Also from the business insider:

"There is no broadly accepted definition of a mass shooting. The Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as a single incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are "shot and/or killed" at "the same general time and location."

[pathseeker]

getting struck by lightning != death by lightning strike

[adbge]

It's also produced Singapore.

[int_19h]

I would argue that Singapore is an example of a benevolent dictatorship. The problem with all such, that was already noted by Ancient Greeks, is that you have no guarantees that the next dictator is going to be benevolent.

[ploika]

That's a pretty silly example. North Korea is North Korea precisely because of the extremism.

[ameister14]

I don't understand that statement. I believe North Korea is a totalitarian state with concentrated power in few hands and no tolerance for dissidence. Are you saying they allow non-state actors to speak and take action freely to promote extreme ideologies there?

[atoav]

The poster probably means that NK is NK, because of its own extremist ideology. So the only way to really get rid of extremists seems to be to become more extreme than them.

[ameister14]

If that's the meaning, then extremism led to the US, France, and a number of other countries.

[atoav]

I didn't say it was the only way of getting rid of extremism. I'd even argue that getting rid of extremism by installing a extremist regime makes as much sense as chopping a leg off because you want to get rid of a headache.

It is important to remember, that no nation no matter how great its tales of freedom or historic shame might be is immune against extremism.

[basetop]

North Korea became north korea because of censorship. It is the most censored country in the world. And the point is that there is not "extremism" in north korea because censorship allows only "authoritarianism". That's the world you want to live in?

I agree with you that censorship is extremism and it should be fought against.

[tathougies]

Extremism to a Westerner perhaps. Certainly, the ideology behind North Korea would be censored in most of the proposals on this thread, but given that the government of north korea would not and it is the only government with any control over the country of North Korea, I don't understand by what metric you could possibly say it's extremism. Unless you're appealing to divine justice or something, which would be great, but I sincerely doubt it.