Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

The Overton Window Theory

MoralityProfessor
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 5:26:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Has anyone here heard of the Overton Window? (Not to be confused with the book by Glenn Beck. Though he does a good job explaining the concept, that's about the only use of the book.)

If you have, what do you think of it?

If not, here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 7:10:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 5:26:49 PM, MoralityProfessor wrote:
Has anyone here heard of the Overton Window? (Not to be confused with the book by Glenn Beck. Though he does a good job explaining the concept, that's about the only use of the book.)

If you have, what do you think of it?

If not, here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've never heard of it before, but it makes good sense to me.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
MoralityProfessor
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:25:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 7:10:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 5:26:49 PM, MoralityProfessor wrote:
Has anyone here heard of the Overton Window? (Not to be confused with the book by Glenn Beck. Though he does a good job explaining the concept, that's about the only use of the book.)

If you have, what do you think of it?

If not, here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've never heard of it before, but it makes good sense to me.

I was wondering if the theory could be used to artificially 'encourage'/manipulate social and political engineering in many different respects. Glenn Beck gives a really good example in regards to airport security in his book.

Here's a scale reference. On the one extreme, we have no security - where people can simply come and go as they like - obviously not a realistic option in today's society. On the opposite extreme, we have people require full body screening, no baggage allowed at all, handcuff them to their chairs, and induce unconsciousness until the end of the flight to ensure that /no one/ does anything that could entail a security risk to the pilot and other flight members. Some of the items on that list might seem unthinkable or at least radical, while at least one item on that list has been suggested.

Before the 1960's, security was pretty simple, where law enforcement was required for protection only against conventional crime. (Theft, vandalism, breaking and entering, etc.) So the scale looked something like this, probably:

*___|=|___________________________________**
* Represents the first extreme of no airport security
|=| Represents the window and where it fits on the scale.
** Represents the other extreme of basically knocking out customers for the flight.

After plane hijacking began, the apparent need for security increased and several ideas were implemented to protect the customers. Today the window has definitely moved up on the scale and probably looks like this:

*___________________________|=|___________**

Now, how can the window be artificially induced to move up the scale?
Say, for example, a terrorist is found hiding a bomb in his underwear (as happened in 2009), and regulation is called for to expand restrictions - like full body screening required. Or what about surgically implanted bombs, currently a concern in terror threat. And these incidents don't even have to be successful, but just scare enough people into agreeing to more restrictions. Only one bag, full body x-rays and scans, etc.

So, at what point do we say 'enough is enough', or do we simply allow increases in security for our protection?

This is a massive generalization, but it seems that many conservatives refuse to give in on certain controversial political points for exactly this reason. If we give in today on semi-automatic weapons, then future generation's may be faced with giving up their long guns or hand guns.

Any thoughts?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 8:18:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:25:18 AM, MoralityProfessor wrote:
At 11/21/2013 7:10:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 5:26:49 PM, MoralityProfessor wrote:
Has anyone here heard of the Overton Window? (Not to be confused with the book by Glenn Beck. Though he does a good job explaining the concept, that's about the only use of the book.)

If you have, what do you think of it?

If not, here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've never heard of it before, but it makes good sense to me.

I was wondering if the theory could be used to artificially 'encourage'/manipulate social and political engineering in many different respects. Glenn Beck gives a really good example in regards to airport security in his book.

Here's a scale reference. On the one extreme, we have no security - where people can simply come and go as they like - obviously not a realistic option in today's society. On the opposite extreme, we have people require full body screening, no baggage allowed at all, handcuff them to their chairs, and induce unconsciousness until the end of the flight to ensure that /no one/ does anything that could entail a security risk to the pilot and other flight members. Some of the items on that list might seem unthinkable or at least radical, while at least one item on that list has been suggested.

Before the 1960's, security was pretty simple, where law enforcement was required for protection only against conventional crime. (Theft, vandalism, breaking and entering, etc.) So the scale looked something like this, probably:

*___|=|___________________________________**
* Represents the first extreme of no airport security
|=| Represents the window and where it fits on the scale.
** Represents the other extreme of basically knocking out customers for the flight.

After plane hijacking began, the apparent need for security increased and several ideas were implemented to protect the customers. Today the window has definitely moved up on the scale and probably looks like this:

*___________________________|=|___________**

Now, how can the window be artificially induced to move up the scale?
Say, for example, a terrorist is found hiding a bomb in his underwear (as happened in 2009), and regulation is called for to expand restrictions - like full body screening required. Or what about surgically implanted bombs, currently a concern in terror threat. And these incidents don't even have to be successful, but just scare enough people into agreeing to more restrictions. Only one bag, full body x-rays and scans, etc.

So, at what point do we say 'enough is enough', or do we simply allow increases in security for our protection?

This is a massive generalization, but it seems that many conservatives refuse to give in on certain controversial political points for exactly this reason. If we give in today on semi-automatic weapons, then future generation's may be faced with giving up their long guns or hand guns.

Any thoughts?

You do present a good point, but with things like airport security, while I didn't live in the 1960's, I do know that today, when there are attempts to further tighten security due to recent events (the whole TSA thing), many people called it out as an invasion of privacy, so the airport security has seemed to possibly reach it's limit, although that won't really be known until some really major terrorist attack happens in the future regarding aircraft.

As for gun control, proponents like to point out that there is no inherent "need" for assault rifles on any sort of practical level, but I highly doubt they would give up hand-guns, since those are used for self-defense, so unless you restrict everyone to a taser (which there are many people who are immune to the electrical shock of a taser), gun control will stop somewhere.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown