15 ms·
There was a time that it was difficult for me to understand how it was possible that governments in the middle east were supporting domestic terrorism. It was d
by kartan 7y ago
There was a time that it was difficult for me to understand how it was possible that governments in the middle east were supporting domestic terrorism. It was difficult to imagine how normal people were supporting the killing of fellow citizens.
Now, that I see this same trend unravel in the USA it becomes easier to understand. I have seen for the past decades the shifting of what "conservative" means. Extremists were always there, that I knew. But, it has been scary to see how moving what normality is toward the extreme has happened. News, in USA case Fox News, have validated the extremist's views creating an equivalence between "both sides".
In Europe there are similar movements, but, it has not been televised so much. Except, maybe, for the rise of extremism in the United Kingdom.
As interesting it is from the political perspective, it is dishearting the amount of suffering that it is causing. The political discourse is not used to agree in a way forward for society but as a battleground. And, again, news outlets share its part of fault. Diminishing investment in education probably is even more to blame.
The response is not to be angry, but to be calm and help society to value well-intended discussions over sensationalist posts and news headers.
I hope that it is not too late, the last time that xenophobia was not stoped it cost over 80 million lives, this time it will be way worse.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kstenerud 7y agoThe reason why extremism is having more trouble taking root in Europe is because there's less inequality there. Where inequality is highest, terrorism is highest.
- belltaco 7y agoI don't see how it's related to inequality. I don't think any of these shooters were poor or went through poverty. For this incident the press showed pictures of a big single family home in suburban Dallas.
- eej2ya1K 7y agoThere are other forms of inequality. For example, how many mass shooters are involuntarily celibate?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- phs318u 7y agoIt's not necessarily about whether they are/were objectively poor. I believe, (part of) it is about the perception that others/outsiders are getting an unfair advantage at the cost of the tribe the shooter identifies with.
- mirimir 7y agoThat's their parents' home, no? The US middle class is shrinking. And it's always dangerous to have lots of young men with no prospects. With no future worth living into. But seriously, mass shootings are just a sideshow. It's the political implications that are truly frightening.
- belltaco 7y ago>That's their parents' home, no? Are there a lot of parents that won't allow their kin to live with them when the only other option is homelessness?
- lixtra 7y agoI doubt it’s that one dimensional. One could point out that making things equal results in (edit) even more terror (as most former communists countries prove). Of course that reasoning would ignore the Scandinavian “exception“.
- kstenerud 7y agoIt is actually that simple, because it is a fundamental part of social psychology. In primitive cultures, when one man amassed too much wealth, he'd give it away for two reasons: one: it brings him prestige as a benefactor, and two: it prevents disgruntled members from killing him. We're socially wired to keep things "fair", and when very unfair things happen, we have an almost religious feeling of righteous indignation. If someone is cheating society, we want to punish them and set things right. This is why there's a tendency towards lynch mobs, or their modern twitter equivalents. Equivalently, when someone feels excluded from the basic things he sees others enjoying freely (food, sex, shelter, leisure), he also feels this injustice, and will want to lash out, punish, and bring justice back to his society. If he's excluded for long enough, or to an extreme enough degree, he'll stop associating himself with that society, and possibly even consider replacing it with a better one. Of course, not everyone who feels the bad end of inequality is going to take up a gun and start shooting, but the less emotionally stable you are from your circumstances, the greater the risk. These "manifests" are a last-ditch effort to be listened to, respected, and included. I'm not talking about listening to whatever weird bullshit they're spouting; I'm talking about listening to their pain and humanity. The sad part is that many justice systems are designed to exclude those convicted of a crime, thus excluding the most vulnerable, who need inclusion the most. It's one reason why you have such high recidivism rates in societies with more vengeful justice systems. Inequality is a form of exclusion, and we're wired to fight it. Fighting terrorism is fighting the symptom rather than the cause. The harder you hit them, the harder they fight back, because they've got nothing left to lose that they care about, and they have "righteousness" on their side.
- patientplatypus 7y agoThat is the most succinct well thought out reasoning on this phenomenon I have ever read. I wish there was a way to stop this rather than have "rich people should share", because that just seems really unlikely :<
- preommr 7y agoThis probably won't be an unpopular view, but I really think its culture and specifically things like news media. Watching FOX and even CNN exacerbates me in a way that watching things like the BBC don't. The standards for journalism and discourse are incredibly different. And its a feedback loop because I don't just blame the media, I blame the people that feed the media and increase the race for ratings and fear mongering.
- yifanl 7y agoI agree to a point, but surely the news media can't be where all the signal is coming from, there's too many forums on the internet (like the chans, and now social media sites) with too many users.
- _iyig 7y agoBy what measure has extremism failed to take root in Europe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Strasbourg_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Strasbourg_attack If you meant nativist extremism, I suspect multi-party democracies allow something of a safety valve. AfD and Brexit Party voters can still feel like they’re being heard while identifying as less extreme than NDP or BNP. In the American two-party system, one side is always painting the other as their most extreme example with no credible third parties for contrast, and indeed extremists do sometimes rise to prominence from within either party.
- dredmorbius 7y agoAlso: The Utøya massacre / bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utøya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utøya Jo Cox UK MP assassination: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/europe/jo-cox-british-mp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/europe/jo-cox-briti... UK right-wing riots: https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/right-wing-media-use-uk-riots-fearmonger-and-attack-left https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/right-wing-media-u... Attacks on immigrant vendors in Greece: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-crisis-dawn/special-report-greeces-far-right-party-goes-on-the-offensive-idUSBRE8AB09F20121112 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-crisis-dawn/specia... Dresden anti-islamist marches: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/15/dresden-police-pegida-germany-far-right https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/15/dresden-police...
- Nursie 7y agoThat's the first time I've ever seen the 2011 riots in London called "Right Wing". I was in London at the time. They were sparked by the police killing of a drug dealer, rightly or wrongly, and were more chaotic and violent than any sort of political. Whatever the reaction was in the US, that article just calls it wrong. --edit-- I think it might be you that's read it wrong, the article is just about US right wing media interests using the London riots to further their political goals in the US. You might want to take that link off your list, it doesn't support your argument.
- euroPoor 7y agoYeah, I'm going to need proof on that. Political extremism is, like, a European invention. How about this https://taz.de/taz-Recherche-auf-Englisch/!5558072/ https://taz.de/taz-Recherche-auf-Englisch/!5558072/ or this https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/world/europe/italy-neo-nazi-missile.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/world/europe/italy-neo-na... ?
- yyyk 7y agoYes and no. It really depends. Many ME terrorists are actually relatively wealthy (Bin Laden being the most famous example), and historically revolutions occur more from a rising middle class rather than from the lowest classes. Inequality can play a role - but many times other factors are far more important.
- mosselman 7y agoCan you describe what you mean a bit more in concrete terms? For a second there I thought someone had posted the manifesto here, imagining it is a vague story as well. What concrete examples do you have of misrepresentation of the situation in the media for example? I believe you when you say that something is wrong, but giving concrete examples will help drive your message home.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- clairity 7y agoyou sound more distraught than hopeful, so let me add some perspective. what's amazing is that relative to opportunity, terrorism (and mass shootings as a subset) is extremely rare. many, many things will kill you (or a loved one) before terrorism will (accidental shooting, drowning, overdose, heart attack, car accident, etc.). while we all do have a violent side, we are a remarkably empathetic and social species who largely follow cultural and moral rules for the good of the whole. on your last point, it wasn't terrorism or just zenophobia that caused genocide, but state actors (and their leadership) lusting for power, notoriety, and wealth. that's rare too, since it took a perfect storm of many bad circumstances and decisions (from what i understand). that's not to say don't be vigilant or push for change (since rare doesn't mean impossible). just don't feel hopeless or a sense of despair that things are somehow so much worse now.
- tathougies 7y agoYes we have redefined conservative to be anyone with whom we disagree. The shooter posted about various 'concerns'. He was worried about environmental destruction caused by massive corporations and immigrants. This seems neither republican, Democrat, progressive, nor religious. The best description is eco nationalist but that doesnt even cover it. Given the major figures in the conservative movement were criticized for not doing enough to hurt the corporations destroying the environment, I feel the shooter coukd as easily be attributed to the influence of sanders and the green new deal people as anyone else. Interestingly enough, this concern over environmental destruction is a common thread of several past mass shootings, including gilroy, el paso, and new zealand. Many shooters echo the apocalyptic language used by the media.
- lumberjack 7y agoEcofascism is what it is called and it is an inside joke. It is not a serious political position. It is meant precisely to confuse people like you.
- feu 7y agoThat's an incredibly bold claim.
- dodobirdlord 7y agoA google search for "ecofascism 8chan" turns up quite a bit.
- nradov 7y agoVice has an article about Eco-fascism. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/vbw55j/understanding-the-alt-rights-growing-fascination-with-eco-fascism https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/vbw55j/understanding-the-... (I have no idea whether the article is accurate or if the movement is connected to this latest incident.)
- whenchamenia 7y agoEcofacism is not a joke. It is joked about however.
- robk 7y agoSo you're calling all conservatives extremists? Or just modern conservative idealogy? Shame on you either way.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- roenxi 7y ago> the last time that xenophobia was not stoped it cost over 80 million lives I assume you are referring to WWII - it is a strong assertion to claim that was a xenophobic war. The Nazis were xenophobic, but one suspects their driving motivations for actually doing something about it were economic. They were expanding because they famously thought they needed more space and resources, and the German economy prior to the war was famously horrible and probably the major contributing factor to the Nazi movement gaining any traction at all. In fact, I'll assert based on a hunch that aggressive wars powered by xenophobia are vanishingly rare. "[color] people are bad" is a good propaganda slogan for the troops, but nobody is going to stump up the funds to actually deploy them if there isn't some sort of economic justification.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoLebensraum was long, long before the Nazis. It was the goal of Imperial Germany in WW1, and became policy again under the Nazis. Probably dates back to the 19th century. The economics were irrelevant to the policy. Economics had nothing to do with pursuing the idea of racial purity and a superior race either. Untermensch goes back to the twenties and intertwines with the US eugenics that the Nazis cribbed from heavily. Originally from a translation of a 1922 KKK book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch US eugenics influence on Nazi ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Influence_on_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
- LifeLiverTransp 7y agoLebensraum was the problem of not having synthetic fertilizer available- thus you have a ineffective, basically near medieval agriculture, whos output only scales- with area. There where forgotten wars for natural occuring fertilizers at the times of the civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific Area only scales, if you conquer it and remove other people. Strange as it sounds, without the retrospect of all that tech that allows our current society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process) those economic decisions where quite technocratic. Inhuman and monstrous as the outcome was, the decision making was quite technocratic with a tinge of desperation.
- phs318u 7y agoTo add to the possible causes/reasons that people have already replied with, I'd suggest that in countries with mandatory voting, there is a natural tension that keeps parties from straying too far from the centre (i.e. where most of the citizenry sit). In countries with optional voting regimes, those that feel disenfranchised or cynical or apathetic don't vote, while those with extremist views are probably less inclined to let such things get in the way of their vote, resulting in over-representation in the pool of actual voters (vs potential voters). This has led parties to chase the edges more so than pleasing the centre. In Australia, we have mandatory voting, and while the media is still active and slowly moving the electoral needle, overall, attempts to introduce extremist positions have largely faltered (with a few exceptions). I don't expect this position will last forever though.
- elyobo 7y agoAs someone that lives in Australia but comes from a similar country with optional voting (NZ), Australia's mandatory voting regime seems very much like choosing a government by chance - if voters don't know enough to vote without it being compulsory, they don't suddenly know any more by making them vote, and forcing a bunch of low information voters to go and vote anyway doesn't seem like it's going to get a good outcome. NZ's turnout is not all that much below AU without compulsory voting (admittedly, we did have John Key for what felt like forever, so it's not like we've got great form either). While I'm moaning about the electoral system, the lack of a representative system (winner takes all in each electorate, leading to an enormous focus on battleground electorates while the safe seats are largely ignored) is also hugely problematic.
- 18pfsmt 7y agoThe founding principles of the USA prevent things like compulsory voting laws. It is illiberal, and contrary to the principles. I don't know what the founding principles of Australia are/ were, but I'm pretty sure it was a Commonwealth country until somewhat recently. The unease from the industrial revolution, 2 world wars, and the Great Depression allowed much of the original American vision to be eroded for expediency. People who fail to understand history, are doomed to repeat it.
- koonsolo 7y agoFor Europe, most of the civilian killings are indeed done by extremists. But we are not allowed to aknowledge or talk about that part, so the extremists of the "other side" start to grow.
- peteretep 7y ago> Except, maybe, for the rise of extremism in the United Kingdom I'd challenge that -- what do you have in mind? I suspect we have far fewer politicians describable as far-right in the UK, where in France for example, RN has some actual power and voting numbers.
- Nursie 7y agoI'm in the UK, not sure I see much extremism here really. We have the brexit party I suppose, but that's not so much extremist as just weirdly conservative.