2 ms·

Im going to kill my other posts because they were rushed and incoherent. But this is my more careful response. Im disappointed the above thread has got so much

by ErrantX 17y ago

Im going to kill my other posts because they were rushed and incoherent. But this is my more careful response. Im disappointed the above thread has got so much support when it is fatally flawed. The problem with extremism is that punishing the perpetrators is pretty irrelevant as a solution to the issue because, for the most part, they don't care (or to put it more bluntly: nothing you do can negate what God will provide them). What we need is a solution to the problem of extremist groups. The comparison to hostages is wrong; it is more like saying "this is the decision between should I go to a hostage risk area or not?". It is a personal choice and I think what I am mostly saying is: we should individually consider whether our actions/comments are simply inciting the situation. If that is the case it may be reasonable simply not to say it (an example; if things are getting heated in a bar and you think the other guy is an airhead saying it to his face might not be the most sensible way to make your point). Or more succinctly: why should we hand them ammunition if we don't have to? As you say; they will pick out all manner of grievances but that's not an argument for increasing their choice. Indeed in the case of parodies it is problematic; because it is legitimate to feel angered by them, and extremists can use that to say "hey, so our violence is legitimate". A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

jerf 17y ago
"The problem with extremism is that punishing the perpetrators is pretty irrelevant as a solution to the issue because, for the most part, they don't care" Surprisingly false, and that's the key. The evidence quite strongly suggests that the extremists on the whole really do make rather calculated decisions about what to push, even if only subconsciously. We can tell, because when we change the incentives, behavior changes. You are basically arguing that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. If there is an extremist that attacks us no matter what, then frankly our policy doesn't matter for that extremist. We need to be concerned about the ones that are calculating though, because there are far more of them. (Hostages was not a comparison, it was an observation that most terrorism is in one form or another about hostages.) Your arguments are contradictory; you invoke extremists so extreme that it doesn't matter what we do, then you say we shouldn't incite them. But by definition, you've created a set of people that are unincitable, they're already permanently incited to the max. Yup, they exist. I'm actually pretty comfortable saying "Kill them". Anybody who truly, honestly wants to make it "Either your civilization dies or I die" must be taken up on their offer. However, these people do not numerically amount to all that much, even in the part of the world that has been deliberately cultivating a large group of people who are supposed to make that demand, making the horror of my suggestion MUCH less than it seems; the damage these people can do to civilization is far greater than the loss. (I can not underscore this enough; the evidence is that my approach is by far the more peaceable, because it produces a situation where civilization is to people's advantage. It is the production of a situation where attacking the civilization is advantageous that produces chaos and death! Second order effects utterly dominate this discussion.) Your approach is a recipe for increasing the number of terrorists, not decreasing them.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > Surprisingly false, and that's the key. Have you any references for that? (I'm interested, not disputing it) > it was an observation that most terrorism is in one form or another about hostages. Ah, now that is a slightly different matter I feel. I was more discussing the idea of indiscriminate killing or direct murder of the "offendor". > But by definition, you've created a set of people that are unincitable, they're already permanently incited to the max. How are terrorists made? For the most part the "foot soldiers" are incited by the more calculating leaders. Handing those leaders material that is offensive is ammunition for them to convert foot soldiers to the cause. Your right - it wont affect the leadership, but it removes some of their ammunition to brainwash others with. > If there is an extremist that attacks us no matter what, then frankly our policy doesn't matter for that extremist. We need to be concerned about the ones that are calculating though, because there are far more of them. No, we clearly need to respond - and respond in a cohesive way. What I'm suggesting is that avoiding inciteful actions might make it easier to combat extremism. > It is the production of a situation where attacking the civilization is advantageous that produces chaos and death! Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting we make a big thing of "we are not going to incite you". Just that, perhaps, a more careful personal set of actions is justified. Every time a big thing (in media terms) like this happens the death threats come in, more people are scared and there is added potential for people to die. If it hadn't have happened there would be less fear now than a few weeks ago :) > you invoke extremists so extreme that it doesn't matter what we do To be fair that was what you invoked - I was trying to sync it into my arguments. Incidentally a strong argument for my idea is that modern terrorist leaders have realised they don't have to actually bomb anyone significant or even actually respond to a threat. They just have to get it into the news to propagate fear.

by ErrantX 17y ago

jerf 17y ago

"The problem with extremism is that punishing the perpetrators is pretty irrelevant as a solution to the issue because, for the most part, they don't care" Surprisingly false, and that's the key. The evidence quite strongly suggests that the extremists on the whole really do make rather calculated decisions about what to push, even if only subconsciously. We can tell, because when we change the incentives, behavior changes. You are basically arguing that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. If there is an extremist that attacks us no matter what, then frankly our policy doesn't matter for that extremist. We need to be concerned about the ones that are calculating though, because there are far more of them. (Hostages was not a comparison, it was an observation that most terrorism is in one form or another about hostages.) Your arguments are contradictory; you invoke extremists so extreme that it doesn't matter what we do, then you say we shouldn't incite them. But by definition, you've created a set of people that are unincitable, they're already permanently incited to the max. Yup, they exist. I'm actually pretty comfortable saying "Kill them". Anybody who truly, honestly wants to make it "Either your civilization dies or I die" must be taken up on their offer. However, these people do not numerically amount to all that much, even in the part of the world that has been deliberately cultivating a large group of people who are supposed to make that demand, making the horror of my suggestion MUCH less than it seems; the damage these people can do to civilization is far greater than the loss. (I can not underscore this enough; the evidence is that my approach is by far the more peaceable, because it produces a situation where civilization is to people's advantage. It is the production of a situation where attacking the civilization is advantageous that produces chaos and death! Second order effects utterly dominate this discussion.) Your approach is a recipe for increasing the number of terrorists, not decreasing them.

ErrantX 17y ago
> Surprisingly false, and that's the key. Have you any references for that? (I'm interested, not disputing it) > it was an observation that most terrorism is in one form or another about hostages. Ah, now that is a slightly different matter I feel. I was more discussing the idea of indiscriminate killing or direct murder of the "offendor". > But by definition, you've created a set of people that are unincitable, they're already permanently incited to the max. How are terrorists made? For the most part the "foot soldiers" are incited by the more calculating leaders. Handing those leaders material that is offensive is ammunition for them to convert foot soldiers to the cause. Your right - it wont affect the leadership, but it removes some of their ammunition to brainwash others with. > If there is an extremist that attacks us no matter what, then frankly our policy doesn't matter for that extremist. We need to be concerned about the ones that are calculating though, because there are far more of them. No, we clearly need to respond - and respond in a cohesive way. What I'm suggesting is that avoiding inciteful actions might make it easier to combat extremism. > It is the production of a situation where attacking the civilization is advantageous that produces chaos and death! Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting we make a big thing of "we are not going to incite you". Just that, perhaps, a more careful personal set of actions is justified. Every time a big thing (in media terms) like this happens the death threats come in, more people are scared and there is added potential for people to die. If it hadn't have happened there would be less fear now than a few weeks ago :) > you invoke extremists so extreme that it doesn't matter what we do To be fair that was what you invoked - I was trying to sync it into my arguments. Incidentally a strong argument for my idea is that modern terrorist leaders have realised they don't have to actually bomb anyone significant or even actually respond to a threat. They just have to get it into the news to propagate fear.