5 ms·

Do you believe the propagation of narratives that try to justify illegal terrorist violence help support terrorists? I agree with that idea. And following from

Do you believe the propagation of narratives that try to justify illegal terrorist violence help support terrorists? I agree with that idea. And following from that basis, suppressing and/or countering such narratives is correct.

rl3 9y ago
>... the propagation of narratives that pretend to support illegal terrorist violence ... As opposed to legal terrorist violence?
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  The idea is to reinforce the fact that: - only the State has a monopoly on violence, so State violence is legal - terrorist violence is illegal Perhaps it would be clearer to say, the always-illegal terrorist violence...but that seems like too many words. I'm happy with it as it is.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  While the terms have expanded to also include non-state actors and actions by states outside of their sovereign jurisdiction, “Terrorism” and “Terrorist” were originally terms for, respectively state actions authorized by the highest level of government for the control of the citizenry, and the government actors shaping and executing that policy. And while those are perhaps not the terrorists your government wants you to be concerned about today, it remains a common form of terrorism (see, for a relatively clear current example, Duterte's fairly overt campaign of terror in the Philippines.)
  - 19eightyfour 9y ago
    Do you have some references on this original use of the word? I had no idea. I'm a post 1980 baby after all.
gus77 9y ago
It's easy to paint this as a black and white issue. If you are Israeli you have one definition and Hamas another. Recently Kashmiri school girls were busying stone pelting the Indian Army. You think both sides are capable of sitting down and coming to consensus of what terrorist activity is? Facebook is going to be treading over all kinds of issues that even experienced socialogists find hard to deal with. It's good that they are addressing the issue and are sure to lead a lot. But if you have ever watched a techie de-escalate a hostile situation you shouldn't have high hopes.
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  I certainly agree with the notion that the current iteration of "tech kings" and their minions are not so ideally adapted to the role of "social guardians" that has been thrust upon them. But...maybe it's like having kids -- you're never ready. You just have to make it work somehow. But I disagree with the invocation of "this is a complex topic" to sort of muddy the waters of what is or is not terrorism. That ambiguity gives wriggle room for terrorists to slip in and justify their acts which can't be allowed. It's pretty clear to me when I switch on the news and see Manchester, or Bataclan, or the south of France or Charlie Hebdo, or Al Shabbab, or basically anyone doing this brutal medieval stuff is terrorism. I don't really want to wade into the Israeli Palestinian thing except to say that, as in Northern Ireland, sometimes there is this financial incentive, to both sides, for conflicts to simmer for a long time at low-temperature -- if peace is declared, the money stops flowing. And in such a situation, it pays to muddy the waters, since both sides want to seem justified to keep the money flowing. I am certainly no expert on this ME issue, this is, IMHO, a factor. But this sort of incentivized conflict is, IMHO, entirely different to the non-state terrorism we are all aware of today.
saurik 9y ago
> Do you disagree with the idea that the propagation of narratives that pretend to support illegal terrorist violence does not actually help support terrorists? I agree with that idea. Either you added one too many negations or I am failing to understand your point... you are saying that the idea you agree with is that the propagation of narratives does not actually help support terrorists?
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  I probably added one too many negations. I confused myself when writing it! let me see if I can work it out.
dpwm 9y ago
> Do you disagree with the idea that the propagation of narratives that pretend to support illegal terrorist violence does not actually help support terrorists? I'm genuinely having trouble reading that sentence so I'm going to assume from the rest of your quote that you are advocating the hypothesis that narratives that attempt to justify terrorist violence supports terrorists. I think most people would agree with that, but that is not what was questioned. There currently seems to be a prevailing Western narrative unquestioned by mass media that the most effective way to prevent terrorism is to control the material people consume, especially on social media. The TV and print media is full of the narratives of billionaire press barrons and arms-exporting governments. If we accept that radicalisation is driven by narratives that become accepted (we are the good guys) and that it is a gradual process (opposed -> indifferent -> supporter -> active) how would we even know if we were radicalised by the narratives that we consume? Perhaps when we advocate detention without trial of terror suspects; the abdandomnent of human rights laws for terror suspects; extra-judicial murder for suspected terrorists; a war on foreign soil with the overt and understandable intent that our armed forces should have zero casualties? Personally, I think there is a case for censoring truly extreme material as long as extreme caution is used so it doesn't spread to narratives which are critical of government foreign policy and there is an equal silencing of the overtly genocidal attitude of the far right that gets a far easier time and regularly enters corporate media ("bomb them"). I suspect the latter is quite effective radicalisation material and helps advance the idea that entire countries hate a religion and that this is a war that is an existential threat to people of that religion.
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  It seems like there is a lot to process in what you are saying. It will probably take me a while to digest it and respond, if I respond. Thanks!
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  I've read back over this and some of your other comments in other threads. You have some well thought out opinions, but I'm just of a different mindset. You're probably too clever for me to be able to argue with. But that doesn't matter to me. Because it doesn't really matter what either of us believe, it only matters what we do. And when I look at the world, I don't see it is the people who win the arguments who win. It is the people who can sway others with emotion, the countries that can better tell their own story, the civilizations that can build something that other people want and the militaries that can deploy technologies that dominate that win. And above all, I'm someone who loves humanity. For what it is. So it doesn't matter to me even if your arguments are right. Because I'm more concerned about what's necessary. I have strong opinions, born of my own experience, based on logic and emotion. Maybe I have been duped by the MSM, the AI of tech corporations and swindled on a hopeless dream of being a "somebody" / a tech founder / a snowflake whatever, in a consumerist society that needs to worship individualism and the purchase of status, or relief from fear, to drive the economy. I've certainly been duped by my friends and enemies, so, surely, the government, big corporations and the media, with their infinitely better resources, can probably dupe me too. But I'm fine with that. Because all that really matters to me is how I live my life. I figure most people are living in a delusion anyway. Of one form or another. SO the question is not "do I have the truth?" the question, for me, is "Is my perspective useful?" Does it work for me? Does it help me achieve my goals? Whatever they might be. And I think I'm good at that, or at least I try to be. But on the topics you broach I'll give you my clear opinion: our societies, that have something to offer ( freedom, justice, prosperity, equality, harmony ( maybe democracy if you like that sort of thing ) ), are better than the societies that don't have such things to offer. As far as I'm concerned, any violence from people emanating from such places against our own is wrong. Prima facie wrong. Mainly, I think, because, if they were to win, they would offer nothing. So we must win, because we can offer something. So all our wars, against them, are justified to me. I see it as their problem. If their societies didn't suck, if they had devleoped themselves, protected themselves from manipulation and outside influence, then they'd be in a better place. But instead, they didn't keep their houses in order, and they became these breeding grounds for bad things, bad ideas. And I see no problem with wiping them out. If we have to. Just like the human body will kill its own cells if it diseased, I believe we should not hesitate to cut off those parts of our human civilization that are toxic. An extreme view to utter, but not to practice. I'm not saying that makes it okay. I'm saying it's okay, because that's what we say is okay. We have to protect what's good. What's good is certainly not what's perfect. But we have to get down in the dirt, and do bad things, to protect the good. Maybe you say that's extreme, and you pretend I'm bad, and I don't expect you or many others to agree with me. I got that you would see it differently. But I would just see that as the comforting delusions people adopt to tell themselves they're good and righteous. I want you to imagine if you have a family, and you are on a camping trip in the forest, far from any outside help. And a group of bandits tries to attack your camp. What kind of family person are you, who would refuse to do anything necessary to protect the good that was their family? I say, that you'd be in the wrong, if you refused to do anything "wrong" to protect your family. So that's how I see humanity. Essentially good. Worth protecting. But protecting it, and developing our civilization, is not going to be pretty. Look at China. So much achieved. But so much horror and bloodshed to get there. To me that's all there is. The development of the human civilization and the forward march to a better future. There will be blood. But I believe it's worth it. Other people don't. That's fine. To me, their "noble mindsets" are the fruits of the peacetime they now enjoy because of the thousands of years of bloodshed that have brought our civilization to where we can enjoy peace. TL;DR - I enjoy peace and love as much as the next human. I just think it's fine to do anything we need to protect that and keep moving forward as a species. Yes, it's a war mindset. Yes, the "terrorism is a threat" narrative gets a lot of mileage. But who cares? Nothing is guaranteed in this world. As far as I am concerned, humanity is always at war. If it's not terrorism, it's disease, it's planetary annihiliation. Until we are a multiplanetary species, who can upload our brains into new bodies whenever we like, until we've cured death, we're always going to be at war. So we're on that road. We can't take any chances. We ought not to waste any time. See the threats. Stamp them out. Protect what's good. Excise the diseased parts. Nothing else matters. We do not have the luxury of fanciful meditations, except from the security of an armchair, a secure perch provided by the blood of people who fought and died to bring you to the brief respite from endless horror we currently enjoy. Humanity has a long way to go, and it's not going to be pretty, but I believe we'll get there. You just have to be prepared to get dirty along the way. Get down in the dirt, and muck it out. To save and protect what's good. You probably care more for argument and logic and facts and finely stated opinions than all of this emotive, rhetoric. But to me, it's not that. It's very plainly how I see things. So, thanks for giving me this chance to express it here. I feel internet conversations are useless, but they give me a chance to know my own thoughts better.
SimonPStevens 9y ago
Not the op, but I don't have enough evidence to either agree or disagree with your idea, and I would like to see some evidence either way before policies are set. Lots of things that seem intuitive turn out the opposite way when research is done. Even defining "illegal terrorist violence" globally is tricky. What is illegal in one country often isn't in another. One person's illegal terrorism is another's rebellion against corrupt government. "Supressing such narratives" can easily become censoring anyone who disagrees with those in power and until I see evidence that such suppression is actually effective, and that safeguards are in place to prevent it going to far, I'll always err on the side of freedoms over censorship.
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  I get that. And I think your ideas are useful, but to me they're not the whole picture. I've explained how I think about things below. Caution: you'll probably find those views too extreme for your taste. I'm fine with that.

rl3 9y ago

>... the propagation of narratives that pretend to support illegal terrorist violence ... As opposed to legal terrorist violence?

19eightyfour 9y ago
The idea is to reinforce the fact that: - only the State has a monopoly on violence, so State violence is legal - terrorist violence is illegal Perhaps it would be clearer to say, the always-illegal terrorist violence...but that seems like too many words. I'm happy with it as it is.
dragonwriter 9y ago
While the terms have expanded to also include non-state actors and actions by states outside of their sovereign jurisdiction, “Terrorism” and “Terrorist” were originally terms for, respectively state actions authorized by the highest level of government for the control of the citizenry, and the government actors shaping and executing that policy. And while those are perhaps not the terrorists your government wants you to be concerned about today, it remains a common form of terrorism (see, for a relatively clear current example, Duterte's fairly overt campaign of terror in the Philippines.)
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  Do you have some references on this original use of the word? I had no idea. I'm a post 1980 baby after all.

gus77 9y ago

It's easy to paint this as a black and white issue. If you are Israeli you have one definition and Hamas another. Recently Kashmiri school girls were busying stone pelting the Indian Army. You think both sides are capable of sitting down and coming to consensus of what terrorist activity is? Facebook is going to be treading over all kinds of issues that even experienced socialogists find hard to deal with. It's good that they are addressing the issue and are sure to lead a lot. But if you have ever watched a techie de-escalate a hostile situation you shouldn't have high hopes.

19eightyfour 9y ago
I certainly agree with the notion that the current iteration of "tech kings" and their minions are not so ideally adapted to the role of "social guardians" that has been thrust upon them. But...maybe it's like having kids -- you're never ready. You just have to make it work somehow. But I disagree with the invocation of "this is a complex topic" to sort of muddy the waters of what is or is not terrorism. That ambiguity gives wriggle room for terrorists to slip in and justify their acts which can't be allowed. It's pretty clear to me when I switch on the news and see Manchester, or Bataclan, or the south of France or Charlie Hebdo, or Al Shabbab, or basically anyone doing this brutal medieval stuff is terrorism. I don't really want to wade into the Israeli Palestinian thing except to say that, as in Northern Ireland, sometimes there is this financial incentive, to both sides, for conflicts to simmer for a long time at low-temperature -- if peace is declared, the money stops flowing. And in such a situation, it pays to muddy the waters, since both sides want to seem justified to keep the money flowing. I am certainly no expert on this ME issue, this is, IMHO, a factor. But this sort of incentivized conflict is, IMHO, entirely different to the non-state terrorism we are all aware of today.

saurik 9y ago

> Do you disagree with the idea that the propagation of narratives that pretend to support illegal terrorist violence does not actually help support terrorists? I agree with that idea. Either you added one too many negations or I am failing to understand your point... you are saying that the idea you agree with is that the propagation of narratives does not actually help support terrorists?

19eightyfour 9y ago
I probably added one too many negations. I confused myself when writing it! let me see if I can work it out.

dpwm 9y ago

> Do you disagree with the idea that the propagation of narratives that pretend to support illegal terrorist violence does not actually help support terrorists? I'm genuinely having trouble reading that sentence so I'm going to assume from the rest of your quote that you are advocating the hypothesis that narratives that attempt to justify terrorist violence supports terrorists. I think most people would agree with that, but that is not what was questioned. There currently seems to be a prevailing Western narrative unquestioned by mass media that the most effective way to prevent terrorism is to control the material people consume, especially on social media. The TV and print media is full of the narratives of billionaire press barrons and arms-exporting governments. If we accept that radicalisation is driven by narratives that become accepted (we are the good guys) and that it is a gradual process (opposed -> indifferent -> supporter -> active) how would we even know if we were radicalised by the narratives that we consume? Perhaps when we advocate detention without trial of terror suspects; the abdandomnent of human rights laws for terror suspects; extra-judicial murder for suspected terrorists; a war on foreign soil with the overt and understandable intent that our armed forces should have zero casualties? Personally, I think there is a case for censoring truly extreme material as long as extreme caution is used so it doesn't spread to narratives which are critical of government foreign policy and there is an equal silencing of the overtly genocidal attitude of the far right that gets a far easier time and regularly enters corporate media ("bomb them"). I suspect the latter is quite effective radicalisation material and helps advance the idea that entire countries hate a religion and that this is a war that is an existential threat to people of that religion.

19eightyfour 9y ago
It seems like there is a lot to process in what you are saying. It will probably take me a while to digest it and respond, if I respond. Thanks!
19eightyfour 9y ago
I've read back over this and some of your other comments in other threads. You have some well thought out opinions, but I'm just of a different mindset. You're probably too clever for me to be able to argue with. But that doesn't matter to me. Because it doesn't really matter what either of us believe, it only matters what we do. And when I look at the world, I don't see it is the people who win the arguments who win. It is the people who can sway others with emotion, the countries that can better tell their own story, the civilizations that can build something that other people want and the militaries that can deploy technologies that dominate that win. And above all, I'm someone who loves humanity. For what it is. So it doesn't matter to me even if your arguments are right. Because I'm more concerned about what's necessary. I have strong opinions, born of my own experience, based on logic and emotion. Maybe I have been duped by the MSM, the AI of tech corporations and swindled on a hopeless dream of being a "somebody" / a tech founder / a snowflake whatever, in a consumerist society that needs to worship individualism and the purchase of status, or relief from fear, to drive the economy. I've certainly been duped by my friends and enemies, so, surely, the government, big corporations and the media, with their infinitely better resources, can probably dupe me too. But I'm fine with that. Because all that really matters to me is how I live my life. I figure most people are living in a delusion anyway. Of one form or another. SO the question is not "do I have the truth?" the question, for me, is "Is my perspective useful?" Does it work for me? Does it help me achieve my goals? Whatever they might be. And I think I'm good at that, or at least I try to be. But on the topics you broach I'll give you my clear opinion: our societies, that have something to offer ( freedom, justice, prosperity, equality, harmony ( maybe democracy if you like that sort of thing ) ), are better than the societies that don't have such things to offer. As far as I'm concerned, any violence from people emanating from such places against our own is wrong. Prima facie wrong. Mainly, I think, because, if they were to win, they would offer nothing. So we must win, because we can offer something. So all our wars, against them, are justified to me. I see it as their problem. If their societies didn't suck, if they had devleoped themselves, protected themselves from manipulation and outside influence, then they'd be in a better place. But instead, they didn't keep their houses in order, and they became these breeding grounds for bad things, bad ideas. And I see no problem with wiping them out. If we have to. Just like the human body will kill its own cells if it diseased, I believe we should not hesitate to cut off those parts of our human civilization that are toxic. An extreme view to utter, but not to practice. I'm not saying that makes it okay. I'm saying it's okay, because that's what we say is okay. We have to protect what's good. What's good is certainly not what's perfect. But we have to get down in the dirt, and do bad things, to protect the good. Maybe you say that's extreme, and you pretend I'm bad, and I don't expect you or many others to agree with me. I got that you would see it differently. But I would just see that as the comforting delusions people adopt to tell themselves they're good and righteous. I want you to imagine if you have a family, and you are on a camping trip in the forest, far from any outside help. And a group of bandits tries to attack your camp. What kind of family person are you, who would refuse to do anything necessary to protect the good that was their family? I say, that you'd be in the wrong, if you refused to do anything "wrong" to protect your family. So that's how I see humanity. Essentially good. Worth protecting. But protecting it, and developing our civilization, is not going to be pretty. Look at China. So much achieved. But so much horror and bloodshed to get there. To me that's all there is. The development of the human civilization and the forward march to a better future. There will be blood. But I believe it's worth it. Other people don't. That's fine. To me, their "noble mindsets" are the fruits of the peacetime they now enjoy because of the thousands of years of bloodshed that have brought our civilization to where we can enjoy peace. TL;DR - I enjoy peace and love as much as the next human. I just think it's fine to do anything we need to protect that and keep moving forward as a species. Yes, it's a war mindset. Yes, the "terrorism is a threat" narrative gets a lot of mileage. But who cares? Nothing is guaranteed in this world. As far as I am concerned, humanity is always at war. If it's not terrorism, it's disease, it's planetary annihiliation. Until we are a multiplanetary species, who can upload our brains into new bodies whenever we like, until we've cured death, we're always going to be at war. So we're on that road. We can't take any chances. We ought not to waste any time. See the threats. Stamp them out. Protect what's good. Excise the diseased parts. Nothing else matters. We do not have the luxury of fanciful meditations, except from the security of an armchair, a secure perch provided by the blood of people who fought and died to bring you to the brief respite from endless horror we currently enjoy. Humanity has a long way to go, and it's not going to be pretty, but I believe we'll get there. You just have to be prepared to get dirty along the way. Get down in the dirt, and muck it out. To save and protect what's good. You probably care more for argument and logic and facts and finely stated opinions than all of this emotive, rhetoric. But to me, it's not that. It's very plainly how I see things. So, thanks for giving me this chance to express it here. I feel internet conversations are useless, but they give me a chance to know my own thoughts better.

SimonPStevens 9y ago

Not the op, but I don't have enough evidence to either agree or disagree with your idea, and I would like to see some evidence either way before policies are set. Lots of things that seem intuitive turn out the opposite way when research is done. Even defining "illegal terrorist violence" globally is tricky. What is illegal in one country often isn't in another. One person's illegal terrorism is another's rebellion against corrupt government. "Supressing such narratives" can easily become censoring anyone who disagrees with those in power and until I see evidence that such suppression is actually effective, and that safeguards are in place to prevent it going to far, I'll always err on the side of freedoms over censorship.

19eightyfour 9y ago
I get that. And I think your ideas are useful, but to me they're not the whole picture. I've explained how I think about things below. Caution: you'll probably find those views too extreme for your taste. I'm fine with that.