3 ms·

You whole theory seems to be that people just need an opportunity to vent their feels and that will cause aggressive or atrocious feelings to subside. No. Howe

You whole theory seems to be that people just need an opportunity to vent their feels and that will cause aggressive or atrocious feelings to subside. No. However, not letting people speak will make it more likely that they will feel there are no other options for them. That's just common sense. If you take away an option, people feel they have one less option. This may work great in therapeutic contexts but I'm not willing to accept that it holds true in the world at large. You're conflating the therapeutic context with the societal context. Sure, therapy is probabilistic, with no guarantees for any given individual. Effectively, you have been straw-manning by conflating the two. In the US, we can vote. We have freedom of speech. This is a big reason why we can resolve differences and exchange power without violence. If you make people feel they only "technically" have freedom of speech, but not really, then they resort to violence. This is just history. Your conflating the therapeutic context feeds into a narrative your'e pushing about certain people being irredeemable. Certainly, certain individuals in a therapeutic context aren't going to be easily redeemable, if at all. That doesn't mean that entire groups or swathes of the political spectrum or cohorts of political populations should be treated as irredeemable. That way lies madness. The endpoint of that is either violence or camps. However, it is convenient to do such conflating, if one wants to tar a particular subgroup for political reasons. I don't speak up for extremists. I speak against extremists. There is a widespread manipulation across society and the media where mainstream/fairly centrist people are being tarred as extremists. This too is being prosecuted by extremists.

anigbrowl 8y ago
No. However, not letting people speak will make it more likely that they will feel there are no other options for them. That's just common sense. If you take away an option, people feel they have one less option. Good thing that I am not making such an argument then. But you have asserted that 'the remedy for violent extremist tendencies is to let people talk,' and I would like evidence for that claim, which I don't think is unreasonable. Sure, therapy is probabilistic, with no guarantees for any given individual. Effectively, you have been straw-manning by conflating the two. You're attributing an awful lot of statements to me that I haven't made. How can I be conflating therapeutic and societal contexts when I distinguished between them in the first place, and agreed that your approach might function well in the therapeutic context? Your conflating the therapeutic context feeds into a narrative your'e pushing about certain people being irredeemable. I don't have opinions about redemption, I observe that some people express violent animus against others within an ideological framework and then go on and commit violence much as they said they wanted to do. That this happens is an empirical fact, and you don't seem to have any strategy for dealing with it. Earlier on in your post, you said: In the US, we can vote. We have freedom of speech. This is a big reason why we can resolve differences and exchange power without violence. But there is already a lot of political violence in the US and it includes a lot of murders. Many of the people committing said murders had a presence on social media where there stated approval of political violence were variously tolerated, shared, or encouraged, even if they were unpopular with the public at large. Do you have any strategy for dealing with this beyond listening to people talk?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  But you have asserted that 'the remedy for violent extremist tendencies is to let people talk In that case, I expressed myself incorrectly. There is no guaranteed remedy for such people in a therapeutic sense. From a political sense, we know that societies where people can express themselves have an outlet. It's more correct to say that free speech is a preventative factor, while suppressing free speech is an aggravating one. Homicidal lone crazies will always latch onto political issues. They seem to latch onto the political issues which are surrounded by outrage. Squashing free speech exacerbates this. But there is already a lot of political violence in the US and it includes a lot of murders. 1) Eliminate other forms of political intimidation and violence. These are aggravating factors to political murder. 2) Encourage Free Speech and prohibit de-platforming. 3) Encourage objective journalism 4) Find out the other reasons why the segments of the population that feel disenfranchised feel that way Many of the people committing said murders had a presence on social media where there stated approval of political violence were variously tolerated, shared, or encouraged Like the doxxing and harassment encouraged by prominent celebrities and journalists on Twitter? The fact that there's no consequences for them from Twitter is encouraging extremism in two different ways. Do you have any strategy for dealing with this beyond listening to people talk? Letting people express themselves is vital to a free society which can regulate power without violence. Letting people talk has to be a part of any strategy. There will always be lone crazies. I'm a lot more concerned about large numbers of crazies suppressing speech, taking over campuses, taking over downtown Portland, and wearing masks while committing crimes meant to cause political intimidation by the hundreds of incidents.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    Weird how everyone you disagree with you tag as crazy and all concerns about murders are folded into 'there will always be lone crazies' as if their motives were inscrutable. You sure have an odd set of priorities.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Weird how everyone you disagree with you tag as crazy If their disagreement comes in the form of de-platforming, evidence-free defamatory tarring, and violence, then yes, I would say they're in this "crazy" category. This certainly fits all concerns about murders are folded into 'there will always be lone crazies' as if their motives were inscrutable Do ideologies cause crazies, or do crazies latch onto ideologies? If it's the former, then we should be more concerned about the Far Left variant! (See below) You sure have an odd set of priorities. Only if you weight things by mainstream media coverage and history going back 3 decades. However, if you look at what's actually happening in the past few years, there were twice as many killings by Far Left extremists as Far Right extremists in the US, along with several hundreds of incidents of Far Left political violence. Of course, I'm much more concerned about the extremism which is more frequently violent which is somehow getting a free pass with the US media. Should I be more concerned about a lone crazy who was caught and who everyone already knows to be bad, or more concerned about legions of violent crazies (many of whom march openly with semi-auto rifles) who seem to be getting a free pass and propaganda work done on their behalf?

anigbrowl 8y ago

No. However, not letting people speak will make it more likely that they will feel there are no other options for them. That's just common sense. If you take away an option, people feel they have one less option. Good thing that I am not making such an argument then. But you have asserted that 'the remedy for violent extremist tendencies is to let people talk,' and I would like evidence for that claim, which I don't think is unreasonable. Sure, therapy is probabilistic, with no guarantees for any given individual. Effectively, you have been straw-manning by conflating the two. You're attributing an awful lot of statements to me that I haven't made. How can I be conflating therapeutic and societal contexts when I distinguished between them in the first place, and agreed that your approach might function well in the therapeutic context? Your conflating the therapeutic context feeds into a narrative your'e pushing about certain people being irredeemable. I don't have opinions about redemption, I observe that some people express violent animus against others within an ideological framework and then go on and commit violence much as they said they wanted to do. That this happens is an empirical fact, and you don't seem to have any strategy for dealing with it. Earlier on in your post, you said: In the US, we can vote. We have freedom of speech. This is a big reason why we can resolve differences and exchange power without violence. But there is already a lot of political violence in the US and it includes a lot of murders. Many of the people committing said murders had a presence on social media where there stated approval of political violence were variously tolerated, shared, or encouraged, even if they were unpopular with the public at large. Do you have any strategy for dealing with this beyond listening to people talk?

stcredzero 8y ago
But you have asserted that 'the remedy for violent extremist tendencies is to let people talk In that case, I expressed myself incorrectly. There is no guaranteed remedy for such people in a therapeutic sense. From a political sense, we know that societies where people can express themselves have an outlet. It's more correct to say that free speech is a preventative factor, while suppressing free speech is an aggravating one. Homicidal lone crazies will always latch onto political issues. They seem to latch onto the political issues which are surrounded by outrage. Squashing free speech exacerbates this. But there is already a lot of political violence in the US and it includes a lot of murders. 1) Eliminate other forms of political intimidation and violence. These are aggravating factors to political murder. 2) Encourage Free Speech and prohibit de-platforming. 3) Encourage objective journalism 4) Find out the other reasons why the segments of the population that feel disenfranchised feel that way Many of the people committing said murders had a presence on social media where there stated approval of political violence were variously tolerated, shared, or encouraged Like the doxxing and harassment encouraged by prominent celebrities and journalists on Twitter? The fact that there's no consequences for them from Twitter is encouraging extremism in two different ways. Do you have any strategy for dealing with this beyond listening to people talk? Letting people express themselves is vital to a free society which can regulate power without violence. Letting people talk has to be a part of any strategy. There will always be lone crazies. I'm a lot more concerned about large numbers of crazies suppressing speech, taking over campuses, taking over downtown Portland, and wearing masks while committing crimes meant to cause political intimidation by the hundreds of incidents.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Weird how everyone you disagree with you tag as crazy and all concerns about murders are folded into 'there will always be lone crazies' as if their motives were inscrutable. You sure have an odd set of priorities.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Weird how everyone you disagree with you tag as crazy If their disagreement comes in the form of de-platforming, evidence-free defamatory tarring, and violence, then yes, I would say they're in this "crazy" category. This certainly fits all concerns about murders are folded into 'there will always be lone crazies' as if their motives were inscrutable Do ideologies cause crazies, or do crazies latch onto ideologies? If it's the former, then we should be more concerned about the Far Left variant! (See below) You sure have an odd set of priorities. Only if you weight things by mainstream media coverage and history going back 3 decades. However, if you look at what's actually happening in the past few years, there were twice as many killings by Far Left extremists as Far Right extremists in the US, along with several hundreds of incidents of Far Left political violence. Of course, I'm much more concerned about the extremism which is more frequently violent which is somehow getting a free pass with the US media. Should I be more concerned about a lone crazy who was caught and who everyone already knows to be bad, or more concerned about legions of violent crazies (many of whom march openly with semi-auto rifles) who seem to be getting a free pass and propaganda work done on their behalf?