Ok but if someone is just perfectly willing to talk about how Breivik is a hero and they wish more people would have the guts to do what he did it is of course not the same as actually doing what Breivik did but it seems sort of not worth talking to either, like if Breivik were the enemy of life they would be providing aid and comfort to the enemy without ever actually going out and shooting a bunch of people.
People who will do violence in support of their political beliefs are in the wrong. People who support people who do violence should be questioned, regardless of where on the political spectrum they lie, or whether they are an "your side" or the "other." The people who are going around in masks, with clubs and guns committing assaults and other violent crimes need to be recognized as the terrorists and proto-terrorists they are. The media that preferentially cover one side over another, and people who give their tacit support to such things need to be called out as well.
What disturbs me the most, are the people who are supposed to be peace-loving giving their tacit support to such political violence and intimidation. The remedy for violent extremist tendencies is to let people talk. It's when people feel like they can't talk, that they seek more extreme means.
The people who are going around in masks, with clubs and guns committing assaults and other violent crimes need to be recognized as the terrorists and proto-terrorists they are.
And my question to you is what you do about people like that.
The remedy for violent extremist tendencies is to let people talk. It's when people feel like they can't talk, that they seek more extreme means.
[Citation needed]
There are lots of extremists who have little to no difficulty in getting their opinions off their chest and who continue to maintain or escalate their extremist views. 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. This may work great in therapeutic contexts but I'm not willing to accept that it holds true in the world at large. Look at all the people recruited by ISIS; why didn't they just vent their feelings and then go back to their everyday lives?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
That is not true, or anything close to true. I cannot imagine why you would say make such abundantly false claims, and I challenge you to identify any of these 'far left extremists' or their victims. I also reject your dismissal of all who commit such extreme violence as 'crazies' which suggests they are not in the full possession of their mental faculties and is often referred to as a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
I can easily point out specific right wing examples of extreme violence, most notably the guy shot shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh and murdered 11 people just a couple of months ago.
>> 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
"Left Wing terrorists killed only 23 people in terrorist attacks during this time, about 0.7% of the total number of murders, but 13 since the beginning of 2016. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have only killed five since then, including Charlottesville."
So if you go back historically, across many decades, Right Wing terrorists have killed vastly more people. However in just the past few years, Left Wing terrorists have been outpacing Right Wing terrorists in domestic US killings by 2 to 1.
