Terrorism

[HenrySwanson]

With far-right terrorists trying to burn hotels down during the UK riots, how effective is terrorism in 2024?

 

[Blitz24]

With far-right terrorists trying to burn hotels down during the UK riots, how effective is terrorism in 2024?

Depends on how you define terrorism. It is still effective in this day and age.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Depends on how you define terrorism.

This seems good:

Terrorism | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

It is still effective in this day and age.

During the UK riots many POC, and I would say Muslims more so, felt unsafe across the country. This dissipated with the strong "counter-protests" that formed in response to supposedly planned marches in many towns that never materialised. To prevent a repeat following the next inflaming of tensions there has to be a way for society to prepare and innoculate itself against the message of fear. While law enforcement has a large role to play, greater protection would come from open and free discourse. By giving an outlet, people may not need to resort to terrorism to vent or effect change.

 

[MatskiMonk]

While law enforcement has a large role to play, greater protection would come from open and free discourse. By giving an outlet, people may not need to resort to terrorism to vent or effect change.

Yes, perhaps if we'd put Farage, Tommy Ten names, 30p Lee, and Andrew Tate on TV more often, we'd have less hate.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yes, perhaps if we'd put Farage, Tommy Ten names, 30p Lee, and Andrew Tate on TV more often, we'd have less hate.

Have you seen today's Panorama?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Have you seen today's Panorama?

No.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No.

It's only half an hour, and is a pretty superficial overview of the riots, but the value comes from the opinions given on what to do next.

 

[MatskiMonk]

but the value comes from the opinions given on what to do next.

Okay, so 30 minutes later I didn't get that from it at all.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Okay, so 30 minutes later I didn't get that from it at all.

A head-in-the-sand approach benefits no one in the long term. Clamping down hard on extremists without addressing concerns shared by them and those across the political divide drives them underground, but possibly with more support than you appreciate.

 

[TexRex]

Nativist parasites' concern is the presence of individuals from elsewhere, frequently specific elsewheres. The only way to address the concern of nativist parasites is to violate the rights of individuals on the basis of collectivist nonsense.

Nativist parasites being put down when they get violent is good, actually.

 

[HenrySwanson]

People are always going to form groups, whether it's by ethnicity, religion, class - whatever.

It's wrong to think they won't as they have done so since the beginning of time.

And when groups form they'll naturally want to promote the one(s) they identify with.

EDIT: I'd recommend people read up about the recent issues that happened with one of my local schools, Michaela in NW London.

 

[MatskiMonk]

A head-in-the-sand approach benefits no one in the long term. Clamping down hard on extremists without addressing concerns shared by them and those across the political divide drives them underground, but possibly with more support than you appreciate.

How would you address the concerns of extremists? If my opinion is that migrants should be burned alive in their beds because migrants are raping their way through our communities, what are you going to say to address that?

 

[TexRex]

I cannot imagine a fate suffered by nativist parasites which I would think unfortunate. If they should burn alive, I can only hope to warm my hands and bask in the glow of the flames.

 

[HenrySwanson]

How would you address the concerns of extremists? If my opinion is that migrants should be burned alive in their beds because migrants are raping their way through our communities, what are you going to say to address that?

Here's an example of a "successful" resolution:

Are there examples where Prevent has stopped a young person being radicalised? - Educate Against Hate

Here are three real-life stories of young people on the road to radicalisation who have turned their lives round due to help and support from the Channel programme and Prevent.

www.educateagainsthate.com

Any thoughts on Michaela school's recent issues?

Jason Coppel KC and Tom Cross win Michaela School prayer ban judicial review | 11KBW

The High Court (Linden J) has handed down its much-awaited judgment in R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust, which concerned the lawfulness of a…

www.11kbw.com

 

[TexRex]

Pathetic Islamophobes are pathetic. Probably also child rapists. They're frequently Christians and Christians are frequently child rapists, so it stands to reason. Maybe something ought to be done about Christians.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Here's an example of a "successful" resolution

I agree that proper education helps in the long run. More reasonable people caught early on during a radicalisation process may be helped, but I'm deeply sceptical it would undermine all the crap we've seen recently, some people trend a lot harder towards tribalism, and some of those people will inevitably be inclined towards violence.

Any thoughts on Michaela school's recent issues?

Mostly that I wouldn't regard it as terror related.

I do have feelings around the reasoning, and those feelings are that religion should not be a specifically protected form of expression or association. Any activities or practices the religion requires ought fall within the general freedoms already given, if they don't, tough.

Specifically on this case, from the judgement:

She says that she needs the “connection with God for those five minutes at the right time” so as to enable her to continue peacefully with her day. Not being able todo so makes her “really upset”.

She doesn't need it. She's been conditioned to think she does. It's Pavlovian. Religious belief needs to be educated out of society, not normalising.

 

[TexRex]

Cries about the word "bitch." Cries about religious expression. That's an odd combination.

Religious belief is stupid and wrong. It's delusion. Still, prohibition of expression and exercise which violates no rights is a violation of individual rights.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Cries about the word "bitch." Cries about religious expression. That's an odd combination.

@MatskiMonk could be talking about how others are offended by the word.

I'll admit, I hadn't thought of it. Looked up a Reddit thread on the topic today and it was illuminating.

 

[TexRex]

@MatskiMonk could be talking about how others are offended by the word.

I'll admit, I hadn't thought of it. Looked up a Reddit thread on the topic today and it was illuminating.

@MatskiMonk could explain what @MatskiMonk was talking about. Probably has a better idea than you and doesn't actually need you to chime in on their behalf. You do that a lot. "I think this is what they mean." Often it seems like you're trying not to be seen as committing to a viewpoint and projecting it on others so that you don't feel your viewpoint is being scrutinized, like you've done about "pro-lifers" ("pro-life" is a lie; it's branding--they're anti-consent...like child rapists). Obviously that's stupid.

 

[MatskiMonk]

prohibition of expression and exercise which violates no rights is a violation of individual rights.

I didn't say it should be prohibited, I said it shouldn't specifically be protected. Freedom of Religion or Belief should simply be, Freedom of Belief. And as I suggested, practicing a religion is covered by freedom of expression and freedom of association. There is no need for religion to specified, doing so validates that specific set of beliefs, and as I say, we should not be normalise mass 'delusion'.

@MatskiMonk could be talking about how others are offended by the word.

Not really, if other people are offended by it they can make the case as to why. I just find it ******* tedious, in a similar fashion to people that bang on about everything they don't like being woke, so I thought I'd point it out for my own amusement.

 

[TexRex]

I didn't say it should be prohibited, I said it shouldn't specifically be protected. Freedom of Religion or Belief should simply be, Freedom of Belief. And as I suggested, practicing a religion is covered by freedom of expression and freedom of association. There is no need for religion to specified, doing so validates that specific set of beliefs, and as I say, we should not be normalise mass 'delusion'.

There are two sides to freedom of religion. Theres the freedom of religious practice and expression, which are frequently violated as by prohibition of particular dress or activities which violate no rights, but there's also freedom from coercion by the state or agents thereof.

Religious freedom shouldn't have to be explicit, but that it's frequently under attack suggests that it needs to be. Explicit protection doesn't validate, affirm, or endorse...that's idiotic. Protection, explicit or otherwise, is just that. It's a constraint on action by the state or agents thereof. One needn't support particular expression to defend it against action which violates the rights of the individual (see the defense of neo-Nazi Frank Collin in NSPA v. Skokie by Jewish advocates Burton Joseph and David Goldberger). Are some who purport to advocate for religious freedom unprincipled in their advocacy, with emphasis on favored religious expression? Absolutely. But that's nothing to do with protection itself.

Not really, if other people are offended by it they can make the case as to why. I just find it ******* tedious, in a similar fashion to people that bang on about everything they don't like being woke, so I thought I'd point it out for my own amusement.

Ah. Tedium and entertainment. Oh but that doesn't explain the unsubstantiated claim that use of the word, even as a gendered slur which it isn't certain to be, is at all indicative of attitudes toward women. That's stupid, of course. When it's directed at women, it may or may not be indicative of attitudes toward them--it depends on context. When it's not directed at women, it's not indicative of attitudes toward them. It can't be. May one who uses it in any context have an unfavorable view of women? Yeah. One who uses literally any word may and one who uses the word "bitch" is no more likely to than one who uses any other word.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Often it seems

And, rather infrequently, you're wrong about things.

Ah. Tedium and entertainment. Oh but that doesn't explain the unsubstantiated claim that use of the word, even as a gendered slur which it isn't certain to be, is at all indicative of attitudes toward women. That's stupid, of course. When it's directed at women, it may or may not be indicative of attitudes toward them--it depends on context. When it's not directed at women, it's not indicative of attitudes toward them. It can't be. May one who uses it in any context have an unfavorable view of women? Yeah. One who uses literally any word may and one who uses the word "bitch" is no more likely to than one who uses any other word.

Which contexts do you use it in, specifically?

 

[TexRex]

And, rather infrequently, you're wrong about things.

I'm wrong about plenty. I'm far from perfect. You saying that I'm wrong about things isn't exactly a refutation of what I said.

Which contexts do you use it in, specifically?

Wait, have I been imagining this site's search function.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Inciting rioters in Britain was a test run for Elon Musk. Just see what he plans for America

The presidential election is three months away. What if the billionaire contests the result? What if he decides democracy is overrated?

www.theguardian.com

In Britain, the canary has sung. This summer we have witnessed something new and unprecedented. The billionaire owner of a tech platform publicly confronting an elected leader and using his platform to undermine his authority and incite violence. Britain’s 2024 summer riots were Elon Musk’s trial balloon.

He got away with it. And if you’re not terrified by both the extraordinary supranational power of that and the potential consequences, you should be. If Musk chooses to “predict” a civil war in the States, what will that look like? If he chooses to contest an election result? If he decides that democracy is over-rated? This isn’t sci-fi. It’s literally three months away.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. For a brief minute after 2016, there was an attempt to understand how these tech platforms had been used to spread lies and falsehoods – or mis- and disinformation – as we came to know them and to try to prevent it. But that moment has passed. A years-long effort by Republican operatives to politicise the entire subject of “misinformation” has won. It barely even now exists in US tech circles. Anyone who suggests it does – researchers, academics, “trust and safety” teams – are now all part of the “censorship industrial complex”.

A US congressional committee headed by Republican Jim Jordan, convinced that big tech was silencing conservative voices, went on the warpath. It subpoenaed the email history of dozens of academics and has chilled an entire field of research. Whole university departments have collapsed, including the Stanford Internet Observatory whose election integrity unit provided rapid detection and analysis in 2020.

Even the FBI has been prevented from communicating with tech companies about what officials have warned is a coming onslaught of foreign disinformation and influence operations after a lawsuit brought by two attorneys general went all the way to the supreme court. The New York Times reported that it has only just now quietly resumed.

...

But what Musk – the new self-appointed Lord of Misrule – has done is to rip off the mask. He’s shown that you don’t even have to pretend to care. In Musk’s world, trust is mistrust and safety is censorship. His goal is chaos. And it’s coming.
So, what lessons can America learn from the riots?

Copying the top comment from this WaPo article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/08/19/silicon-valley-dei-backlash/

Bill Ackman and Peter Thiel and Elon Musk aren't the only billionaires with creepy attitudes toward women, ranging from a conviction that the world was a perfect place when white men had it to themselves (that world never existed, but don't tell Ackman, Thiel, and Musk: they might not be able to cope) to a weird belief that everything went wrong when women were allowed to vote.

There are a lot of these guys in Silicon Valley----and far beyond: incels, fascists, fanatics, Republican operatives, Putinites, Orbanites, Christian nationalists and men who just plain don't like women, uniting in a kind of Popular Front of sheer sexual malice.

They're abetted every step of the way by perfectly ordinary white men who may not be able to articulate their discomfort at having to share the world with women and people of color, but who don't see anything particularly wrong with what Ackman, Thiel, et al are doing.

The tech billionaires seem to want to create a Mad Men fantasy universe, racially purified and so free of women as to be almost homoerotic.

Their dream world is full of strutting white men in expensive suits (or expensive bomber jackets as the case may be) brushing shoulders with other strutting white men; a world in which women are either absent, or seated demurely (but provocatively) at desks in reception, heavily made up, not a hair out of place, answering phones, serving coffee, available for trysts but otherwise not particularly present.

Being billionaires with money and heft to throw around; controlling narratives on social media (Elon can start a violent riot with a single lazy tweet); and having covert allies among the white, male journalists whose dominance of the nation's newsrooms has been threatened in recent decades; these creepy tech bros have made a lot more progress than they should have made---or rather, they've caused us to regress in ways that will resonate for years to come, doing real harm both to individuals and to society.

How can America prepare itself against this "new" terror threat?

I agree that proper education helps in the long run. More reasonable people caught early on during a radicalisation process may be helped, but I'm deeply sceptical it would undermine all the crap we've seen recently, some people trend a lot harder towards tribalism, and some of those people will inevitably be inclined towards violence.

Mostly that I wouldn't regard it as terror related.

Birbalsingh's vision of "forced" secularism may constitute part of a proper education.


--------------

I'm wrong about plenty. I'm far from perfect. You saying that I'm wrong about things isn't exactly a refutation of what I said.

Do you want me to give an example of an interaction in a Greggs inside a Tesco (how British is that) that I had yesterday about why it's wrong or can we discuss the topic of the thread title.

Wait, have I been imagining this site's search function.

I am not a mind reader.

I can see you using the word "bitch" a lot but don't know your thought process. I can only give a reasonable guess at which contexts it is used in but thought it quicker and easier just to ask.

 

[TexRex]

Do you want me to give an example of an interaction in a Greggs inside a Tesco (how British is that) that I had yesterday about why it's wrong or can we discuss the topic of the thread title.

I am not a mind reader.

I can see you using the word "bitch" a lot but don't know your thought process. I can only give a reasonable guess at which contexts it is used in but thought it quicker and easier just to ask.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Oh, I guess we aren't doing the topic then. OK.

Offered you a chance to explain your thought process first.

You posted your inference of mine.

 

[TexRex]

Oh, I guess we aren't doing the topic then. OK.

I mean that was the impression that I got. You went from pleading to discuss the named topic to discussing something else. It was weird.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I mean that was the impression that I got. You went from pleading to discuss the named topic to discussing something else. It was weird.

Empathy is the answer.

And I suspect that's part of the answer as to how we mitigate the terrorism risk, otherwise we will just reinforce the group narrative extremists thrive on.

If you want to answer, what contexts do you use "bitch" in?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Mass stabbing "terror" attack in Germany yesterday. Guy is still on the run.

Lone wolf attacks are going to be a real problem for a long time.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Mass stabbing "terror" attack in Germany yesterday. Guy is still on the run.

Lone wolf attacks are going to be a real problem for a long time.

Link to evidence of "terror" attack?