- 2,523
- United Kingdom
With far-right terrorists trying to burn hotels down during the UK riots, how effective is terrorism in 2024?
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends on how you define terrorism. It is still effective in this day and age.With far-right terrorists trying to burn hotels down during the UK riots, how effective is terrorism in 2024?
This seems good:Depends on how you define terrorism.
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.It is still effective in this day and age.
Yes, perhaps if we'd put Farage, Tommy Ten names, 30p Lee, and Andrew Tate on TV more often, we'd have less hate.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.
Have you seen today's Panorama?Yes, perhaps if we'd put Farage, Tommy Ten names, 30p Lee, and Andrew Tate on TV more often, we'd have less hate.
No.Have you seen today's Panorama?
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.
Okay, so 30 minutes later I didn't get that from it at all.but the value comes from the opinions given on what to do next.
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.Okay, so 30 minutes later I didn't get that from it at all.
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?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.
Here's an example of a "successful" resolution: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?
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.Here's an example of a "successful" resolution
Mostly that I wouldn't regard it as terror related.Any thoughts on Michaela school's recent issues?
@MatskiMonk could be talking about how others are offended by the word.Cries about the word "bitch." Cries about religious expression. That's an odd combination.
@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 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.
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'.prohibition of expression and exercise which violates no rights is a violation of individual rights.
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.@MatskiMonk could be talking about how others are offended by the word.
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.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'.
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.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.
And, rather infrequently, you're wrong about things.Often it seems
Which contexts do you use it in, specifically?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.
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.And, rather infrequently, you're wrong about things.
Wait, have I been imagining this site's search function.Which contexts do you use it in, specifically?
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.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
How can America prepare itself against this "new" terror threat?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.
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.
Birbalsingh's vision of "forced" secularism may constitute part of a proper education.Mostly that I wouldn't regard it as terror related.
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'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.
I am not a mind reader.Wait, have I been imagining this site's search function.
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.
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.Oh, I guess we aren't doing the topic then. OK.
Empathy is the answer.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.
Link to evidence of "terror" attack?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.