Okay, but coordinating in one Facebook group is hard. If they're doing it in 100, they're never going to get a chance to be extremist militia. They'll just be managing groups. This is good.
It is entrapment if they gave the dude ordering the fake bomb the idea and opportunity to buy a fake bomb lol. The FBI is notorious for finding vulnerable people and pressuring them into trying something. If anyone else did the exact same things to trick people, they'd be arrested.
> It is entrapment if they gave the dude ordering the fake bomb the idea
No, that's not how it works.
Merely "giving the dude the idea" is never entrapment, because the average "any reasonable person" would not hear that kind suggestion and actually follow it.
Nevertheless, these people probably wouldn't think of these crimes, much less have any practical way to execute them, if not for the "suggestions" from their "friends" who are really FBI.
They like to call it nudging. If you or I did it it would be causing and abetting.
I understand the attractiveness of this tactic. It’s easy to get people to do things when you can fabricate a grievance for them — you can even get middle class college kids to rise up in support of terrorists.
But this should be illegal and instead those people should be be forced to get psychological treatment rather than be entrapped.
Are you really claiming that extremist militias are actually a valid reaction to some kind of political problem? What a bizarre stance. We can solve political problems without resorting to extremism and violence; inability to do so is not noble or caused by something external.
Why is it a bizarre stance? Take the word "valid" out of your comment and you will see the value of at least understanding why extremist groups pop up. They may not be valid, but understanding their origins, roots, grievances, etc. allows us to formulate potential interventions that could take place before having to deal with armed criminals in a life-threatening manner.
It's a bizarre stance because justifying violent extremism creates more violent extremism, which endangers us all. Choosing this method of political activity should (and in my opinion does) automatically invalidate whatever political arguments you have. If you have legitimate political grievances, bring them to legitimate political arenas.
Note how my philosophy still allows you to address origins, roots, grievances, etc. while also preventing the formation of violent militias because people won't listen to them or take them seriously. Yours forces us to take violent extremists seriously, even when their underlying concerns might not be worthy of consideration. Which is what violent extremists want.
Not the parent, but this comment is peculiar in the way that it makes several somewhat unconnected, requirement heavy statements.
> Are you really claiming that extremist militias are actually a valid reaction to some kind of political problem? What a bizarre stance.
In ethics, just terrorism is a well debated concept. A fairly famous thinker on the subject was Satre, who was influenced, for example, by the Algerian struggle for independence from French colonial rule, which involved both guerrilla warfare and acts of terrorism.
> We can solve political problems without resorting to extremism and violence
In a general sense, this should be trivially true for extremism. But it can be a tricky concept, as the term is also used in a prescriptive way with a politically charged intention, much like "hate".
Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.
> inability to do so is not noble or caused by something external.
I don't see why moral superiority (noble) and external determination should be thrown together - or how either relates to the previous statements.
I would agree though, that one's own actions are never purely caused by external influences, as I'm personally feeling strongly against team determinism.
The previous commenter probably just wanted to highlight polarization as a driving force for radicalization, which isn't entirely untrue, but also, of course, complex. One needs to be able to call out the baddies, despite it being perceived as polarizing.
> In ethics, just terrorism is a well debated concept.
In what way is terrorism against an occupying external force, and violent extremists targeting the legitimate and democratic government of their own country, the same? Why are you conflating them?
> Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.
I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement.
I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither.
> or how either relates to the previous statements.
Because my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake.
> In what way is terrorism [...] and violent extremists [...] the same? Why are you conflating them?
I have cut out the insertion of your meta-narrative. Terrorism as a method is the use of deliberate violence in pursuit of political or ideological goals, and is a tool of choice for violent extremists.
> I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement.
No, you actually connected both concepts with an "and", making your statement ambivalent ... but it's not a hill I care to die on. From a purely ethical point of view, there is nothing upsetting about this issue. It was well chewed over decades ago.
> I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither. [...] my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake.
We must separate the moral question from the political question. We can discuss ethics with rigor and eventually come to a position of clarity. With politics, it's all procedural and fuzzy.
In your last part you assert several positions: 1. rejection of their methods (twice) 2. sympathy (and later: empathy) is politically wrong 3. rejection of their belief system (moral superiority, victimhood) 4. recognition is a mistake.
1. and 3. are probably trivial and I won't argue against them. We're both clearly not on their team, so we don't like their methods or their narrative.
I'd disagree with 2. and 4. I get a lot out of reading and thinking about all kinds of fringe groups. It clearly gratifies many readers intellectual curiosity. Those who shun intellectual curiosity are also bad - or at least misguided.
Then if you are not rich you cannot even call the police because you cannot afford it. It's better to abolish police and not jail people for self-defense.
Sure, that works for some cases, but what if the crime already happened? For example, what if your house was broken into and your stuff was taken?
In that case, would your only recourse be to hire a private investigator to identify the culprit, and then personally show up at their house to exact your revenge? That doesn’t seem sustainable.
You can look for info and help in your local community for example. You don't need to extract revenge necessarily, if you find that person you can organize with some people and visit them to take your stuff back.
What if the person who stole it doesn't want to give it back? What if that person has their own group of friends-with-weapons?
We now a standoff between your private army and someone else's. Seems like an extraordinary inefficient way to achieve justice. (And, one that will likely end up being quite deadly for all parties involved.)
Actually poor people deserve justice and security too?
Unless you're the richest person in the world. Because if you aren't, someone is going to outbid you on the security forces, and then it's their decision, not "the market's" decision.
>We can solve political problems without resorting to extremism and violence
This is proven untrue by history: Nazi Germany, the Irish Revolution, and countless others have proven that brutal, oppressive regimes can only be stopped by violence. I'm not saying the present-day US government is anywhere near this bad, but your statement simply isn't true: violence was absolutely essential in stopping tyranny in many places in history.
This is actually the opposite point to what you were trying to make. Nazism was the result of violent extremism becoming politically mainstream, and is the danger in normalizing and sympathizing and treating with violent extremists. It does not reform them, it corrupts society.
I don’t think your comparison to the Irish Revolution is accurate as there is no country occupying the United States. These people have the same political liberties and possibilities as any other citizen.
>I don’t think your comparison to the Irish Revolution is accurate as there is no country occupying the United States.
What exactly does the US have to do with anything at all here?
I'm only responding to the claim that "political problems can be solved without resorting to violence". I never made a comparison to the US. The people of Ireland were definitely NOT able to solve their political problems without violence.
>Nazism was the result of violent extremism becoming politically mainstream
Yes, but that's beside the point. Germany's neighbors had no choice but to resort to extreme violence to handle the Nazi problem. It was either that and surrender and line up for slavery or death camps.
I’d love a source proving a causal relationship, but to answer your question strictly as asked I have to say “no, I don’t need more examples of studies examining correlations” mostly because there obviously isn’t a number that would satisfy the requirement of a proof for that assertion
> However, analyses show
that crime is not driven by poverty alone, but
rather by inequality. Countries with high
overall levels of poverty do not necessarily
have higher levels of crime. It is places with
high levels of income inequality that typically
have the highest levels of crime. Another
driver of crime is a breakdown in social
norms and values which results in, and is
worsened by, factors such as
unemployment, incomplete education, a
break down in family structures, limited
opportunities and exclusion from the formal
economy.
So I’m gonna again say no this does not prove the assertion
I’m not sure I understand the framing of violent extremists as victims actually. There are many reasons to make bad choices, but that doesn’t mean we have to respect those choices or take the results seriously. So too here.
I'm not sure if anybody is framing them as victims here. It's not wise to frame the rain as the oppressor because it falls on your head, either. They just exist because of reasons. I don't think anybody here thinks it's good that they exist. The GP just pointed out that "why?" is important question. Maybe the most important and it should be answered with research and intelectual honesty, instead of just "because evil exists".
If violent extremists have no choice about how they act, then you should accept that society too has no choice but to reject them. It's just the rain falling, right?
If violent extremists do have a choice, then we can also choose our response to them. And pretty clearly that response should be to ignore their demands and treat them as having abdicated any say in our political system. Otherwise, you validate violent extremism, which creates more violent extremism. Which is bad, right?
There were other choices here. They chose not to make them. It's no one's responsibility to decide other people's bad choices are noble or worthy.
> If violent extremists have no choice about how they act, then you should accept that society too has no choice but to reject them.
Of course, but wouldn't it be nice to have a comprehensive answer to "why?" so we can be free of them completely? Or at least find out why it's impossible if it really is.
The choice should be creating environment in which they don't spawn.
Being free of violent extremism completely is impossible. Someone will always choose violent extremism as their method of political action. Considering their demands based on real, articulable, resolvable concerns validates their methods and encourages their activities.
If they want to be taken seriously, they should abandon their methods. Listening to them will not resolve their concerns and contains no teachings. It instead spreads violent extremism throughout society.
If the political problem is oppression, then it's almost the only possible reaction. Not that I'd say that applies to the US or any Western government though, but, looking at the past, that can change faster than you'd think.
If the political problem is oppression, militias are often part of it. Either as instruments of the oppressive government or as revolutionaries who end up replacing it with another kind of oppression. Violent revolutions usually betray their ideals, because they favor exactly the wrong kind of leaders.
No, it’s simply one possible reaction — and a bad one. Methods matter at least as much as ideals in politics, and violent extremism is not a valid political method and we shouldn’t treat with it like one.
Those who embrace it made their choice. It is no one’s responsibility to respect bad choices.
A small percentage is a significant number and those that initially seek support and camaraderie in militias can get drawn into oddball truther chambers.
> many of their posts convey a general sense of urgency about the need to prepare for “war” or to “stand up” against many supposed enemies, including drag queens, immigrants, pro-Palestine college students, communists—and the US government.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
Also, see 10 U.S. Code § 246:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The militia is literally all around you, every day.
I’d like more transparency and investigation and journalistic focus on TikTok and how it’s encouraging extremism by amplifying some topics and viewpoints above others, creating the kind of societal chaos we see in American universities right now. I’m less concerned about laughable militias and more about mass propagandizing by the CCP.
Putin and CCP intelligence services are all over Facebook and other social media platforms[1]. This is a concerted effort across every possible avenue. It's not about Israel-Palestine per se, it's about trying to maximize every possible domestic division, whether it's White nationalism or Black nationalism or 5g or antivax conspiracy theories. Anything that creates division and chaos. The US and the free world is so strong the only thing that can defeat it is itself.
The downvotes to your comment illustrate how deep the rot perpetuated by XCCP, IRGC, FSB, Qataris, etc has gone.
Not to say concern about domestically originating extremism isn’t warranted, but, if you’re downvoting a comment on “I’m most concerned about sources of social influence from the most regressive governments on earth”, you’ve got some serious bias
I would say the downvotes come because 1) they are changing the subject 2) student protesters are far less dangerous than far right militias and 3) it’s a lot easier to relate to anti-Palestinean genocide protestors than to people who claim there is a white genocide and 4) if a divided populace implies intent on the part of the app developers, Facebook is at least as culpable. TikTok didn’t invent filter bubbles.
The article author Tess Owens has spent her entire career doxxing, canceling and attempting to ruin people's lives she deems unworthy. She routinely runs defense for Antifa, who is a violent political extremist group.
A common Antifa defensive trope. Label enemies as bad guys and thus justify any violence against them.
Antifa started in Eastern Germany in the 30s to spread communism worldwide. They also called conservatives "fascists" which would provide them a convenient scapegoat to commit violence.
> A common Antifa defensive trope. Label enemies as bad guys and thus justify any violence against them.
Is this you?
> Antifa, who is a violent political extremist group.
Seems like the trope is actually you calling antifa "violent", despite all evidence to the contrary, so you can justify violence against peaceful protestors.
>She routinely runs defense for Antifa, who is a violent political extremist group.
Oh my sides.
The aryan nation, proud boys, and most other right wing organizations are either directly or indirectly violent political extremist group. From imprisoned white supremacists all the way to president trumps inner circle. Violence follows American conservatives.
Antifa, short for "anti-fascist," is an ideology rather than a formal organization. It's a loose collection of individuals who oppose fascism and other forms of extreme right-wing ideology. While some practitioners of Antifa ideology have engaged in violent actions, it's important to note that violence isn't inherent to the ideology itself. Antifa's core principles center around confronting and resisting fascism through direct action, such as protests and counter-protests, as well as community organizing and education.
Antifascists that perform acts of violence do so autonomously. Aryan nation members that commit violent acts do so either at the order of a senior member or will face violent punishment from their seniors for unsanctioned violence because such orgs maintain their power through wanton violence.
I am always amused when people project their worldview upon others who actively practice sophisticated direct action instead of vague gestures at conservative political movements.
TLDR- you don’t understand what antifa is and have shown your hand - revealing the fact you uncritically and exclusively consume conservative propaganda.
I see if people get hit on the head with by an antifa it doesn't hurt as much if they are hit by somebody from Aryan nation, because after all the former are hitting them autonomously and not by an order as the later.
The KKK lynching a black personal is different from a person in black bloc shooting someone dead at a protest but it seems this nuance is unimportant to you.
83 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] thread"Security" at the capitol...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jon...
(compare Winston Smith when O'Brien asks him whom he would kill)
No, that's not how it works.
Merely "giving the dude the idea" is never entrapment, because the average "any reasonable person" would not hear that kind suggestion and actually follow it.
I understand the attractiveness of this tactic. It’s easy to get people to do things when you can fabricate a grievance for them — you can even get middle class college kids to rise up in support of terrorists.
But this should be illegal and instead those people should be be forced to get psychological treatment rather than be entrapped.
And if your answer is simply because "racist", "evil", or any other weird notion, you are most certainly entirely wrong.
Note how my philosophy still allows you to address origins, roots, grievances, etc. while also preventing the formation of violent militias because people won't listen to them or take them seriously. Yours forces us to take violent extremists seriously, even when their underlying concerns might not be worthy of consideration. Which is what violent extremists want.
> Are you really claiming that extremist militias are actually a valid reaction to some kind of political problem? What a bizarre stance.
In ethics, just terrorism is a well debated concept. A fairly famous thinker on the subject was Satre, who was influenced, for example, by the Algerian struggle for independence from French colonial rule, which involved both guerrilla warfare and acts of terrorism.
> We can solve political problems without resorting to extremism and violence
In a general sense, this should be trivially true for extremism. But it can be a tricky concept, as the term is also used in a prescriptive way with a politically charged intention, much like "hate".
Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.
> inability to do so is not noble or caused by something external.
I don't see why moral superiority (noble) and external determination should be thrown together - or how either relates to the previous statements.
I would agree though, that one's own actions are never purely caused by external influences, as I'm personally feeling strongly against team determinism.
The previous commenter probably just wanted to highlight polarization as a driving force for radicalization, which isn't entirely untrue, but also, of course, complex. One needs to be able to call out the baddies, despite it being perceived as polarizing.
In what way is terrorism against an occupying external force, and violent extremists targeting the legitimate and democratic government of their own country, the same? Why are you conflating them?
> Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.
I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement.
I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither.
> or how either relates to the previous statements.
Because my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake.
I have cut out the insertion of your meta-narrative. Terrorism as a method is the use of deliberate violence in pursuit of political or ideological goals, and is a tool of choice for violent extremists.
> I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement.
No, you actually connected both concepts with an "and", making your statement ambivalent ... but it's not a hill I care to die on. From a purely ethical point of view, there is nothing upsetting about this issue. It was well chewed over decades ago.
> I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither. [...] my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake.
We must separate the moral question from the political question. We can discuss ethics with rigor and eventually come to a position of clarity. With politics, it's all procedural and fuzzy.
In your last part you assert several positions: 1. rejection of their methods (twice) 2. sympathy (and later: empathy) is politically wrong 3. rejection of their belief system (moral superiority, victimhood) 4. recognition is a mistake.
1. and 3. are probably trivial and I won't argue against them. We're both clearly not on their team, so we don't like their methods or their narrative.
I'd disagree with 2. and 4. I get a lot out of reading and thinking about all kinds of fringe groups. It clearly gratifies many readers intellectual curiosity. Those who shun intellectual curiosity are also bad - or at least misguided.
No police doesn't solve it, because there will be assholes in any group.
In that case, would your only recourse be to hire a private investigator to identify the culprit, and then personally show up at their house to exact your revenge? That doesn’t seem sustainable.
We now a standoff between your private army and someone else's. Seems like an extraordinary inefficient way to achieve justice. (And, one that will likely end up being quite deadly for all parties involved.)
Unless you're the richest person in the world. Because if you aren't, someone is going to outbid you on the security forces, and then it's their decision, not "the market's" decision.
This is proven untrue by history: Nazi Germany, the Irish Revolution, and countless others have proven that brutal, oppressive regimes can only be stopped by violence. I'm not saying the present-day US government is anywhere near this bad, but your statement simply isn't true: violence was absolutely essential in stopping tyranny in many places in history.
I don’t think your comparison to the Irish Revolution is accurate as there is no country occupying the United States. These people have the same political liberties and possibilities as any other citizen.
What exactly does the US have to do with anything at all here?
I'm only responding to the claim that "political problems can be solved without resorting to violence". I never made a comparison to the US. The people of Ireland were definitely NOT able to solve their political problems without violence.
>Nazism was the result of violent extremism becoming politically mainstream
Yes, but that's beside the point. Germany's neighbors had no choice but to resort to extreme violence to handle the Nazi problem. It was either that and surrender and line up for slavery or death camps.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234816/
https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl....
Need more or this good enough?
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XGJN.pdf
So I’m gonna again say no this does not prove the assertion
If violent extremists do have a choice, then we can also choose our response to them. And pretty clearly that response should be to ignore their demands and treat them as having abdicated any say in our political system. Otherwise, you validate violent extremism, which creates more violent extremism. Which is bad, right?
There were other choices here. They chose not to make them. It's no one's responsibility to decide other people's bad choices are noble or worthy.
Of course, but wouldn't it be nice to have a comprehensive answer to "why?" so we can be free of them completely? Or at least find out why it's impossible if it really is.
The choice should be creating environment in which they don't spawn.
If they want to be taken seriously, they should abandon their methods. Listening to them will not resolve their concerns and contains no teachings. It instead spreads violent extremism throughout society.
That's an assumption. Might be false. Especially given how rare violent political action is in modern societies and how common it used to be.
> Considering their demands
Nobody wants that. But we should consider causes that gave rise to the demands.
> Listening to them will not resolve their concerns and contains no teachings.
Nobody advocates for that. We should listen to them only in a way we listen to vocalisations of wolves to figure out how to keep them harmless.
Those who embrace it made their choice. It is no one’s responsibility to respect bad choices.
A small percentage is a significant number and those that initially seek support and camaraderie in militias can get drawn into oddball truther chambers.
The sorts of people who like to join militias don't like all the weebs in regular cosplay circles? (see https://dakotavadams.substack.com/p/gunshow )
All the fent sure as hell isn't going to run itself?
> many of their posts convey a general sense of urgency about the need to prepare for “war” or to “stand up” against many supposed enemies, including drag queens, immigrants, pro-Palestine college students, communists—and the US government.
Also, see 10 U.S. Code § 246: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The militia is literally all around you, every day.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook...
It's so much worse than tiktok.
Not to say concern about domestically originating extremism isn’t warranted, but, if you’re downvoting a comment on “I’m most concerned about sources of social influence from the most regressive governments on earth”, you’ve got some serious bias
Antifa started in Eastern Germany in the 30s to spread communism worldwide. They also called conservatives "fascists" which would provide them a convenient scapegoat to commit violence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
Is this you?
> Antifa, who is a violent political extremist group.
Seems like the trope is actually you calling antifa "violent", despite all evidence to the contrary, so you can justify violence against peaceful protestors.
Oh my sides.
The aryan nation, proud boys, and most other right wing organizations are either directly or indirectly violent political extremist group. From imprisoned white supremacists all the way to president trumps inner circle. Violence follows American conservatives.
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-te...
Antifa, short for "anti-fascist," is an ideology rather than a formal organization. It's a loose collection of individuals who oppose fascism and other forms of extreme right-wing ideology. While some practitioners of Antifa ideology have engaged in violent actions, it's important to note that violence isn't inherent to the ideology itself. Antifa's core principles center around confronting and resisting fascism through direct action, such as protests and counter-protests, as well as community organizing and education.
Antifascists that perform acts of violence do so autonomously. Aryan nation members that commit violent acts do so either at the order of a senior member or will face violent punishment from their seniors for unsanctioned violence because such orgs maintain their power through wanton violence.
I am always amused when people project their worldview upon others who actively practice sophisticated direct action instead of vague gestures at conservative political movements.
TLDR- you don’t understand what antifa is and have shown your hand - revealing the fact you uncritically and exclusively consume conservative propaganda.
Fascinating.