undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrebuilder5y ago0 comments

I was going to say the exact opposite. Well, almost. You do need some action against the most radicalised, violent elements.

Goal #1 of a radical organisation: create a division. Your narrative is that you represent a downtrodden demographic - "us" - whose misfortune is caused by those in power - "them".

Goal #2: invite hatred and repression The worst thing that can happen for you is for your division to dissolve. You have to work to make membership in your "us" group a stain on its perceived members.

Example: Islamic terrorism. Only a small group of radicals is actually involved in operations, but because they are so deliberately monstrous, and constantly claim to represent all Muslims (factionalism notwithstanding), the stain of their deeds gets spread on all Muslims. This drives a wedge between "Muslims" and "non-Muslims", eventually making that the #1 defining identity for any given Muslim.

The worse the atrocities e.g. ISIS commits in, say, the EU, the louder the voices that demand society be protected against islamic radicalism get. People start to demand that Muslims take responsibility for stopping violence committed by "their" brethren. Muslims start to lose standing in society. This breeds resentment, and reinforces the ISIS message that Muslims are a repressed group who need to fight back. This increases radicalisation, which increases violence, which increases repression, which increases resentment.

By deliberately being monstrous, a radical group can leverage a society's self-defense mechanisms as a recruitment aid. So I'm sceptical of hard-line solutions to these kinds of problems. They seem more likely to make things worse than better.

What should be done, then? I sure don't know, but some things I think should be considered:

1: Do not acknowledge the division. Certainly do not reinforce it. It is an illusion that serves the radicals.

2:Fix the root causes. The radicals' goals are irrelevant. There's no Muslim majority fervently longing for a Caliphate. There's no widespread desire for a whites-only USA among the white conservative-leaning population. What people care about is food on the table, opportunities to progress in life and better their lot, and not being singled out for ridicule and punishment day in, day out. It's the economy. When the economic prospects for large demographics tank, bad things start to happen.

3. Hope for the best. It may take a generation to see meaningful improvement in quality of life for the disaffected population under risk of radicalisation. In the mean time, the political apparatus needs to stay afloat long enough to see those results.

0 comments

stareatgoats5y ago

Agree with most of your analysis, including the absolute need to isolate and pacify the core of the extremists so that they are not able to 'infect' the masses through polarization. Just to add a few more things to the 'todo'-list:

4. Keep a check on those elements on 'our' side that are dependent on conflict with some 'other'. If the last decades have taught us anything I think it is that a polarized environment is forced on us by an alliance of extremists on both sides that thrive on conflict. People who don't shy away from provocations, false flag operations or falsified intelligence to achieve their antagonistic goals.

5. Remove as many incentives as possible for petty criminals to be recruited by terrorists. Make sure every citizen have a place and belong in society. Let's not make terrorist actions a shortcut to herostratic fame [0]

6. Actively research and promote alternatives to a revenge mentality in society. Revenge appeals to us because it is a reptilian brain response to harm on a personal basis. It is useless as a response to terrorist strategists (it just makes us their puppets).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus

hyko5y ago

I agree that we should work to undermine the forces of radicalisation; outreach and social justice efforts may bear fruit in decades or centuries. Democracy is at stake today.

We must acknowledge that all the rights and privileges we enjoy in a democracy exist because they are backed up with recourse to an organisation that can defeat anyone else physically. There can be no leniency when someone threatens the government itself with physical violence; it must respond to the threat totally and severely, or else it will cease to be the government. Perhaps that plays into the hands of someone trying to divide the populace; it doesn’t really matter. This is what an existential threat looks like.

If the government does not enforce its monopoly of violence, every week you will be fighting gun battles outside your courts and legislative assemblies, just like those other failed states we’ve all read about.

rebuilderOP5y ago

I think we'd need to get more specific to talk about what kind of response is warranted. I'm certainly not saying violent acts should be ignored. What I am saying is that it's important to prosecute criminals, not members of a radical group. That needs to be a clear message. Law enforcement is targeted at criminals, not groups of people. The radicals will try to paint any government action as unfair oppression, so it's important that the reactions do not overreach, or you get the dynamic I described above.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse