Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#171

Post by kohanz » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 1:44 PM UTC

jules wrote: post #170

kohanz wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly educated people cannot possibly be desperate, mentally unwell, or disaffected? That's also "simply false" and you say so yourself: "You can be a rocket scientist and a religious idiot at the same time". You can be highly educated and a lot of things at the same time (which one would know from reading HN on a regular basis), but perhaps only the traits that fit your narrative are allowed.

Being a religious idiot is not the same thing as being desperate, mentally unwell, and disaffected. The point is that the picture that is being sketched is in-congruent with reality. If we want to have any chance to solve this issue the first step needs to be a honest examination of the causes, not academics taking their pet topics and trying to fit terrorism and ISIS into that. What causes a successful college stude…

You articulated your argument well (upvote!) and I don't disagree with a lot of it, but here is where we differ: why is it that this particular "mind-virus" is so much more transmittable than others? This is where I believe the other factors come into play. You basically agree with me when you start listing potential solutions to defeating the "mind-virus" in your last paragraph. The things you list are addressing the "other" factors. Education and support, for example, are things that help to close the inequality gap.

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#172

Post by beat » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 3:45 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #148

beat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rudimentary talk-radio analysis aside... I find Daesh far scarier than other Islamic fundamentalist movements because their techniques are more sophisticated and their aim is much higher. The "they're killing us!" argument is so silly... terror attacks are to stir western nations into violent action, not to actually significantly injure us. And it works - far too many Americans and Europeans live and act politically…

> I find Daesh far scarier than other Islamic fundamentalist movements because their techniques are more sophisticated and their aim is much higher. Daesh are basically the same people with the same goals as the other Islamic fundamentalist movements you are familiar with. Read the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_...

That's like saying Twitter is the same as Google, just because principal founders came from Google.

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#173

Post by wdewind » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 4:26 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #172

wdewind wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find Daesh far scarier than other Islamic fundamentalist movements because their techniques are more sophisticated and their aim is much higher. Daesh are basically the same people with the same goals as the other Islamic fundamentalist movements you are familiar with. Read the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_...

That's like saying Twitter is the same as Google, just because principal founders came from Google.

I'm not really sure how you can read the history of the organization and come up with that. al-Tawid was founded at around the same time as al Qaeda (within a few years), and they merged to become al Qaeda in Iraq and then ISIS/ISIL.

In some ways the person I was responding to was right because, between Osama and al Zarqawi, Osama was definitely the moderate. But you're talking about wanting to kill everyone who isn't a muslim vs. everyone who isn't sunni muslim.

The idea that ISIS is something fundamentally different is driven by the media. It's sort of how DARE tries to scare parents by saying "This generation is smoking some really crazy stuff you're not familiar with!"

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#174

Post by flubert » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #164

flubert wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even in our own culture it was once the norm to betroth daughters to suitors while they were pre-pubescent, and to marry them as soon as they reached puberty. I'm interested in learning more. Can you narrow down what you mean by "our own culture", and provide a time frame? Like "Early America 1600-1800", or England in the 1400s, Anglo-Saxon culture, 1200, or Irish-Catholic 1300, or whatever. And then maybe point in…

From the time of the Roman empire until the French Revolution, the 'legal' marriage age for women was 12 (as per Roman law and later Church law). You could be betrothed (promised) at any age. Historic documents also show marriages did happen at younger ages. It's well known and easy to find through multiple sources (Google).

Wikipedia has a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#History_and_s...

one interesting quote (of course there is the Roman law you are refering to as well):

"...most of Northwestern Europe, marriage at very early ages was rare. One thousand marriage certificates from 1619 to 1660 in the Archdiocese of Canterbury show that only one bride was 13 years of age, four were 15, twelve were 16, and seventeen were 17 years of age while the other 966 brides were at least 19 years of age at marriage. And the Church dictated that both the bride and groom must be at least 21 years of age to marry without the consent of their families; in the certificates, the most common age for the brides is 22 years. For the grooms 24 years is the most common age, with average ages of 24 years for the brides and 27 for the grooms."

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#175

Post by aeturnum » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #127

aeturnum wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To say the problem with ISIS is anything other than Islamic extremism is a red herring. This assertion seems obviously false. ISIS isn't suddenly "better" because they are killing in the name of something other than "Islamic extremism." There are also plenty of extreme right-wing muslims who don't kill people, which also suggests that a generic diagnosis of "islamic extremism" is not enough to explain ISIS. If you…

> Of course, to believe that, you also have to believe previous groups that espoused philosophies with similar conclusions (Al' Qaeda, etc) were lying - as we haven't kill all of their members and their terrorist & militant activities have fallen off. Well, to be fair, for part of the time al-Qaeda was dominant in the threat list, the group now calling itself "the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" was calling its…

Sure - and al'qaeda "central" kicked them out because they believed ISIS was too extreme and violent. Since then they have worked with groups as diverse as the FBI[0] to oppose the goals of ISIS. The whole interaction makes believe all the more that 'Islamic Extremism' is far too general a term. When dealing with groups that self-identify as islamic extremists, it's vital to understand what they mean by that, but it's insufficient to understand the entire picture.

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/18/-sp-the-race-to-...

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#176

Post by heurist » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 7:05 PM UTC

fecklessyouth wrote: post #51

Then what is behind the rise of the Islamic State's recruiting, whose targets aren't suffering any obvious economic strife? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/world/middleeast/from-minn... Modern liberalism offers no solution to the problem of evil. It assumes that as long as your basic needs are met, and you're mentally sane, that you will behave as a rational, non-violent person. It sees humans as essentially materi…

Modern liberalism leaves no room for evil. The contemporary social conservative-liberal axis reflects personal responsibility. Conservatives believe individuals are entirely responsible for individual happiness and liberals believe society is entirely responsible for individual happiness. If westerners are joining ISIS they are not evil, they have been failed by the collective and are seeking happiness elsewhere. They want variation, excitement, or certain moral standards that western society cannot or will not provide. Is that evil? If we lived in ISIS-controlled territory we'd likely want to escape and would also be branded as evil by those in power.

I'd argue income inequality is very much the culprit in this problem: individuals need not be in economic strife to feel unsatisfied with life. Wealth helps enable empowerment but individuals still need the mental tools to maintain it, and our society vastly undervalues mental health (except among the most fortunate).

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#177

Post by beat » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 9:03 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #173

beat wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying Twitter is the same as Google, just because principal founders came from Google.

I'm not really sure how you can read the history of the organization and come up with that. al-Tawid was founded at around the same time as al Qaeda (within a few years), and they merged to become al Qaeda in Iraq and then ISIS/ISIL. In some ways the person I was responding to was right because, between Osama and al Zarqawi, Osama was definitely the moderate. But you're talking about wanting to kill everyone who isn'…

Daesh is taking and holding territory. And they're dragging major powers in to fight them there, quite deliberately. That's pretty different to me.

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#178

Post by jules » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

kohanz wrote: post #171

jules wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a religious idiot is not the same thing as being desperate, mentally unwell, and disaffected. The point is that the picture that is being sketched is in-congruent with reality. If we want to have any chance to solve this issue the first step needs to be a honest examination of the causes, not academics taking their pet topics and trying to fit terrorism and ISIS into that. What causes a successful college stude…

You articulated your argument well (upvote!) and I don't disagree with a lot of it, but here is where we differ: why is it that this particular "mind-virus" is so much more transmittable than others? This is where I believe the other factors come into play. You basically agree with me when you start listing potential solutions to defeating the "mind-virus" in your last paragraph. The things you list are addressing th…

Indeed, there are factors that influence the susceptibility to this mind virus, but to understand the factors that influence it you first need to acknowledge that it is a religious mind virus. None of the articles that analyze this have acknowledged this (at least not the ones that I have read). That's partly because for atheists and moderates it's hard to imagine that somebody really believes that stuff, and partly because of political correctness.

An example why it's important to understand this is that the data shows that education in general does not work. Many terrorists are highly educated; a lot of them even have college degrees. So raising the general level of education is probably not effective. Education about religion might be.

Other important factors are tribal us-vs-them mentality, and (perceived) grievances.

You ask why this mind virus spreads so easily. That question is not very hard to answer: people are susceptible because they already believe that the Qur'an is the infallible word of God, and the things that ISIS does are sadly a plausible interpretation of the Qur'an. Such a belief in the infallibility is in itself dangerous, and I don't think we will have long term peace until the majority no longer believes that. Christians used to believe that about the Bible but the majority no longer does. Hopefully Islam can make a similar change, but I'm not very optimistic.

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#179

Post by wdewind » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 10:04 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #177

wdewind wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure how you can read the history of the organization and come up with that. al-Tawid was founded at around the same time as al Qaeda (within a few years), and they merged to become al Qaeda in Iraq and then ISIS/ISIL. In some ways the person I was responding to was right because, between Osama and al Zarqawi, Osama was definitely the moderate. But you're talking about wanting to kill everyone who isn'…

Daesh is taking and holding territory. And they're dragging major powers in to fight them there, quite deliberately. That's pretty different to me.

Pretty different from what? Afghanistan in the 70s/80s was almost exactly this: a destabilized national government, insurgent forces taking and holding territory, global powers being dragged into it. The only differences are the rhetoric.

Edit: here, this may be a link that helps you understand more of the history of the region as well as the context for the rise of AQ/ISIL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maktab_al-Khidamat

Re: Thomas Piketty: Clamping down with law and order will not be enough

#180

Post by Mikeb85 » Wed, Dec 02, 2015, 12:16 AM UTC

flubert wrote: post #174

Mikeb85 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the time of the Roman empire until the French Revolution, the 'legal' marriage age for women was 12 (as per Roman law and later Church law). You could be betrothed (promised) at any age. Historic documents also show marriages did happen at younger ages. It's well known and easy to find through multiple sources (Google).

Wikipedia has a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#History_and_s... one interesting quote (of course there is the Roman law you are refering to as well): "...most of Northwestern Europe, marriage at very early ages was rare. One thousand marriage certificates from 1619 to 1660 in the Archdiocese of Canterbury show that only one bride was 13 years of age, four were 15, twelve were 16, and s…

Also this:

> The American colonies followed the English tradition, but the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old".[1] Reliable data for when people would actually marry are very difficult to find. In England, for example, the only reliable data on age at marriage in the early modern period come from records that involved only those who left property after their death.