71–80 of 138 posts
The best way is to identify the roots behind what attracts the followers of these ideologies, address any root issues, and attack the premises behind the ideologies itself.
Not talking to these incidents, but all over the world, people tend to violence when they feel that the system does not hear them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two 14 year olds, seven 15 year olds, eight 16 year olds, sixteen 17 year olds. I wasn't counting folks eighteen and over. He killed 33 children.
OK, 33 14-17 years olds who were already party members then... That doesn't materially change the point I made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. Was the Godhra train arson[1] where 100+ Hindu pilgrims including women and children were deliberately set afire by a Muslim mob ever covered by the Western press? This is what triggered the riots. > killed at least 1,000 people. So no Hindus were killed in the riots? Only Muslims? > Some people accuse the current prime m…
It’s unclear to me whether you’re defending the massacre or what your argument is. It was set off by an arson. Ok. Are you implying that the reaction was justified?
My argument is that the way the comment is structured, it appears that Hindu nationalism randomly causes Hindus to attack and kill 1000 Muslims just for the heck of it.
The murder of Hindu pilgrims by a Muslim mob triggered the Hindu-Muslim riots, not Hindu nationalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I see the "mental gymnastics" here. Isn't it a usually accepted thing that young children have no clue? It makes "sense" (at least in the scope of Breivik's craziness) to consider that these kids were "victims" brought there by their parents or something. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "mental gymnastics". I think this expression usually applies when 2 contradicting /paradoxical statements are made…
He was attacking a youth camp and shot many young teens(I didn’t read every slide but one example I saw was a 14 YO girl hit four times) so I don’t see a difference. I guess I’m just shocked at seeing a weird attempt at “ethics” from someone who would do something like that.
For example, he researched which drugs he could take that would make it easier for him to shoot the kids[1].
He was not insane. He wasn't on a wild rampage. He had a specific goal in mind: to destroy the future of the labour party.
[1]: https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/QJRjP/behring-breivik-var...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.
For context Karl Popper's quote on the paradox of tolerance: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should alway…
It would be great if that condition was used to distinguish between individuals that are intolerant and those that simply are dissenting.
A dissenter might disagree with the rationality of the arguments being presented. They might be in minority in term of public opinion. Suppression would still certainly be most unwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, 33 14-17 years olds who were already party members then... That doesn't materially change the point I made.
The point you made seems to be remarkably overlapping with that it is ok to shoot children that are members of some political party, which I hope was not what you intended. You're 'obviously not defending the guy' with words that are pretty close to if not already across that border. When you step into the breach for some monster weigh your words a bit more carefully please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not though, gun violence is not caused by people not being aware of the consequences or the shock thereof. It's not even caused by gun ownership itself. There's a whole slew of issues behind gun violence in the US.
It could cause people to take action around laws or other issues that contribute to gun violence - because they want less of it to occur.
For example, genocide in Sudan was pretty heavily covered, including some graphic content. Yet we didn't do much of anything to fix it. There were not many people saying "send me over there so I can stop it".
Most people always want someone else to fix the issue for them rather than take direct action themselves. We know that socioeconomic issues are the main drivers of gun violence and violence in general. Most people are not willing to address those issues through paying higher taxes (it's always tax some other person), volunteering, or even being neighborly. Many of the better off people do not live in the areas affected most by gun violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For context Karl Popper's quote on the paradox of tolerance: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should alway…
> and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. It would be great if that condition was used to distinguish between individuals that are intolerant and those that simply are dissenting. A dissenter might disagree with the rationality of the arguments being presented. They might be in minority in term of public opinion. Suppression would still certainly be most unwise.
I remember how most were sure it was an islamistic assault. In the aftermath the press gave him to much room with pictures of him and citations from his "manifest". Even the attacker of the Christchurch mosque massacre referenced him. Ban his name and pictures, remember his victims instead.
Should Breivik have killed more to qualify for banning. Yes, a ridiculous suggestion as with the idea of banning mention of him.
There is probably even more work to do on Stalin's legacy not to mention the others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Great_Purge_victims
Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.
It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.
You can go a step farther and say that "tolerance towards intolerance leads to intolerance, therefore we should be intolerant towards tolerance in the first place!" It's a paradox for a reason, and no high-minded solutions of "intolerance in the name of tolerance" are able to sidestep its implications.
There are two conclusions that I personally draw from it. The first is that intolerance/tolerance is not a binary, is not easily definable, and therefore there is no clear standard for what speech is right to censor and which is not. i.e. the paradox is unsolvable. The second is that "tolerance" and "intolerance" are not great words to describe the dynamics at play, they carry extra nuance that is not helpful.
(if you can't tell, I'm not a fan of the paradox of tolerance)