At least 9 dead. A truck at a Christmas Market.
No words.
My point is that the means by which a person commits murder is almost always irrelevant to the real issue.
'How do you identify individuals who are going to perform violently anti-social acts? How do you prevent violently anti-social individuals from performing such acts?'
That's the real question. Everything else is a dog and pony show.
I didn't specify muslim at any point during this discussion.
My interest is in anti-social actors of every creed. I believe that with current technology they can be found and stopped before they commit violently anti-social acts.
The fact that you 'confirmed' the attacker today was a Muslim is proof of your bigotry, not mine or Harris'.
I think that 'surveillance state' and 'precrime' are emotionally laden words that do not align with what I believe.
Regardless of what I want, we have a surveillance state. Regardless of what I want, some beliefs lead to violent action and some do not. Regardless of what I want, people are going to die.
I'm in no way suggesting jailing individuals for things that they haven't done. I am in favor of targeted application of limited mental health resources to the places the would do the most good, measured in human lives saved by prevention of violently anti-social acts committed by (for whatever stated 'reason') unstable, radical individuals.
- I think that 'surveillance state' and 'precrime' are emotionally laden words that do not align with what I believe.
Okay. That doesn't change the fact that they describe very real concepts that affect law and law enforcement both in theory and application. The ideas are here, they affect how governments treat people, they're deserving of scrutiny, consideration, and criticism.
If we were to be honest here, there would be times where both of us would say "no, never" to these ideas. Then there would be times where we would say "weeeell, maybe they have some merit, but we should be careful." There's a shit load of grey here that makes it very hard to take a philosophically absolute stance. Between you and me though, I'm personally much more on the borders of "no, never" when it comes to both concepts.
- Regardless of what I want, we have a surveillance state.
Doesn't mean it's alright.
- Regardless of what I want, some beliefs lead to violent action and some do not.
It's not as simple as that and even you are willing to admit that.
- Regardless of what I want, people are going to die.
If people are going to die anyway, why should we allow our governments to monitor us, to catalogue who we are, what we believe, what we say and do, to potentially hold against us down the road?
- I am in favor of targeted application of limited mental health resources to the places the would do the most good, measured in human lives saved by prevention of violently anti-social acts committed by (for whatever stated 'reason') unstable, radical individuals.
What makes you think it's just a mental health issue? I've been told time and time again that this is about politics, international relations, economics, cultural identities, social cohesion, and so much more. Wouldn't you agree that addressing all of these issues once again deserve scrutiny and consideration?
I'm trying to point out that saying 'OftenBen is in favor of a surveillance state and precrime divisions' is fallacious. My opinion of a surveillance state doesn't change the fact that we have one, and it's routinely abused. I'm trying to say that even with the abuses that are inherent to such a system, maybe we can get some use out of it. If we're already paying the price, why not get some value returned? Why not save a few lives? Why not find the Elliot Rogers and Omar Mateens and get them help before their insanity becomes violent?
I'm not saying that any of it is alright. I'm saying that we might as well get some of what we're paying for, if we have no choice about paying. Did you see someone to vote for last election who was opposed to the surveillance state? Did you see a 'keep government out of my emails' party on the ballot? Because I sure as hell didn't.
- why should we allow our governments to monitor us, to catalogue who we are, what we believe, what we say and do, to potentially hold against us down the road?
This happens now anyway. When I say it i'm Alex Jones on his worst day, when KB says it he's our wise elder statesman. The fact of the matter is that if someone with the appropriate clearances wants the facts of your digital life, they can get them with piddling effort. I'm not in favor of it. I'm not in favor of any part of it. But I'm trying to work with what we have, not with what I want idealistically.
- What makes you think it's just a mental health issue? I've been told time and time again that this is about politics, international relations, economics, cultural identities, social cohesion, and so much more. Wouldn't you agree that addressing all of these issues once again deserve scrutiny and consideration?
Because there seems to be a belief held in plural on this site that no sane person is capable of holding beliefs that would drive them to violence against another person. The consensus seems to be that if a person is willing to inflict violence upon others, they have to be crazy. They can't possibly have a principle or ideology or whatever that's guiding their actions. If 'crazy' is the word we need to use, then 'crazy' is the framework I'll adapt to, if it amounts to the same outcomes.
You are attempting argument by thoughtcloud. Here's your core premise:
- The fact of the matter is that if someone with the appropriate clearances wants the facts of your digital life, they can get them with piddling effort. I'm not in favor of it. I'm not in favor of any part of it. But I'm trying to work with what we have, not with what I want idealistically.
Inherent in your statement is the idea that there is no different between watching what someone does and predicting what someone will do.
All the pushback you're getting is related to the fact that you're arguing for the existence and prosecution of thoughtcrime.
Yes. It's a loaded word.
No. We're not there yet.
Just because the neonazis like to be called the alt-right doesn't mean they aren't neonazis.
- I'm trying to say that even with the abuses that are inherent to such a system, maybe we can get some use out of it. If we're already paying the price, why not get some value returned? Why not save a few lives? Why not find the Elliot Rogers and Omar Mateens and get them help before their insanity becomes violent?
I'm not saying that any of it is alright. I'm saying that we might as well get some of what we're paying for, if we have no choice about paying.
By saying "let's use it since we have it," you are literally saying there is a part of you that thinks it's alright.
- This happens now anyway. When I say it i'm Alex Jones on his worst day, when KB says it he's our wise elder statesman.
You and kleinbl00 often have a lot of very interesting viewpoints. Both are worth listening to and considering. What kleinbl00 has that you lack tends to be eloquence and insight. That doesn't mean I always agree with him and that doesn't mean what he says doesn't anger me sometimes. I often lack the knowledge and insight to argue on his level.
What you have that kleinbl00 lacks is an abundance of energy and a strong desire to see what you think might be wrongs, righted. In short, your idealism is a counter balance to his cynicism. That doesn't mean I always agree with you and that doesn't mean what you say doesn't anger me sometimes. I just don't have either the passion or tenacity to argue on your level.
- Because there seems to be a belief held in plural on this site that no sane person is capable of holding beliefs that would drive them to violence against another person. The consensus seems to be that if a person is willing to inflict violence upon others, they have to be crazy. They can't possibly have a principle or ideology or whatever that's guiding their actions. If 'crazy' is the word we need to use, then 'crazy' is the framework I'll adapt to, if it amounts to the same outcomes.
I think our friends and peers deserve more credit and respect than reducing their arguments to something so easily dismissable. I see a lot of smart people saying a lot of smart things on this website, including you, and I can pretty much guarantee you they all understand these issues are much more nuanced.
My point is this. Today you've said this . . .
- People who don't want Big Brother Merkel deciding if they get to receive messages from people known to propagate bad-think
and a little later you said this . . .
- My interest is in anti-social actors of every creed. I believe that with current technology they can be found and stopped before they commit violently anti-social acts.
You're not a hypocrite and I know that, so don't think that's what I'm trying to say here. What I am doing is pointing out that the issue of over reaching governments is worthy of concern but at the same time we should encourage our governments to keep us safe in a just manner. The issues are nuanced and they leave us emotionally and philosophically conflicted, and the fact that you made both statements in the same day illustrates that so well.
I don't want to make you defensive. What I do want is some idea of where you think we should draw the line, and why. The fact that you're willing to even remotely advocate a surveillance state makes me both concerned and curious.
Lastly . . .
- Did you see a 'keep government out of my emails' party on the ballot? Because I sure as hell didn't.
I'm still waiting for a "swords into ploughshare" candidate. Just because a candidate doesn't share our worldviews on a certain subject, it doesn't mean our concerns are suddenly dismissable. It just means we have to figure out which candidate we think will best lead us in the direction we want to be going.
- By saying "let's use it since we have it," you are literally saying there is a part of you that thinks it's alright.
I am literally saying what I am literally saying. I'm sorry that we're not going to get rid of the NSA anytime soon. I am deeply and genuinely sorry about that. But I didn't vote for it, and I excoriate everyone who did, and somehow got mocked for that too. Since being 'for' or 'against' the patriot act isn't what determines virtue, let's move on. I'm saying that since we're stuck with it, make it do something pro-social and find the Rogers and Mateens and whoever this new fucker is before they pick up a gun or get behind the wheel IN ADDITION to all the other fuckery that nobody is in favor of. Saying 'Use it while it's here until we can get rid of it' is not the exact same thing as saying 'Use this now and in perpetuity because I'm in favor of it.'
- I think our friends and peers deserve more credit and respect than reducing their arguments to something so easily dismissable.
When someone else presents an alternative characterization of that opinion, or a cogent and coherent explanation of what drives 'sane' actors to violence, I'll be happy to listen. But right now it's a Monty Python sketch where we accept any and all reasons that could explain why someone is a murderer EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THEY GIVE.
Those two statements I made
- No big brother merkel in my email
and
- Use the current messed up, overreaching system for good in addition to the evil it already perpetrates'
are in no way contradictory. I can simultaneously believe that our governments have too much knowledge and power, and that they use the power that they do have irresponsibly/stupidly/inefficiently.
I don't know how to encourage government actors to behave in a just manner. It is literally beyond me to imagine such a thing. I love your ideology, but it's never going to happen. I know I'm normally the all ideology all the time and hang the consequences guy, but it's not going to happen.
I'm not advocating for a surveillance state. On the issue of 'Obama can read your DMs on camera in front of anybody at any time, yes or no?' I'm a firm 'no.'
- I'm still waiting for a "swords into ploughshare" candidate.
Me too, let me know when you find one.
- Just because a candidate doesn't share our worldviews on a certain subject, it doesn't mean our concerns are suddenly dismissable.
I didn't say that they were. But I get made fun of when I say that I consider that voting in favor of the patriot act an act of treason against the people of this country. Seems pretty easily dismissed to me.
- It just means we have to figure out which candidate we think will best lead us in the direction we want to be going.
We had one. I donated to his campaign. I encouraged others to vote for him. It's a real shame it wasn't his turn.
- But right now it's a Monty Python sketch where we accept any and all reasons that could explain why someone is a murderer EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THEY GIVE.
The pushback you and everyone else who refuses to give this any thought is related to the fact that you can't wrap your head around any granularity beyond "islam is islam" as if "christianity is christianity".
There are plenty of justifications within any extant religious text for righteous religious murder. The overwhelming majority of that faith's practitioners eschew religious murder. And that's why Sam "religion causes murder" Harris annoys people - sure. There are sects within Islam that are virulently bad. But Islam as practiced by ISIS has as much to do with Islam as practiced by Yusuf Islam as christianity practiced by David Koresh has to do with christianity as practiced by Oral Roberts.
- The pushback you and everyone else who refuses to give this any thought is related to the fact that you can't wrap your head around any granularity beyond "islam is islam" as if "christianity is christianity".
And we keep being ignored when we say the problem is not with Islam but Radical Islam. Not with Christianity but with Radical Christianity. Harris has been trying to show people this distinction for a while now. I'm not sure how else to say 'I don't view Islam or any religion as a monolith.'
- The idea that Islam is a 'peaceful religion hijacked by extremists' is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms.
Yeah. Sounds like he takes extra care to go out of his way to give Islam and Muslims a fair shake.
I could ask you to re-read that, or half the stuff he writes. I could ask you to try and see how he tries to paint Abrahamic faiths with wide brushes, reducing them to ugly caricatures that are easy to criticize and attack. I could ask you to try and see how many of his statements can be seen as divisive, inflammatory, and potentially dangerous. The fact that half the time I don't understand the things he says, but can understand that he takes on the tone of a pretentious dick is telling about how massive of a douche he must really be, because I pretty much never use those terms to describe people.
I don't think it'll do any good. I think at this point, you're being deliberately obtuse. So let's call it a night.
- What most discussions of “Muslim extremism” miss, and what is obfuscated at every turn by commentators like Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong—and even Nicholas Kristof and Ben Affleck—is the power of specific religious ideas such as martyrdom, apostasy, blasphemy, prophecy, and honor. These ideas do not represent the totality of Islam, but neither are they foreign to it. Nor do they exist in precisely the same way in other faiths. There is a reason why no one is losing sleep over the threat posed by Jain and Quaker “extremists.” Specific doctrines matter.
1) Who are the "radicals?" How do you separate them out? Do you only ban members of the First Church of Radical Islam, Aleppo Diocese? Or do you recognize that the problem isn't "radical islam" it's "radicals" and it always has been?
2) How can you have an entire thousand-word discussion about "Islam" without ackowledging that Shia islam isn't Sunni islam isn't Alawite or Wahabi or Sufi or any other sect?
3) "No one is losing sleep over Jain exremists?" You mean like the ones that assassinated Indira Gandhi? I mean, the buddhists slaughtered muslims in Burma. Ain't nobody immune from teh crazy.
So point to the "radical" muslim and tell me why he's a problem. What makes him a "radical." And how you'll single him out without pulling a Sam Harris and arguing that somehow, because they're the other, you don't have to think about this shit.
Tomato tomahto. I knew sikhs who claimed to be Jains who lived on sikh ashrams, worshipped in sikh temples and lived with sikhs.
Thanks, that was an interesting read. Admittedly, I'm not that well-versed in south asian religions and interfaith relations. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against the point you were trying to make. I believe certain people (of any/no religion) has the potential to be radicalised under the right circumstances, usually due to perceived threats or socio-economic factors.
- I believe that with current technology they can be found and stopped before they commit violently anti-social acts.
I suggest that you examine the roots of this belief in order to determine not just its validity but also why it is out of alignment with the de-facto realities of life in both liberal and suppressive regimes.
How do I know which guy is going to harm me as a small woman ? At this point, given my experience and the experience of others there is no way to tell.
So what should I do ? Treat every guy as a threat ? No thanks, I've been in that place and it's not a fun place. I carry on with my day, I take the precautions I can and make sure I'm at least somewhat equipt to defend myself because that's all anybody can do.
I don't understand worrying about these attacks considering how unlikely they are, I'm too busy thinking about all the ways woman are attacked every day.
- How do I know which guy is going to harm me as a small woman ?
You are most in danger of sexual assault from someone you already know. Usually it's someone the victim knows intimately. I'm assuming you're talking about rape/sexual assault because broad daylight random person-on-random person violence is so low.
If I were a woman I'd want to carry a handgun. Not everyone makes the same choice. There are still people who drive without seatbelts.
In order to know somebody you have to start off not knowing them...
Many woman are harassed when they are out alone. I've been cornered at bus stops, my sister was followed by some guy when she was trying to bus home, getting harassed on public transit is super common, I've dated somebody abusive and I know other woman who have. I also know in many cases it's a "nice" white man who's well liked in society.
I'm honestly just so sick of people saying well we just need to accept that some peoples beliefs make them more prone to violence because fuck that. What men of every race and religion do to woman everyday is violence yet we exclude these people from the discussion for some reason. Even though this stuff happens way more than terrorist attacks. I always feel like I'm on the outside when this conversation happens. Everytime I hear a white guy talk like certain religions or races are more violent I get this flood of memories of ever woman I know who's been hurt by a white man. I don't get the luxury of pinning a race or religion on the people I should be wary of and I don't think anybody else should either.
Edit: I should add I narrowed this down to religion/race because they're the obvious ones. What I mean is I don't know who will hurt me, and neither do you. Suck it up. I sat outside someone's house once and listened to this guy make a comment about how this latest spat of violence in Ottawa was obviously caused by somebody of a different race. You know who was in that house at the time ? His white best friend who had beat my friend and then spent less time in jail than she did in the hospital. That is exactly where being the type of person who thinks they know who's prone to violence lands you. Being some dumb hyprocrite.
Double Edit: Fuck you for equating a woman who doesn't carry a firearm with someone stupid enough to not wear a seatbelt.