[Veraticus]

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.

[scotty79]

Well, they are a reaction. Like crime is a reaction to poverty. Is it valid? Does it matter if it's valid? It's real. Isn't it more important?

[Veraticus]

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.

[scotty79]

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".

[Veraticus]

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.

[scotty79]

> 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.

[Veraticus]

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.

[zarathustreal]

Crime is a reaction to poverty? Source?

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7820585/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234816/

https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl....

Need more or this good enough?

[zarathustreal]

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

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

What do you think of this source?

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00XGJN.pdf

[zarathustreal]

> 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

[somedude895]

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.

[jltsiren]

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.

[Veraticus]

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.

[archagon]

Please spell it out. Who is being oppressed, and by what means?

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

I’m sure you’re talking about systemic oppression of bipoc Americans - right?

[fwn]

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.

[Veraticus]

> 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.

[fwn]

> 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.

[aprilthird2021]

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.

[Veraticus]

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.

[shiroiushi]

>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.

[Veraticus]

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.

[shiroiushi]

>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.

[TotalCrackpot]

Technically if you are against terrorism then you should be for police abolition, because police uses violence for political reasons.

[Veraticus]

Whatever you think of the police, most police forces are not violent extremists. The idea of policing is mainstream in almost all societies.

[TotalCrackpot]

By definition police uses violence for political reasons. That makes it a terrorist organization. Same with army.

[soundnote]

I am for society not degenerating to the point you need to do a Bukele to fix it. That means having police, whether they're perfect or not.

[infotainment]

Crazy thought: the police are needed to enforce order, because some people are assholes.

[TotalCrackpot]

The police are often assholes, they murder and beat people.

[infotainment]

Sure, so how do you deal with that problem? Who will police the police, if you will?

No police doesn't solve it, because there will be assholes in any group.

[kelseyfrog]

Privatize security. Let the market decide.

[Veraticus]

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.

[TotalCrackpot]

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.