ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 9th June 2019, 02:33 PM   #1
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,743
Stochastic Terrorism and Edgelord Humour

There are a lot of disparate threads on this board about essentially the same thing: white supremacist terrorism and cultural racism. One of the most persistent threads throughout them is the range and persistence of the denialism. There is a persistent insistence that they are not "true" white supremacists, but are "lone wolf" actors, and not indicative of a deeper and more pervasive threat.

That is a profound misunderstanding of terrorism in the age of pervasive, near-universal social media access.

Although not entirely new, Stochastic Terrorism has been rapidly becoming the new face of terrorism all over the world, but especially in the developed world with widespread access to mass communication tools, such as social media platforms Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and the various Chans.

The phenomenon was first comprehensively defined and explained in an article in DailyKos. Stochastic Terrorism: Triggering the shooters.

The definition of stochastic terrorism is, in brief, "The use of mass public communication, usually against a particular individual or group, which incites or inspires acts of terrorism which are statistically probable but happen seemingly at random."

That's somewhat simplistic, but it explains why concentrating on terrorist organizations, and organizations in general, is misguided at best, and deliberate misdirection at worst. Modern terrorism has eschewed the traditional model of organized leadership, infiltration, and activation of sleeper cells; and moved toward promulgating memes,

The key factors in stochastic terrorism are radicalizing seemingly random "loners" through inflammatory rhetoric; and plausible deniability, the ability for the inciting individual or group to distance themselves from the terrorist and declaim responsibility.

We're all familiar with inflammatory rhetoric, the Islamists painting of westerners as the enemy of Islam, Trump painting liberals and unsympathetic journalists as the "enemies of the people", prominent hard-right conservatives blathering on about rapist immigrants and "white genocide", and so on.

Just as importantly, possibly even moreso, is plausible deniability. The purveyors of inflammatory rhetoric can avoid using direct language to incite violence, but still get their message out, and "disavow" the violence which is a direct result of their worldview.

Some further examples and reading on the subject.

THE RISING DANGER OF STOCHASTIC TERRORISM


What a lot of these articles don't address strongly enough and deeply enough is the sheer importance of

This, of course, did not originate with Trump, or even the Islamists. It's far older than that, and has its direct roots in demagoguery and other forms of "whipping up". The earliest clear examples of stochastic terrorism occurred within the anti-abortion movement of the '80s and '90s. Various preachers, and ostensibly "non-violent" protest groups like Operation Rescue labeled doctors and nurses as murderers, referred to open access to abortion as a "Holocaust", and did all but demand direct action against clinics and their personnel. And people took them up on their calls to action and committed numerous murders, bombings, arsons, assaults, and other violent crimes against doctors, nurses, and clinics in the US and worldwide.

This process has continued to evolve, and extremists of all stripes have begun to learn how to harness the power of social platforms to inspire others to violent acts without having to implicate themselves directly in that violence.

There are two phenomena involved in the process of radicalization and escalation to violence.

The first of these is the Pyramid of Violence. This was first developed to explain the progression of sexual violence, but it applies equally well to all forms of social violence deriving from prejudice and entitlement attitudes. Starting with the promulgation of a prejudiced and entitled worldview, through cultural expression of that worldview (institutionally or individually), through open verbal expression bigoted humour, to expression in more verbally violent forms (humourous or otherwise), to physical expression of that violence, to outright murder.

The second is the radicalism pipeline. It starts with the normalization of prejudice through the use of edgy humour, aka "trolling". The psychology of this process is well-established, and is used widely in marketing and advertising.

Once people have gotten use to the outward expression of bigotry, they are then primed for the next level, the escalation of bigoted rhetoric by the likes of major social media influencers, and popular pundits with platforms that allow them to reach millions of people (aka Fox News). At this level, the rhetoric is still generalized enough to seem more or less harmless, and is often defended as "free speech" despite its implications. From there, the next step on the pathway is more focused targeting, more radical pundits and influencers begin providing clear targets for their rhetoric -- Mexican rapists flooding across the border, "superpredators" black men, Jews in the financial industry, prominent feminists, trangendered sexual predators attacking young girls in public restrooms, journalists who openly criticize leaders and movements -- and demonize these targets as the cause of any and all social ills affecting their demographic.

Finally, there's the call to action. This is never a direct incitement to commit violence, but a subtle and indirect call based on dog whistles and other coded language. Probably the most blatant and familiar of these is Trump's "second amendment people" comment. In context, it's quite clear what the meaning is, but Trump's people made an effort to backpedal on the meaning and claim they were referring to political action, despite the comment being a clear call to direct action.

And that brings up the biggest and most powerful tool that the influencers have: deniabilitly. Their call to action is always couched in coded language. Dog whistles, "just asking questions", and a vague assertion that "something needs to be done" to remedy the situation. When called out for their incitement, it's very easy for them to fall back on this deniability. Of course they're not calling for violence, only for political action, protest, boycotts, etc. despite the fact that these non-violent actions are never part of their rhetoric, never mentioned explicitly. Therefore, they are never responsible for the results of their words, and any attempt to call them on it is "political correctness gone mad", and "censorship of unpopular speech".

And, of course, there's the somewhat less subtle or coded attempt to paint themselves and their supporters, even the violent supporters, as the victims. They're just "expressing an alternate worldview", and are "being attacked by SJWs". It's never the targets of violence who are the real victims, it's the people being called to account for their hateful rhetoric and pontificating who are the "true victims".

Just as important as the deniable calls to action, is the use of these coded signals to confuse the issue, to not only give cover to the incitement, but also to make it difficult to discuss and address the incitement, to disrupt a potential backlash, and create a rift amongst the opposition. Pepe the Frog, Kekistan, OK/WP, all of this is to not only make the radicals appear less threatening, but to set their opponents to arguing with each other over what is a threat, and what is not. The inciters can denigrate and ridicule anyone who recognizes the codes for what they are, treating it as "just a joke", and those who attempt to explain the meanings of the memes as "idiots who don't get the joke". Disavow, Deny, Denigrate are their watchwords; and their communications are filled with misdirection and misinformation intended to muddy the waters and keep the uninitiated from fully understanding the nature of the threat.

Thus we end up with flippant dismissals of these symbols and dog whistles, and hair-splitting over what constitutes a "true" Nazi, White Supremacist, terrorist, and so on; and grossly misunderstanding and underestimating the nature and degree of threat involved.

The end result is that the inciters can rely on a relatively few people making the full progression from worldview to violent action, well-supported on their various steps through the process. Obviously not everyone will step up through each stage, but we can see numerous incidents involving those who do; each one supported by a much larger body of influence of people in the previous steps of the process. The Christchurch shooter, the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, the Charleston church shooting. One can see the various steps in the radicalization and violence process in each of these.

The Christchurch shooter's manifesto (which I am absolutely not going to link) demonstrates this radicalization from edgelord humour to violent action, and the power of racist and other bigoted memes, in an almost textbook fashion.

Another great expression of part of the process of radicalization and incitement is the Daily Stormer's PR guide, as published by the Huffington Post, which provides detailed instructions on how to craft and promulgate radicalizing language while still maintaining plausible deniability.

For more in-depth details on this, I strongly recommend the following two videos, which provide a systematic exploration of the process of radicalization from normalization to direct violent action.

The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence
PewDiePipeline 2: How to Shut it Down

A former radicalized alt.right reactionary who managed to de-radicalize and work his way out of the pipeline explains the process of radicalization and how to de-radicalize people already in the pipeline:

Faraday Speaks
- My Descent into the Alt-Right Pipeline


One of the things I've noticed recently on this very forum is the proliferation of these sorts of rhetorical tactics. Now, I'm not saying that everyone here is consciously engaging in this sort of radicalizing language and coded call-to-action, but there are an obvious few. But that's not the biggest problem, the biggest problem is how effective the propaganda machine has become, how normalized the rhetoric of bigotry and coded calls-to-action have become, and how otherwise decent people have been duped into excusing, accepting, or outright supporting the deniability and coded language under the guise of free speech and freedom of assembly. The fascists, white nationalists, homophobes/transphobes, and so on, have found unlikely and unwitting allies in their cause.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 02:53 PM   #2
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,198
Inflammatory rhetoric has long been around (cf: French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Goebbals misinformation campaign, etc). What's striking about modern day rhetoric is that an act of terrorism is broadcast around the world within hours or even minutes of it happening (for example, via Twitter or Sky 'developing news' on 24/7 tv news).

I can recall a time one didn't get to find out the news - unless you knew when to tune in to BBC world service on the radio - until the next day. People got their news from newspapers.

School shootings are not new. An early recorded one was in the 1920's. What has changed is how quickly they have now proliferated - and mass murders in general - ever since the Columbine School shootings. Then there was Virginia Tech when the killer, Cho, used a novel approach of filming a video of himself armed up to the gills with assault rifles and reading out his 'manifesto' cursing all the kids at uni who ever mocked him, timed to arrive after the event and sent to a major tv network. A Finnish high school shooter copied this idea with his Nietzchean fascist-type 'manifesto'.

Then of course we had Brevit with his manifesto which he publicised by shooting dead 74 mainly shoolkids on the island of Uttoya (_sp?) near Oslo - a rant about the need to bring back the crusaders to fight Islam and multiculturalism.

An early adopter was Mark Chapman, John Lennon assassin, who clutched The Catcher in the Rye as if to say he identified as the disaffected narrator.

Thing is, these guys know that in gaining notoriety with their rhetoric people read their mad 'manifestos' in an attempt to comprehend the incomprehensibility and enormity of their act.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'

Last edited by Vixen; 9th June 2019 at 02:56 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 03:12 PM   #3
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 16,198
You look at what happened in Christchurch NZ, a country not usually connected to terrorism, in this case the far-right.

The perpetrator rationalised it by citing Ebba the nine-year old mowed down by the terrorist truck driver (=Muslim) in Stockholm. There can be very few people who saw the body in the road who were not heartbroken by the sight of it (people thought there were two bodies, or even that one of the covered 'bodies' was a dog).

Thus, when he carried out his act he knew there would be some people nodding their head in recognition of the 'Ebba' reference, whilst not being considered as justification by any sane person.

Angry people now have the 'excuse' of 'revenge for what your people did to an innocent young kid', or in the case of the London Bridge terrorists the persecution of ISIS followers.
__________________
Then let the way appear, steps unto heav'n.
All that thou sendest me, in mercy giv'n.'
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 03:30 PM   #4
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,318
In a conspiracy of like minds one need not be explicit.

But I think in some form or other this phenomenon has been around for longer than one might think. It's essentially the refinement of the old Henry and Becket faceoff. Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest? Sure, say the henchmen. Oh no, that's not what I meant, says the incitor, happily able both to relish the act and punish the henchmen for being caught.

We see it refined nowadays, and it's a favorite dodge of some posters here to make a sweepingly wrong statement and then disallow any criticism if the criticism involves any synonyms, implication or interpretations. I did not say that!
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 05:26 PM   #5
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
There are a lot of disparate threads on this board about essentially the same thing: white supremacist terrorism and cultural racism. One of the most persistent threads throughout them is the range and persistence of the denialism. There is a persistent insistence that they are not "true" white supremacists, but are "lone wolf" actors, and not indicative of a deeper and more pervasive threat.

That is a profound misunderstanding of terrorism in the age of pervasive, near-universal social media access.

Although not entirely new, Stochastic Terrorism has been rapidly becoming the new face of terrorism all over the world, but especially in the developed world with widespread access to mass communication tools, such as social media platforms Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and the various Chans.

The phenomenon was first comprehensively defined and explained in an article in DailyKos. Stochastic Terrorism: Triggering the shooters.

The definition of stochastic terrorism is, in brief, "The use of mass public communication, usually against a particular individual or group, which incites or inspires acts of terrorism which are statistically probable but happen seemingly at random."

That's somewhat simplistic, but it explains why concentrating on terrorist organizations, and organizations in general, is misguided at best, and deliberate misdirection at worst. Modern terrorism has eschewed the traditional model of organized leadership, infiltration, and activation of sleeper cells; and moved toward promulgating memes,

The key factors in stochastic terrorism are radicalizing seemingly random "loners" through inflammatory rhetoric; and plausible deniability, the ability for the inciting individual or group to distance themselves from the terrorist and declaim responsibility.

We're all familiar with inflammatory rhetoric, the Islamists painting of westerners as the enemy of Islam, Trump painting liberals and unsympathetic journalists as the "enemies of the people", prominent hard-right conservatives blathering on about rapist immigrants and "white genocide", and so on.

Just as importantly, possibly even moreso, is plausible deniability. The purveyors of inflammatory rhetoric can avoid using direct language to incite violence, but still get their message out, and "disavow" the violence which is a direct result of their worldview.

Some further examples and reading on the subject.

THE RISING DANGER OF STOCHASTIC TERRORISM


What a lot of these articles don't address strongly enough and deeply enough is the sheer importance of

This, of course, did not originate with Trump, or even the Islamists. It's far older than that, and has its direct roots in demagoguery and other forms of "whipping up". The earliest clear examples of stochastic terrorism occurred within the anti-abortion movement of the '80s and '90s. Various preachers, and ostensibly "non-violent" protest groups like Operation Rescue labeled doctors and nurses as murderers, referred to open access to abortion as a "Holocaust", and did all but demand direct action against clinics and their personnel. And people took them up on their calls to action and committed numerous murders, bombings, arsons, assaults, and other violent crimes against doctors, nurses, and clinics in the US and worldwide.

This process has continued to evolve, and extremists of all stripes have begun to learn how to harness the power of social platforms to inspire others to violent acts without having to implicate themselves directly in that violence.

There are two phenomena involved in the process of radicalization and escalation to violence.

The first of these is the Pyramid of Violence. This was first developed to explain the progression of sexual violence, but it applies equally well to all forms of social violence deriving from prejudice and entitlement attitudes. Starting with the promulgation of a prejudiced and entitled worldview, through cultural expression of that worldview (institutionally or individually), through open verbal expression bigoted humour, to expression in more verbally violent forms (humourous or otherwise), to physical expression of that violence, to outright murder.

The second is the radicalism pipeline. It starts with the normalization of prejudice through the use of edgy humour, aka "trolling". The psychology of this process is well-established, and is used widely in marketing and advertising.

Once people have gotten use to the outward expression of bigotry, they are then primed for the next level, the escalation of bigoted rhetoric by the likes of major social media influencers, and popular pundits with platforms that allow them to reach millions of people (aka Fox News). At this level, the rhetoric is still generalized enough to seem more or less harmless, and is often defended as "free speech" despite its implications. From there, the next step on the pathway is more focused targeting, more radical pundits and influencers begin providing clear targets for their rhetoric -- Mexican rapists flooding across the border, "superpredators" black men, Jews in the financial industry, prominent feminists, trangendered sexual predators attacking young girls in public restrooms, journalists who openly criticize leaders and movements -- and demonize these targets as the cause of any and all social ills affecting their demographic.

Finally, there's the call to action. This is never a direct incitement to commit violence, but a subtle and indirect call based on dog whistles and other coded language. Probably the most blatant and familiar of these is Trump's "second amendment people" comment. In context, it's quite clear what the meaning is, but Trump's people made an effort to backpedal on the meaning and claim they were referring to political action, despite the comment being a clear call to direct action.

And that brings up the biggest and most powerful tool that the influencers have: deniabilitly. Their call to action is always couched in coded language. Dog whistles, "just asking questions", and a vague assertion that "something needs to be done" to remedy the situation[/hilite]. When called out for their incitement, it's very easy for them to fall back on this deniability. Of course they're not calling for violence, only for political action, protest, boycotts, etc. despite the fact that these non-violent actions are never part of their rhetoric, never mentioned explicitly. Therefore, they are never responsible for the results of their words, and any attempt to call them on it is "political correctness gone mad", and "censorship of unpopular speech".

And, of course, there's the somewhat less subtle or coded attempt to paint themselves and their supporters, even the violent supporters, as the victims. They're just "expressing an alternate worldview", and are "being attacked by SJWs". It's never the targets of violence who are the real victims, it's the people being called to account for their hateful rhetoric and pontificating who are the "true victims".

Just as important as the deniable calls to action, is the use of these coded signals to confuse the issue, to not only give cover to the incitement, but also to make it difficult to discuss and address the incitement, to disrupt a potential backlash, and create a rift amongst the opposition. Pepe the Frog, Kekistan, OK/WP, all of this is to not only make the radicals appear less threatening, but to set their opponents to arguing with each other over what is a threat, and what is not. The inciters can denigrate and ridicule anyone who recognizes the codes for what they are, treating it as "just a joke", and those who attempt to explain the meanings of the memes as "idiots who don't get the joke". Disavow, Deny, Denigrate are their watchwords; and their communications are filled with misdirection and misinformation intended to muddy the waters and keep the uninitiated from fully understanding the nature of the threat.

Thus we end up with flippant dismissals of these symbols and dog whistles, and hair-splitting over what constitutes a "true" Nazi, White Supremacist, terrorist, and so on; and grossly misunderstanding and underestimating the nature and degree of threat involved.

The end result is that the inciters can rely on a relatively few people making the full progression from worldview to violent action, well-supported on their various steps through the process. Obviously not everyone will step up through each stage, but we can see numerous incidents involving those who do; each one supported by a much larger body of influence of people in the previous steps of the process. The Christchurch shooter, the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, the Charleston church shooting. One can see the various steps in the radicalization and violence process in each of these.

The Christchurch shooter's manifesto (which I am absolutely not going to link) demonstrates this radicalization from edgelord humour to violent action, and the power of racist and other bigoted memes, in an almost textbook fashion.

Another great expression of part of the process of radicalization and incitement is the Daily Stormer's PR guide, as published by the Huffington Post, which provides detailed instructions on how to craft and promulgate radicalizing language while still maintaining plausible deniability.

For more in-depth details on this, I strongly recommend the following two videos, which provide a systematic exploration of the process of radicalization from normalization to direct violent action.

The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence
PewDiePipeline 2: How to Shut it Down

A former radicalized alt.right reactionary who managed to de-radicalize and work his way out of the pipeline explains the process of radicalization and how to de-radicalize people already in the pipeline:

Faraday Speaks
- My Descent into the Alt-Right Pipeline


One of the things I've noticed recently on this very forum is the proliferation of these sorts of rhetorical tactics. Now, I'm not saying that everyone here is consciously engaging in this sort of radicalizing language and coded call-to-action, but there are an obvious few. But that's not the biggest problem, the biggest problem is how effective the propaganda machine has become, how normalized the rhetoric of bigotry and coded calls-to-action have become, and how otherwise decent people have been duped into excusing, accepting, or outright supporting the deniability and coded language under the guise of free speech and freedom of assembly. The fascists, white nationalists, homophobes/transphobes, and so on, have found unlikely and unwitting allies in their cause.
These are the kind of ideas I can imagine would be written in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of White Nationalism. Conspiracy much?
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 05:57 PM   #6
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Stochastic Terrorism pretty much means that the more a Group "A" is targeted to be hated and persecuted, and the wider the base of people reading that hatred, the more likely it is that one of them will be triggered into taking physical action.

Pizzagate is a great example of the result of stochastic terrorism... a small number of people made a ridiculous claim; that Comet Pizza was harbouring child sex slaves. They made that claim loud enough and long enough and were able to promulgate it widely enough, that eventually, Edgar Maddison Welch took it seriously and was triggered into action.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 09:29 PM   #7
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,144
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
<snipped really good stuff>

Another great expression of part of the process of radicalization and incitement is the Daily Stormer's PR guide,as published by the Huffington Post, which provides detailed instructions on how to craft and promulgate radicalizing language while still maintaining plausible deniability.

<snipped even more good stuff>
I don't mean to abridge an excellent post. But it covers so much material (that is all viable for discussion) that one of my favorite articles is possibly going to be missed.

Everyone who falls for the plausible deniability gambit by the Extreme Right and Alt-Right should have the HuffPo article as required reading.

There you have it in the words of the Stormfronter Nazis. They are playing you for saps.

It isn't edgy humor, irony or sarcasm. It is blatant bigotry, and they're talking about how to peddle it to the willing believers. And it applies to a lot of the discussions we've had on this forum.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 10:51 PM   #8
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,668
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Another great expression of part of the process of radicalization and incitement is the Daily Stormer's PR guide, as published by the Huffington Post, which provides detailed instructions on how to craft and promulgate radicalizing language while still maintaining plausible deniability.
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I don't mean to abridge an excellent post. But it covers so much material (that is all viable for discussion) that one of my favorite articles is possibly going to be missed.

Everyone who falls for the plausible deniability gambit by the Extreme Right and Alt-Right should have the HuffPo article as required reading.

There you have it in the words of the Stormfronter Nazis. They are playing you for saps.

It isn't edgy humor, irony or sarcasm. It is blatant bigotry, and they're talking about how to peddle it to the willing believers. And it applies to a lot of the discussions we've had on this forum.
Reading that was certainly worth the effort. Thanks for the pointer. I'll check out the other things when I have more free time, but that particular article is not to be missed.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 10:54 PM   #9
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,318
We should not forget one of the great weapons of plausible deniability: the "rule of so," which enjoyed a short run here.

You need not take responsibility for much of anything if you declare that any conclusions or implications are an inherent fallacy.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 11:06 PM   #10
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I don't mean to abridge an excellent post. But it covers so much material (that is all viable for discussion) that one of my favorite articles is possibly going to be missed.

Everyone who falls for the plausible deniability gambit by the Extreme Right and Alt-Right should have the HuffPo article as required reading.

There you have it in the words of the Stormfronter Nazis. They are playing you for saps.

It isn't edgy humor, irony or sarcasm. It is blatant bigotry, and they're talking about how to peddle it to the willing believers. And it applies to a lot of the discussions we've had on this forum.
There a two main things that I find a bit frightening about that article

1. That white supremacist blogs actually go to all this trouble to try to legitimize their writing. It shows they are not fooling around with this stuff - they have a target audience, a plan on how to appeal to that audience, and they execute that plan very well.

2. There are a fair percentage of people out there who are stupid enough to fall for their rhetoric. We even have a few of theme right here in this forum.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th June 2019 at 11:10 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 11:15 PM   #11
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,029
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
You need not take responsibility for much of anything if you declare that any conclusions or implications are an inherent fallacy.
I don't think its run here is over; I believe it is still a common argumentative tactic here to make one's statements as lean or basic as possible and then curtly pronounce anybody who tries to apply a logical projection to continue the discussion to be "making a straw man" as a simple semantic stop-sign, rather than for instance rebutting them by stating or clarifying one's actual position instead.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 05:38 AM   #12
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,693
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Stochastic Terrorism pretty much means that the more a Group "A" is targeted to be hated and persecuted, and the wider the base of people reading that hatred, the more likely it is that one of them will be triggered into taking physical action.

Pizzagate is a great example of the result of stochastic terrorism... a small number of people made a ridiculous claim; that Comet Pizza was harbouring child sex slaves. They made that claim loud enough and long enough and were able to promulgate it widely enough, that eventually, Edgar Maddison Welch took it seriously and was triggered into action.
According to the futurist/historian Timothy Snyder, Pizzagate was the Russians with their false news. He has a talk on U-tube, done in Norway. He is flogging a book, but he really thinks in concepts. He is a liberal, and ex adviser to Bush I. Both sides ought to listen to him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Faik...ature=youtu.be

But back to the OP, mass murders are still Homeopathic in incidence. Don't worry about it happening to YOU, but that doesn't mean they aren't terrorizing to the public.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 10th June 2019 at 06:11 AM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 05:48 AM   #13
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
That "style guide" is truly frightening.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 05:57 AM   #14
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,519
This is just the Right hoisting the Left up by one of their highest and proudest petards... "tolerance."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 06:57 AM   #15
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
We should not forget one of the great weapons of plausible deniability: the "rule of so," which enjoyed a short run here.

You need not take responsibility for much of anything if you declare that any conclusions or implications are an inherent fallacy.
To me that can be translated to "of I don't get it, I get to make my own meaning then attack you based on that. ".

Sorry but I'm not really willing to let humor have to be bubbled wrapped and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of people that sniff around for offense like a dog looking for floor snacks.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:06 AM   #16
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,519
Maybe, just maybe if the internet hadn't decided that Pedantics was the one true God and faux-obtuseness was Sunday Mass there would be an easier way out of this.

We spend 90% of our argumentative energy arguing about the two identical sides of a split hair that's not even on the head of the argument we're actually having and we think that would never get used against us?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:22 AM   #17
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,974
Great post, luchog. I don't have anything to add (not to something so thorough!), but very interesting stuff. The HuffPo article is making me want to reach for my smelling salts! I'm going to watch the video about the former radical later, when I can. (Didn't realize it was a video.) Stuff like that is the most interesting stuff of all to me, because hearing the testimony of former radicals of any stripe is a great way to see what might work for getting through to them before it's too late.

I definitely fear for the future if some of this overall tension doesn't die down. I've been trying to stay out of the various frays as they come up here on the forum, but it's getting harder. This crap isn't going away.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:22 AM   #18
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
To me that can be translated to "of I don't get it, I get to make my own meaning then attack you based on that. ".



Sorry but I'm not really willing to let humor have to be bubbled wrapped and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of people that sniff around for offense like a dog looking for floor snacks.
Have you read the style guide?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:25 AM   #19
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post

Sorry but I'm not really willing to let humor have to be bubbled wrapped and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of people that sniff around for offense like a dog looking for floor snacks.
Since the founding of America, free speech has seen off:
- Monarchists
- Slavery
- Imperialists
- Nazis
- Communists
- Segregationists
But there’s no way it can see off internet edgelords. Farewell free speech, you had a good run but it’s time to retire and let ‘approved speakers and boundaries’ have a turn!
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:28 AM   #20
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,828
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That "style guide" is truly frightening.
What amazes me is how often stuff like this is out in the open, but no one discusses it. See also: Newt Gingrich's "contrasting words".
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:29 AM   #21
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,974
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
To me that can be translated to "of I don't get it, I get to make my own meaning then attack you based on that. ".

Sorry but I'm not really willing to let humor have to be bubbled wrapped and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator for the sake of people that sniff around for offense like a dog looking for floor snacks.
I think it gets even muddier because some people online really are just using edgy humor, while as others are propelled by more sinister motives. Personally, I have no desire to see humor policed. However, with the way things are these days, I find that I personally am less likely to give an edgelord the benefit of the doubt.

If someone makes a mean black joke or something, I don't automatically assume they're a low-key terrorist or a social engineer. But I am starting to assume that they're probably someone I don't like. Edgy humor has lost some of its flavor for me; it's not really funny anymore (the stuff that was ever funny), because there are so many people out there saying the same **** who really mean it. I've decided I'm done trying to tell the difference. If they can't be bothered to set themselves apart from the human garbage infesting the internet and culture, then I can't be bothered to look for any distinction either.

EDIT: When I say it's lost some of its flavor, I feel I should clarify - I never thought race jokes were funny. (Well, one time in high school my friend called her Native American mother 'Sitting Bull ****' when she was mad at her. I thought that was pretty funny.) But I did used to find certain trolls amusing, and jokes about women never bothered me unless they were really mean. That has changed. I didn't make it change, it just did.

Last edited by isissxn; 10th June 2019 at 07:39 AM.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:34 AM   #22
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Since the founding of America, free speech has seen off:

-Monarchists

-Slavery

-Imperialists

-Nazis

-Communists

-Segregationists

But there’s no way it can see off internet edgelords. Farewell free speech, you had a good run but it’s time to retire and let ‘approved speakers and boundaries’ have a turn!
"...At this level, the rhetoric is still generalized enough to seem more or less harmless, and is often defended as "free speech" despite its implications. .."

Did you read the style guide?

Plus of course the argument and views put forward in the opening post isn't against free speech, it's about people understanding what is being said.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:46 AM   #23
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
"...At this level, the rhetoric is still generalized enough to seem more or less harmless, and is often defended as "free speech" despite its implications. .."

Did you read the style guide?

Plus of course the argument and views put forward in the opening post isn't against free speech, it's about people understanding what is being said.
Have you ever heard of “throwing the baby out with the bath water “?

There are evil, reprehensible people out there. But you are going to give up on essential freedoms in a huge overreaction to them. To quote a phrase from the war on terror:

“We must not alter fundamental precepts of US law in responding to terrorism. If we do, then the terrorists have won.”
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 07:48 AM   #24
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,519
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Have you ever heard of “throwing the baby out with the bath water “?
That metaphor only works if we assume dirty bathwater is our only reliable source of babies.

Horrible, violent people are counting on the good people of the world handwringing themselves into indecisiveness. Don't fall for it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 08:17 AM   #25
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,187
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That metaphor only works if we assume dirty bathwater is our only reliable source of babies.

Horrible, violent people are counting on the good people of the world handwringing themselves into indecisiveness. Don't fall for it.
Don’t stand there handwringing! Take Action X!

What’s Action X?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 08:21 AM   #26
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Have you ever heard of “throwing the baby out with the bath water “?



There are evil, reprehensible people out there. But you are going to give up on essential freedoms in a huge overreaction to them. To quote a phrase from the war on terror:



“We must not alter fundamental precepts of US law in responding to terrorism. If we do, then the terrorists have won.”
I'm trying not to he sarcastic and be a nice member...

Cultures and societies like the UK and the USA have become freer than ever by not being tolerant of intolerance.

Then to your general complaint, given the opening post that can only be valid if you think people shouldn't have the information to understand what other people are doing and saying, which would be of course opposite to what I think you are trying to say.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 08:26 AM   #27
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Don’t stand there handwringing! Take Action X!



What’s Action X?
In a medium like this it is doing what the opening poster did, help people better understand the world around us. In other arenas such as "real life" it is campaigning for laws that for example would ensure those who wish to kill millions of their fellow citizens are prevented from propagating their actions probably by imprisonment or other restrictions on free assembly until they can be deradicalised.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 10th June 2019 at 08:27 AM. Reason: Words
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 08:33 AM   #28
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,187
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
In a medium like this it is doing what the opening poster did, help people better understand the world around us. In other arenas such as "real life" it is campaigning for laws that for example would ensure those who wish to kill millions of their fellow citizens are prevented from propagating their actions probably by imprisonment or other restrictions on free assembly until they can be deradicalised.
Okay. Who’s going to jail?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 08:42 AM   #29
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Okay. Who’s going to jail?
Anyone who proposes to kill millions of their fellow citizens, so one group for certain would be those that describe themselves as Nazis. An example from the UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-en...shire-46592080
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 08:53 AM   #30
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,187
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Anyone who proposes to kill millions of their fellow citizens, so one group for certain would be those that describe themselves as Nazis. An example from the UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-en...shire-46592080
Members of neo-Nazi organizations with explicitly violent aims and weapons?

No problem there. I think we already have laws regarding proscribed organizations.

My understanding is that the OP is not talking about trrrorist organizations, though.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 08:56 AM   #31
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,187
Wait a minute, how come that group is the first fat right group to be proscribed since WW2. Is Combat 18 not proscribed?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 08:58 AM   #32
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Members of neo-Nazi organizations with explicitly violent aims and weapons?

No problem there. I think we already have laws regarding proscribed organizations.

My understanding is that the OP is not talking about trrrorist organizations, though.
America doesn't have such laws though, and the issue here is that these are not organization based terrorism but the fun individual faux terrorism like in Christchurch. People advocating that of course are protected by the first amendment until someone listens to them, then it retroactively becomes incitement.

Next people will be saying that sending death threats to elected officials is something that is illegal. And yet none of those who send death threats to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dailly seem to go to jail.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 09:22 AM   #33
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Okay. Who’s going to jail?
Communists, Socialists, Zionists, Turks...anybody and everybody who wants to kill millions of their fellow citizens.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 09:37 AM   #34
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,974
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Communists, Socialists, Zionists, Turks...anybody and everybody who wants to kill millions of their fellow citizens.
Edgy!
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 09:40 AM   #35
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Members of neo-Nazi organizations with explicitly violent aims and weapons?



No problem there. I think we already have laws regarding proscribed organizations.



My understanding is that the OP is not talking about trrrorist organizations, though.
But they never took any action.

Another one would be the author of the style guide "This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But that’s neither here nor there" just like he was say a member of ISIS saying the same thing.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 09:40 AM   #36
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,025
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Anyone who proposes to kill millions of their fellow citizens, so one group for certain would be those that describe themselves as Nazis.
I don't read what these hate groups write. But how do they propose to kill millions? Are they planning to do it the original Nazi way with trains bringing the millions to gas chambers in concentration camps?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 09:41 AM   #37
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,798
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Edgy!
If I didn't know better I'd say he was trying to give an example of what the opening post was describing.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 09:45 AM   #38
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,743
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
But I think in some form or other this phenomenon has been around for longer than one might think. It's essentially the refinement of the old Henry and Becket faceoff.
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
There a two main things that I find a bit frightening about that article

1. That white supremacist blogs actually go to all this trouble to try to legitimize their writing. It shows they are not fooling around with this stuff - they have a target audience, a plan on how to appeal to that audience, and they execute that plan very well.

Demagoguery and "whipping-up" rhetoric have been around forever. What's changed is that there is a better understanding of the psychology of communication, and that is being exploited by the demagogues to further their agenda while maintaining distance from it.

The really disturbing thing is that this is all heavily based in the psychology of marketing. The terrorists have learned how to advertise effectively, and make their calls to action indirect and implied, and thus more effective (along with being deniable).

If you look at the history of advertising, there has been a huge shift in how the communication works, how it's targeted, and how it's structured. The primary emphasis is on association, implication, and emotion rather than factual details. This has become especially true in the age of "viral marketing", where a small amount of effort on the part of the marketer to create "memes" shifts much of the effort off of the marketers themselves, and onto the targets of their marketing, who can be expected to self-market by sharing the memes. The use of humour in viral marketing is one of the most effective techniques for prompting a viral propagation of the advertisement.

This has been picked up on by the Right and Far Right, who have been increasingly effective at implementing this sort of "viral marketing" of their worldview and calls to action.

Quote:
2. There are a fair percentage of people out there who are stupid enough to fall for their rhetoric. We even have a few of theme right here in this forum.

The Right has always been effective at marketing, because they understand it better than the Left, and their worldview is far more easily adapted to marketing than the Left's worldview.

They key components of the Right's messaging:

1) Abdication of responsibility for one's person circumstances. Despite paying lip service to "personal responsibility", the fundamental goal of the Right is to blame someone or something else for one's own failures and inabiliy to improve one's personal and/or financial status.

2) Scapegoating for social and economic problems. After abdicating responsibility, blame must be cast on another entity. Immigrants, certain ethnic groups (Jews and black people most commonly), homosexuals and transexuals, Muslims, and so on. There must be a convenient marginalized group to make the target of fear and focus of hatred to distract from the true nature and complexity of the problems.

3) Simple answers to complex questions. Humans do not like complexity, complexity is hard and takes considerable effort to understand. People prefer simple answers to the problems of social upheaval, economic instability, and their own sub-optimal life circumstances. Even better if these answers absolve the mainstream of responsibility for their circumstances, and put the blame on someone or something else, as noted in 1 and 2. The ultimate answer is always, "put your trust and support in a strong-man leader, and your problems will be fixed for you".

That is a very simple and easy message to market: It's not your fault, it's this other groups fault, vote for me and I'll punish them and reward you.

The message of the Progressive Left is considerably more complex, depends heavily on people being intelligent and introspective enough to take true responsibility for their circumstances, and understanding the complicated social forces that can stymie personal efforts to improve one's circumstances. It's very difficult to distill into quick-and-dirty sound bites and slogans; and therefore harder to market as effectively as the reactionary worldview.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is just the Right hoisting the Left up by one of their highest and proudest petards... "tolerance."

That is because the Left fetishizes the concept of "tolerance" the same way that centrists and libertarians fetishize the concepts of "free speech" and "liberty" without truly understanding the nature and limitations of those concepts. I've posted this link a number of times, but it continues to be relevant and IMO very important to understand: [url=https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376]Tolerance is not a moral precept[/quote]. It's a peace treaty, not a suicide pact, and once the treaty has been broken by one side ,the other side is no longer obligated to abide by it. "Tolerance of the intolerant" is not a valid expression of the principle, and it is in fact diametrically opposed to the concept of tolerance, because the result is a lessening, not a growth, of tolerance.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 09:56 AM   #39
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Edgy!
Opposition to people who want to kill millions of their fellow citizens isn’t “edgy”. It’s fundamental to a functioning society.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 10:09 AM   #40
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,515
I'm wary if the term "stochastic terrorism" in the same way I was wary of "fake news". And that was one of the few things I was right about around the time of the election.

"Stochastic terrorism" allows criticism and opposition to be cast as an act of violence. If the term gains popularity, it will absolutely be of far most used by the disingenuous right wing to paint their critics as terrorists.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.