kawika advocates murder

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Still the same point: I see David Cole on a path towards radicalization.

So what? Being a radical has nothing to do with being violent.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

So what? Being a radical has nothing to do with being violent.

"Radicalization" in this context usually means "evolving an extreme worldview that justifies violence and ultimately results in violent acts". It's not actually synonymous with "becoming a radical".

[JSanderO]

This discussion may raise the issue... what to do about conspiracy nuts who essentially are advocating a position that the US gov intentionally killed its citizens on 9/11/2001... and according to them has blamed it in people it claims are radicals... and fabricated a complex story/hoax to cover up their acts? Ignore them? Try to prove their "arguments" flawed?

People came on to the web to try to figure out what happened in a technical manner to the WTC, They accepted that jumbos hit the towers, crashed into the Pentagon and into a field in PA... finding this was almost certainly true beyond a shadow of doubt.

Figuring out the destruction after the plane strikes at the WTC and how 7wtc collapsed obviously required making some reasonable assumptions since there was real time data collected to analyze... not unlike a forensic investigation... but without the ability to physically examine the "evidence"... debris from the collapses. NIST carried out some experiments as well.

My reading of this "citizen" research... along with work done by engineers etc. over the years all conclude that CD was not involved... though there is no consensus on exactly every detail of how the collapses progressed to complete failure/collapse. I don't think there is much more to look into... case closed. And the discussions have gone very quiet on the subject.

Except for the 9/11 truth movement which is still playing the same one note samba so they can raise money to raise more money. It's dumb but who cares if no one is losing an eye? Let's hope it stays that way.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Radicalization" in this context usually means "evolving an extreme worldview that justifies violence and ultimately results in violent acts". It's not actually synonymous with "becoming a radical".

Usually? Can you cite that please?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Oystein

What tells you it's my group?

Because you claim that you're a member of it. It gives you as much Kontaktschuld as you seem to imply everybody here or in the "truth movement™" or whatever has for the inconsequential claims this person has made somewhere else.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Radicalization" in this context usually means "evolving an extreme worldview that justifies violence and ultimately results in violent acts". It's not actually synonymous with "becoming a radical".

Somewhere the fine parsing eludes me. Is "an extreme worldview that justifies violence etc." not radical? If so, doesn't evolving that view sort of imply that you've become radical?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JSanderO

This discussion may raise the issue... what to do about conspiracy nuts who essentially are advocating a position that the US gov intentionally killed its citizens on 9/11/2001...

Maybe this was an issue worth raising ninteen years ago. I think at this point we can safely answer, "do nothing."

And in general, conspiracy theorists aren't dangerous. It's a kind of LARPing for them.

There are crazy people who are dangerous, because their madness will spur them to take action regardless of the details of the conspiracy theory they subscribe to. The guy who shot Representative Giffords believed that grammar was a government mind control plot. You can't really blame some neckbeard posting to 4chan from his mother's basement for that kind of thing.

And there are actual revolutionaries, who may subscribe to a conspiracy theory or two, but seem to be a very different kettle of fish than the typical conspiracy theorist.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by bruto

Somewhere the fine parsing eludes me. Is "an extreme worldview that justifies violence etc." not radical? If so, doesn't evolving that view sort of imply that you've become radical?

Natural languages are not systems of formal logic. Words with apparently closely-coupled meanings do not necessarily have closely-coupled meanings.

A radical can be a peaceful activist, and many of them are. "Radicalization" is about the process of adopting violent extremism.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Usually? Can you cite that please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radica...on#Definitions

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by bruto

Somewhere the fine parsing eludes me. Is "an extreme worldview that justifies violence etc." not radical? If so, doesn't evolving that view sort of imply that you've become radical?

No, a "radical" view comes from latin radix, meaning the root of something. Going to the root of an issue will be met by opposition by the people who are responsible for that very issue.

Which of course has nothing to do with this thread born out of a snitching habit.

[theprestige]

I think a lot of people got addicted to 9/11 debunking. Now that the supply of good, sweet crude has dried up, they're stuck bringing home bricks of Mexican ditchgrass that's mostly stems and seeds.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think a lot of people got addicted to 9/11 debunking. Now that the supply of good, sweet crude has dried up, they're stuck bringing home bricks of Mexican ditchgrass that's mostly stems and seeds.

While the official story remains bollocks.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

While the official story remains bollocks.

And your evidence for that claim? {}

Which means your claims is Bogus, like CIT, evidence free fantasy.

Got math?

9/11 truth is the same as it ever was, lies, false information, and clueless gullible followers.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radica...on#Definitions

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police defines radicalization as "the process by which individuals—usually young people—are introduced to an overtly ideological message and belief system that encourages movement from moderate, mainstream beliefs towards extreme views. While radical thinking is by no means problematic in itself, it becomes a threat to national security when Canadian citizens or residents espouse or engage in violence or direct action as a means of promoting political, ideological or religious extremism. Sometimes referred to as “homegrown terrorism,” this process of radicalization is more correctly referred to as domestic radicalization leading to terrorist violence.


So it depends on which country you are in according to your cite.
The fact that I am a former member of the RCMP and my country Canada does not conflate radicalization with violence is why we seem to have a disconnect.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think a lot of people got addicted to 9/11 debunking. Now that the supply of good, sweet crude has dried up, they're stuck bringing home bricks of Mexican ditchgrass that's mostly stems and seeds.

Yep, addicted to 9/11 debunking - or is it Coca-Cola.

The ditchgrass is interesting - when checking the woo of the remaining dregs of 9/11 truth, you can find things (when not digitizing Kodachrome slides from 1970), like this...

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/b...=1&isAllowed=y


What is interesting, people who have supported the dumbest claims of 9/11 truth, remain clueless and gullible... Why? Example...

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

While the official story remains bollocks.

Hopefully this is BS, and just not wanting to admit being wrong, a trump syndrome thing - aka WRT the sharpie hurricane can't be wrong incident

I was looking for the biggest liars in 9/11 truth to retract their lies... and drop and refute the CTs -

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police defines radicalization as "the process by which individuals—usually young people—are introduced to an overtly ideological message and belief system that encourages movement from moderate, mainstream beliefs towards extreme views. While radical thinking is by no means problematic in itself, it becomes a threat to national security when Canadian citizens or residents espouse or engage in violence or direct action as a means of promoting political, ideological or religious extremism. Sometimes referred to as “homegrown terrorism,” this process of radicalization is more correctly referred to as domestic radicalization leading to terrorist violence.


So it depends on which country you are in according to your cite.
The fact that I am a former member of the RCMP and my country Canada does not conflate radicalization with violence is why we seem to have a disconnect.

Bummer. Better luck next time.

[Elagabalus]

I feel we need a bit more context. Who are the predators? Government shills? Jeffery Epstein types?

Are you on this forum (do you have contact with this person) or it's from someone else.

Quote:

Are you going to have the nanny call somebody ...

This could have some very funny rejoinders.

You hired a nanny?

Why would I have "the nanny" call somebody when I hired her because she's a totally hawt ex-special forces commando ninja who can kill anyone with just a look. Well as long as we're totally making up fantasy scenarios... etc.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Natural languages are not systems of formal logic. Words with apparently closely-coupled meanings do not necessarily have closely-coupled meanings.

A radical can be a peaceful activist, and many of them are. "Radicalization" is about the process of adopting violent extremism.

We can acknowledge that not all people who espouse radical beliefs act with violent extremism, but does that correspondingly mean also that people who act with the violent extremism we refer to as "radicalization" do not follow some sort of radical beliefs? I have not generally heard the term "radicalization" used for persons who act badly without some belief system.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by bruto

We can acknowledge that not all people who espouse radical beliefs act with violent extremism, but does that correspondingly mean also that people who act with the violent extremism we refer to as "radicalization" do not follow some sort of radical beliefs? I have not generally heard the term "radicalization" used for persons who act badly without some belief system.

If you call someone a radical, depending on context it could connote anything from an aging and peaceful hippie to an islamofascist imam. But you wouldn't usually say "radicalized" to connote an aging and peaceful hippie. You might use that term to connote people who have internalized the extreme and violent message of a radical imam, though.

Is that what you're asking? Does that answer your question?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If you call someone a radical, depending on context it could connote anything from an aging and peaceful hippie to an islamofascist imam. But you wouldn't usually say "radicalized" to connote an aging and peaceful hippie. You might use that term to connote people who have internalized the extreme and violent message of a radical imam, though.

Is that what you're asking? Does that answer your question?

My issue is just about the way you expressed it, I guess. Clearly one can be radical without being what is generally understood as "radicalized." Your initial response implied that you could become radicalized without being radical, which didn't seem to make much sense.

When it comes down to it, it's not clear whether you meant to contradict Rockint and agree with Oystein or the other way around.

[rockinkt]

According to the largest journal in its field and one that is known for its rigorously peer reviewed research - "radicalization" does not equate to violence in all cases. Therefore, to assume radicalization means one has committed themselves to violence is just plain wrong.


Frontiers in Psychology
Published online 2019 Mar 6.

Psychological Mechanisms Involved in Radicalization and Extremism. A Rational Emotive Behavioral Conceptualization

Radicalization is a process of developing extremist beliefs, emotions, and behaviors. The extremist beliefs are profound convictions opposesd to the fundamental values of society, the laws of democracy and the universal human rights, advocating the supremacy of a certain group (racial, religious, political, economic, social etc.). The extremist emotions and behaviors may be expressed both in non-violent pressure and coercion and in actions that deviate from the norm and show contempt for life, freedom, and human rights.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6414414/

[pgimeno]

It's pretty clear from the post that kawika is advocating for killing "the rabid dogs (two legged variety)".

That said, Rob Balsamo also advocated killing Gravy, and I don't think he is a violent radical.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

to assume radicalization means one has committed themselves to violence is just plain wrong.

The op speaks about an act of extreme violence (killing).

Therefore, the radicalization mentioned in this thread is the violent kind.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

According to the largest journal in its field and one that is known for its rigorously peer reviewed research - "radicalization" does not equate to violence in all cases. Therefore, to assume radicalization means one has committed themselves to violence is just plain wrong.


Frontiers in Psychology
Published online 2019 Mar 6.

Psychological Mechanisms Involved in Radicalization and Extremism. A Rational Emotive Behavioral Conceptualization

Radicalization is a process of developing extremist beliefs, emotions, and behaviors. The extremist beliefs are profound convictions opposesd to the fundamental values of society, the laws of democracy and the universal human rights, advocating the supremacy of a certain group (racial, religious, political, economic, social etc.). The extremist emotions and behaviors may be expressed both in non-violent pressure and coercion and in actions that deviate from the norm and show contempt for life, freedom, and human rights.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6414414/

Sounds then like there is a non-zero chance he may commit to violence. What is that percentage in general?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by bruto

My issue is just about the way you expressed it, I guess. Clearly one can be radical without being what is generally understood as "radicalized." Your initial response implied that you could become radicalized without being radical, which didn't seem to make much sense.

When it comes down to it, it's not clear whether you meant to contradict Rockint and agree with Oystein or the other way around.

I don't agree with Oystein that kawika's post indicates any worrying degree of radicalization.

I think rockinkt is being disingenuous in their equivocation of "radical" and "radicalization" as they're being used in this context, and adopting a manufuctured pose of confusion where none need exist.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

According to the largest journal in its field and one that is known for its rigorously peer reviewed research - "radicalization" does not equate to violence in all cases. Therefore, to assume radicalization means one has committed themselves to violence is just plain wrong.

Context matters. We know you can recognize and parse context, since you did exactly that with the list of definitions I linked to earlier.

Since Oystein used the term to describe kawika's violent ideations, the context is pretty clear. Are you claiming you were confused by his use of that term in this context?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

So what? Being a radical has nothing to do with being violent.

Except when it has everything to do with becoming violent.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Because you claim that you're a member of it. It gives you as much Kontaktschuld as you seem to imply everybody here or in the "truth movement™" or whatever has for the inconsequential claims this person has made somewhere else.

No.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think a lot of people got addicted to 9/11 debunking. Now that the supply of good, sweet crude has dried up, they're stuck bringing home bricks of Mexican ditchgrass that's mostly stems and seeds.

Can't say you're wrong...

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

I feel we need a bit more context. Who are the predators? Government shills? Jeffery Epstein types?

There is a tendency in 9/11 Truth to expand the guilty party endlessly. AE911Truth has gone so far as actually accusing the General Public of being guilty for the "cover-up" of 9/11.
Surely many Truthers see entire government agencies as evil - "the FBI", "the CIA".
So who can be sure the future Terrorists for 9/11 Truth will not attack random FBI offices or agents? Or their secretaries? Or the local police if FBI is unavailable?

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Are you on this forum (do you have contact with this person) or it's from someone else.
...

I am a member of 911Blogger, but as 9/11 Truth generally practices heavy-handed censorship, my account there is on a status where my submissions require the okay from an administrator to get published - and that NEVER happens.
Yes, I wrote a reply there the same hour I wrote the opening post here - and sure enough, it has not been approved.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't agree with Oystein that kawika's post indicates any worrying degree of radicalization.

This in an instance where "agreeing to disagree" is perfectly fine, in my opinion, since this is, genuinely, a matter of opinion. We cannot produce any hard, objective data to measure how likely kawika (or any follower of kawika) is to develop into the murderous kind - hence we are guessing, estimating, looking for and evaluating imperfect precedent; plus, even if we could agree on the order of magnitude of such a likelihood, there is no objective, fixed threshold for when this likelihood becomes "worrying" - hence a matter of genuine opinion.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think rockinkt is being disingenuous in their equivocation of "radical" and "radicalization" as they're being used in this context, and adopting a manufuctured pose of confusion where none need exist.

Thanks for patiently explaining the difference between "radical" and "radicalized" in the present context.