[RD] Toronto van attack

[Bootstoots]

I mean. It's nearly verbatim an argument ISIS uses to attract volunteers from the West. They identify and target lonely, isolated Muslim males, convince them their failings and loneliness are the result of a Western conspiracy to corrupt women and keep Muslims in a position of inferiority, and then promise them things like power and wives (read: sex slaves) to help them fight the good fight and defeat the conspiracy.

Like, reading the way the Incel community has lionized and canonized "martyrs" like "Saint Elliot" Rodger and "Saint Cho" (i.e. Seung-Hui Cho, the VT shooter) reads eerily similar to other terrorist reactionary/fundamentalist groups.

Sure they're young. Sure young people have stupid ideas about the world that they often grow out of. But 1) not all of these people are actually all that young, and 2) it doesn't at all excuse the horrifying things that many of these people contemplate, some execute, and many idolize afterwards. Should we excuse Elliot Rodger, a man who murdered 6 women and injured 14 more simply because he happened to be 22 when he did it? Should we excuse Seung-Hui Cho who murdered 33 because he was 23?

three of the five 9/11 hijackers were under 25 when they committed their attacks. Should we excuse their deeds as the acts of naïve, misguided youths as well?

There's a big problem with angry/depressed young men drifting in life, thinking, often accurately (if somewhat exaggerated), that they have no realistic hope for satisfaction in the mainstream world. I don't know if the number of such men has increased lately or not, but it seems like it has at least in terms of random acts of rage against the world at large, even as most other classes of homicide become rarer. Sometimes the acts of violence come from some form of extremism ranging from Islamism to incelism, other times they don't have any discernible ideology.

To drag in the topic of another thread, the biggest reason I like Jordan Peterson despite disagreeing with many of his political and philosophical ideas is that he's one of the very few people who seems to care about aimless young men, who then goes on to do a good job of speaking to them, without being a radical. I wish there were more people who shared that goal.

 

[Farm Boy]

They don't because it's a feature, not a bug.

 

[Lexicus]

To drag in the topic of another thread, the biggest reason I like Jordan Peterson despite disagreeing with many of his political and philosophical ideas is that he's one of the very few people who seems to care about aimless young men, who then goes on to do a good job of speaking to them, without being a radical. I wish there were more people who shared that goal.

Do you apply this same logic to the Nation of Islam at least?

 

[Bootstoots]

The "without being a radical" part is operative there. The word choice is off; I actually mean extremist more so than radical.

 

[Farm Boy]

Was stewing on this thread for a while last night, for who knows what reason, and one of the more worthy voices I've been exposed to kept cropping up. Probably because of the recent trailer, but it has a good thought that's really probably the center of the matter if not necessarily all the detail of what to do about it:

"Love is at the root of everything, all learning, all parenting, all relationships. Love or the lack of it. And what we see and hear on the screen is part of who we become."

A broadly self evident truth from a time with less screens, no less.

 

[Synobun]

There is a very short period of time between screens and when village raids were still a sizable and accepted risk. I don't think anyone can make any serious claims that our current society (and its evil technologies!) is the cause of radicalized men. In the past, you wouldn't be able to determine the difference between "radicalized" and "just another bandit/mercenary/state-sponsored thug/soldier". A past military's modus operandi used to align fairly well with the intentions and desires of a radicalized element in today's society.

 

[Farm Boy]

Screens aren't the only thing going on, so to attribute to them the root of violence would be an error. Violence came first, and it persists without, yes. But they are a thing going on, and if people spend most or many of their waking hours in front of one, interacting - would we argue it has no impact? It seems like we've been arguing it does. Especially those inclined to think "incel communities" are dangerous or ideological. If screens are an inert interaction unworthy of serious consideration, then why do we care at all what is said and done online or in the media?

 

[Synobun]

A path to radicalization isn't necessarily the path to radicalization, that's all. I just don't want the idea to start taking root that the attitudes expressed by an Incel (and the premise of those attitudes) are inherently tied to modern technology and not human psychology.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sounds Peterson-y.

But yes. There are more ways to make somebody awesome, or terrible, than the TV. "All relationships" - as the quote said.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

There's a big problem with angry/depressed young men drifting in life, thinking, often accurately (if somewhat exaggerated), that they have no realistic hope for satisfaction in the mainstream world. I don't know if the number of such men has increased lately or not, but it seems like it has at least in terms of random acts of rage against the world at large, even as most other classes of homicide become rarer. Sometimes the acts of violence come from some form of extremism ranging from Islamism to incelism, other times they don't have any discernible ideology.

I think people need to be reminded this is an explanation, not a justification.

 

[Bootstoots]

A path to radicalization isn't necessarily the path to radicalization, that's all. I just don't want the idea to start taking root that the attitudes expressed by an Incel (and the premise of those attitudes) are inherently tied to modern technology and not human psychology.

It's a both/and thing, not an either/or. Human psychology has always involved a tendency towards violence; that's definitely not new. If anything, screens might be reducing violence somewhat in aggregate by distracting everyone, but also increasing the amount of the type of despair that leads to this sort of attack. Terrorists and spree killers make up a very small proportion of overall homicides, so it's easy for violence overall to decline while one subtype increases.

Granted I'm just speculating about what's going on here, but speculations and opinions make up most discussions of complex social issues where there isn't enough solid evidence to draw firm conclusions.

I think people need to be reminded this is an explanation, not a justification.

Yep. It's not that people should be behaving this way, it's that they do. My goal is to understand, not to justify.

 

[Traitorfish]

To drag in the topic of another thread, the biggest reason I like Jordan Peterson despite disagreeing with many of his political and philosophical ideas is that he's one of the very few people who seems to care about aimless young men, who then goes on to do a good job of speaking to them, without being a radical. I wish there were more people who shared that goal.

What he actually tells aimless young men, however, is that the world is against them after all, and by malicious design. Even if he's recommending against doing a terrorism about it, there's a point where that becomes part of the problem.

 

[Lexicus]

The "without being a radical" part is operative there. The word choice is off; I actually mean extremist more so than radical.

I don't see Jordan Peterson as much less radical than the NoI.

 

[Synobun]

Sounds Peterson-y.

Eh, maybe. From where I'm standing, it seems Peterson would be more likely to argue that this is a natural result of biology. My argument would be more that we've actually done very little to change the foundations of childcare as we've progressed technologically. Pacifism today, and the logic surrounding it, is more of a result of distraction (as Boots mentioned) and indifference. When you remove those two obstacles you're right back to the prior situation where wanton and comparatively cruel violence and worldviews are common.

Boots' opinion that someone talking to a 20-something frustrated guy and being heard should be encouraged is sound, I guess, depending on what's being said, but ultimately won't change much when the same things that made that 20-something dude frustrated remain perpetuated through how a parent and the state raise children. The emotional immaturity you see in an Incel or any other radicalized individual is, I would argue, often the result of what they were taught (or not taught) in the first five years of their life. It sets the tone and foundation of their puberty and development, and in many respects someone tackling the 20-something demographic issue is fighting against a problem they can't solve because they're focusing on the wrong thing.

And more to the point since this is apparently tied into Peterson now, what you say to the 20-something demographic matters a lot because they are old enough to reason, even if their ability to do so is stunted by immaturity or a total lack of education in their youth. If you are heard and you make them better, great, but it's so easy to be heard and make them worse (as Peterson seems to be doing, at least indirectly).

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh we've definitely changed some "natural biological" whateverstuff. Reducing violence is way more than indifference. It's the opposite of indifference. We don't beat our children severely as often for minor missteps. We don't hang their classmates for theft when they're hungry. We removed lead paint from houses, we removed lead from fuel. Maybe we'll reduce fetal alcohol exposure even more(working on it!). All these things take love and effort and maintenance. We've improved their educations, we've improved their nutrition. How we approach growth and redemption, how we approach having faith or cynicism in our countrymen is absolutely critical. Very young children are very malleable, yes. But old dogs learn new tricks - 20 year old men with problems are absolutely worth the effort. They've got the better part of a century left where they can positively impact the world and they should be encouraged to try. It seems to make them happier, for one, much less the rest of us.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh we've definitely changed some "natural biological" whateverstuff.

What I find fascinating is how we'll wind up approaching the issue of literally changing biology. First gene modification against horrific genetic diseases, then designer babies, then the ability to modify adults.

There will be some definite grey areas when one option available to people who consider themselves incel is to make themselves not care. Not just telling themselves that and still being upset, but literally altering their utility function outright (let's say for the sake of thought experiment they could kill sex drive entirely). I don't see ethical reasons against this so long as the person doing it does so voluntarily...but what if this also becomes applicable to criminal behavior and such?

Given society's reaction to sheep cloning many years back I'm not optimistic about how such tech/research will progress and turn out though.

 

[Lexicus]

Personally, I find the idea of a future in which the line between property and humans has been collapsed by technology such as cloning and genetic manipulation to be utterly terrifying.

 

[Bootstoots]

What he actually tells aimless young men, however, is that the world is against them after all, and by malicious design. Even if he's recommending against doing a terrorism about it, there's a point where that becomes part of the problem.

I responded in the Peterson thread.

Eh, maybe. From where I'm standing, it seems Peterson would be more likely to argue that this is a natural result of biology. My argument would be more that we've actually done very little to change the foundations of childcare as we've progressed technologically. Pacifism today, and the logic surrounding it, is more of a result of distraction (as Boots mentioned) and indifference. When you remove those two obstacles you're right back to the prior situation where wanton and comparatively cruel violence and worldviews are common.

Boots' opinion that someone talking to a 20-something frustrated guy and being heard should be encouraged is sound, I guess, depending on what's being said, but ultimately won't change much when the same things that made that 20-something dude frustrated remain perpetuated through how a parent and the state raise children. The emotional immaturity you see in an Incel or any other radicalized individual is, I would argue, often the result of what they were taught (or not taught) in the first five years of their life. It sets the tone and foundation of their puberty and development, and in many respects someone tackling the 20-something demographic issue is fighting against a problem they can't solve because they're focusing on the wrong thing.

And more to the point since this is apparently tied into Peterson now, what you say to the 20-something demographic matters a lot because they are old enough to reason, even if their ability to do so is stunted by immaturity or a total lack of education in their youth. If you are heard and you make them better, great, but it's so easy to be heard and make them worse (as Peterson seems to be doing, at least indirectly).

I do not get the impression that incel radicalism stems mostly from things that people learn by the time they are 5. It's true that societal sexism is learned by 5-year-olds, but the belief that women owe men sex, or that they are motivated by a hatred of unattractive men, stems far more from incels' bitterness over what has happened in their teens and twenties and by their failure to develop emotional maturity between age 5 and age 15-30.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it's interesting too. And it's one of the reasons we should pay really close attention to what we start calling a health problem. As such, it becomes a mechanical failure to fix, and if that's a mental failure, volition is suspect and perhaps even the enemy.

If not, it won't be mass murder, it'll be rewriting diagnoses to encompass new disease and hormonal remedy. What's the medical term for socially isolated sexual frustration anyways?

Though hormonal treatment, yeesh, you're right. I'm dating myself. Just rebuild the all the way from the blocks up, eh?

I did grow up with that though, so it's the terms I think of naturally. We had a flock of sheep growing up, and we definitely used castration to modify behavior.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Personally, I find the idea of a future in which the line between property and humans has been collapsed by technology such as cloning and genetic manipulation to be utterly terrifying.

Yet this future gives people the opportunity for equal cognitive abilities, equal physical abilities, and is likely closer to something resembling post-scarcity...

A clone is every bit the person as the original for example, rationally speaking, until they diverge in experience and are different people as a result of said experiences. This does not make one or the other more or less property than we are now.

I do not get the impression that incel radicalism stems mostly from things that people learn by the time they are 5. It's true that societal sexism is learned by 5-year-olds, but the belief that women owe men sex, or that they are motivated by a hatred of unattractive men, stems far more from incels' bitterness over what has happened in their teens and twenties and by their failure to develop emotional maturity between age 5 and age 15-30.

Peterson makes a case that poor years 0-4 could lead to the antisocial tendencies that would make someone more likely to engage in violent activities, but I'm inclined to agree that the rationale and bitterness are far more likely picked up later. A channel perhaps, but even that's dubious.

Though hormonal treatment, yeesh, you're right. I'm dating myself. Just rebuild the all the way from the blocks up, eh?

Hahaha! I didn't think it through that far. Incels could date themselves or make themselves not want to...kind of hard to parse/envision a society with these as standard options, but then so was the internet in 1800.