Not much local coverage of St Petersburg terrorist attack; seems that Russia is mentally more distant than France or Germany.
You’re in ‘straya so I can’t chalk it up to the media building a Russia threat narrative.
Not much local coverage of St Petersburg terrorist attack; seems that Russia is mentally more distant than France or Germany.
You’re in ‘straya so I can’t chalk it up to the media building a Russia threat narrative.
It’s honestly so fucked up that I have to worry in leftist spaces that talking about rehabilitative justice will lose me friends.
In 2010 I took a class called Terrorism in the Modern World, which was one of the best classes I’ve ever taken. We learned all about the causes and cyclical effects of terrorism, about why people get seduced by dangerous worldviews, about how we cannot possibly offer more than palliative solutions until we reckon with the task of trying to understand them. About how futile America’s endless escalations have been. It was awesome.
The following year, when Osama bin Laden was killed, all my liberal friends joined me in reminding the world that he might have done terrible evil, but he was still a human being. We huddled together to grin smugly about how much more empathetic we were than those evil hawkish conservatives. Not that I endorse that, but we were 18. Point is, at the time we construed liberalism, and leftism more broadly, as an explicit rejection of the vengeful, punitive ethic that was blanketing our world. And I know we were not alone in that. Liberals around me talked about prison reform, about transitions from criminal dysfunction back to a productive life, about reaching out to the people who were hardest to reach. I was, at that time, proud to call myself a bleeding-heart liberal.
And now I’m seeing them, the very same leftists who joined me in calling for empathy with our enemies, posting endless diatribes against those they deem too far gone for any kind of understanding. The same people who stood up in a sea of patriotic zeal and reminded us that terrorists were real human beings with motivations beyond mustache-twirling villainy are the people I see calling Trump supporters garbage, calling them worthless, calling any attempt to understand them “collusion with the oppressor”. I’m over here advocating the same exact outreach I’ve advocated all my life, the same outreach you once praised me for, but now because it’s your pet enemy I’m evil and weak and awful for it.
These were once my people, and now I don’t recognize them. I’m horrified to see them acting exactly like post-9/11 nationalist zealots, dismissing any attempt at understanding or empathy as spineless, as cowardly, as oppressive. You think I haven’t heard this all before? I’ve heard it all my life. I was a child when 9/11 happened. I don’t remember a United States not at war in the Middle East. My whole life I’ve been a pacifist, raised by pacifist parents in a pacifist community, and my whole life I’ve heard that trying to understand and reach out to your enemy instead of fucking annihilating them was weak and cowardly and siding with the terrorists. The difference is that I once had the left on my side.
Your principles do not cease to apply when it’s your pet enemy on the chopping block. Believe it or not, people who got cruel and hawkish in the face of terrorism were exactly as scared and powerless-feeling as you are now. They weren’t spouting martial rhetoric out of pure evil - there was real fear there, but they let it make them into hateful people with no sense of empathy or common humanity. Like hell I’m going to let that happen to people I once called mine.
The thing is that the Left has always been like this. It was the Left who perpetrated Communism in its worst incarnations, after all.
…not that I want to rag on Communism too much, since I already criticize it often enough. It’s just that the sentiment of having a bloody revolution, crushing dissent, and purging all who don’t fit with the vision is something that has historical precedent on the Left just like it does on the Right.
early emoji for two women with bunny ears dancing
Oh, good, you have become a language reactionary. Let us revive a 1,000 year old dialect of Chinese in search of true meaning and launch an armed revolution against the Unicode Consortium.
“banning Muslim immigration will only increase terrorism!”
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an outburst.
it’s literally “the terrorism will continue until immigration improves”
Consider what it says about Muslims. It isn’t good. It only reinforces the Conservative viewpoint, much like some of the reaction to Charlie Hebdo did.
I’m not convinced that it says something about Muslims that similar circumstances wouldn’t say about other groups. (Having conveniently used the term “similar circumstances” in such a way that I’m not sure that similar circumstances exist for any other group, rendering my claim suspiciously difficult to disprove). It seems to just say that this course of action will have the effect of non-negligibly increasing the very small proportion of Muslims who think that All Americans Deserve to Die, on account of this being a course of action that will likely (and not with maximal inaccuracy) paint us as Bad People who Must Be Destroyed.
What I mean is what it says about left-wing opinion of them. “Oh those poor Muslims, they’re so easy to rouse to violence. They can’t help it, so be nice to them!” It’s a form of special treatment that would not have been given to other religions, and it isn’t a form of respect.
But of course, the Left already doesn’t want real cultural diversity on this matter. They don’t want, for example, the Jizya. They want a watered-down version of the religion that is compatible with Western Secularism.
“banning Muslim immigration will only increase terrorism!”
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an outburst.
it’s literally “the terrorism will continue until immigration improves”
Consider what it says about Muslims. It isn’t good. It only reinforces the Conservative viewpoint, much like some of the reaction to Charlie Hebdo did.
Last night there was a highly upvoted, highly-trafficked post on r/the_donald declaring that the Quebec shooter (a far-right white nationalist) was definitely a Muslim because no information had been announced yet which meant the media was colluding to cover for a Muslim. Some select (upvoted) comments:
There are rumors of one week old refugees committing this act of terrorism. Wake the fuck up people.
“the media will not report on violent incidents till they ascertain that the perpetrators were not muslim”
Takes time to patch up all the cracks in The Narrative™
> Also to poorly photoshop their picture so they appear whiter.
I checked back there this morning to see if the news that the shooter was actually a white rightist Canadian had gotten any discussion. It hadn’t, of course - the front page is all people declaring they’re proudly boycotting Starbucks, which recently said they will hire refugees.
I bet there are a lot of people who read r/the_donald and have a vague impression that refugees committed six murders in Canada last night, a vague impression which will stack with other similarly unverified vague impressions and leave them convinced there’s an epidemic of refugee violence. I have no idea what to do about that, and it terrifies me.
This is partially a side effect of the media blowing their own credibility, and partially a side effect of conservatives setting up their own bubble. I’m not even a conservative and I don’t really know who to trust these days.
It’s hardly unique to the Left though, since social conservatives burned through an unbelievable amount of social capital fighting against gays lately.
I… wha- why. What fucking decade is this. Where do people get the idea that terrorism is a major threat to their everyday lives. Is this just virtue signaling? Why do THREE GODDAMN QUARTERS OF AMERICANS think that this should be one of the top priorities, out of everything else that’s going on in our country and in the world?
Well it probably hurts that it feels they’re not allowed to do anything about it. They don’t want to bring in immigrants with higher terrorism risk, but if they say that it’s “racism.” They’re also reacting to the situation in Europe.
Of course you don’t hear Americans complaining about Hindus from India, even though they’re generally non-white and follow what many Americans might consider a “weird foreign religion”, so it’s probably not actually racism…
…but, well, it wasn’t an accident that Orange Capitalism Man got elected.
It’s 2017 and Balkan style ethnic revenge killings are ramping up in Western yurop and everyone is too busy either holding out for the rare white attack to be indignant on the internet over or for more islamic terrorism to shill for nationalism.
Curious that no one seems to care about the exponential rate of escalating violence?
We’d have to stop Saudi Arabia (not happening). Or get them to convert to less jihad-prone sects of Islam (which definitely exist! but not happening).
I don’t see a lot of ways out of this except to stop bringing in more Muslims.
…and that means shilling for Nationalism. Not Racial Nationalism, but something more Nationalist than watered-down global liberal capitalism.
Sustainable nuclear fusion would end this very quickly.
> tfw there’s a big ball of sustainable nuclear fusion just sitting there but it’s stuck in a gravity well about a million miles away
More seriously this country is not [MY IDEOLOGY] and no country on Earth is, so “implode Saudi influence by inventing commercial fusion power” is not on the list of politically viable options. Can you imagine trying to win over normie voters on that? At least the solar panels seem to be coming along.
Tell you what Slart, get me a million dollars and I’ll defictionalize the National Technocratic party and run for President in 2020 on a platform of commercial fusion power, in-vitro meat, and requiring politicians to bet on the outcomes of their laws.
Naturally I won’t actually get elected, but I’ll walk around wearing a Union Army uniform, stage paid protests of countries that don’t exist, and generally cause so much racket that the media finds themselves compelled to enter some of these ideas into the public discourse.
Proposition: Al Qaeda wanted to get the West to stop fking with the Middle East. (”Terrorism is geopolitical, [not ideological].”)
Reality: No 9/11 likely means no Iraq War.
Three possibilities:
1. They were too stupid to realize invasion would be the response.
2. They were too drunk on ideology to realize invasion would be the response.
3. The proposition is false. That wasn’t their actual goal.
That’s not reality. 9/11 was ridiculously and falsely linked to Iraq by the lying liars then in the WH. But they wanted to do it anyway. Just because Bush claimed to be isolationist in his 2000 campaign, doesn’t mean he was telling the truth.
Really. You think they could summon up the political will to do it when Bush was just *barely* elected President in the first place? 9/11 is what gave them the power to engage in that level of mid-east meddling.
It’s correct that Iraq was not really involved in 9/11. The problem is it’s in the same general area of the world, among other things, enabling the Bush Administration to falsely tie them in the public’s perception.
But Saddam wasn’t really pursuing WMDs, all that was left was stuff leftover from a long time ago that was missed in an earlier sweep. So how do you gin up support for an expensive war against some random middle eastern dictator that isn’t even really arranging terrorism against you?
Step one - get your shoddy approval rating spiked into the stratosphere by a massive middle eastern terrorist attack, massively boosting your low political capital, allowing you to even attempt to make this threat narrative without looking like a paranoid lunatic in the first place.
It’s 2017 and Balkan style ethnic revenge killings are ramping up in Western yurop and everyone is too busy either holding out for the rare white attack to be indignant on the internet over or for more islamic terrorism to shill for nationalism.
Curious that no one seems to care about the exponential rate of escalating violence?
We’d have to stop Saudi Arabia (not happening). Or get them to convert to less jihad-prone sects of Islam (which definitely exist! but not happening).
I don’t see a lot of ways out of this except to stop bringing in more Muslims.
…and that means shilling for Nationalism. Not Racial Nationalism, but something more Nationalist than watered-down global liberal capitalism.
It’s 2017 and Balkan style ethnic revenge killings are ramping up in Western yurop and everyone is too busy either holding out for the rare white attack to be indignant on the internet over or for more islamic terrorism to shill for nationalism.
Curious that no one seems to care about the exponential rate of escalating violence?
We’d have to stop Saudi Arabia (not happening). Or get them to convert to less jihad-prone sects of Islam (which definitely exist! but not happening).
I don’t see a lot of ways out of this except to stop bringing in more Muslims.
…and that means shilling for Nationalism. Not Racial Nationalism, but something more Nationalist than watered-down global liberal capitalism.
Sustainable nuclear fusion would end this very quickly.
> tfw there’s a big ball of sustainable nuclear fusion just sitting there but it’s stuck in a gravity well about a million miles away
More seriously this country is not [MY IDEOLOGY] and no country on Earth is, so “implode Saudi influence by inventing commercial fusion power” is not on the list of politically viable options. Can you imagine trying to win over normie voters on that? At least the solar panels seem to be coming along.