Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Spoiler: @Cov (click to show/hide)

What can I do to help? Nothing physically, and until the cold light of day I don't think we'll even know to what degree we should be emotional.

It should not have happened, but the blame is inevitably going to be placed firmly upon the perpetrators, who may or may not be neutralised by now.  Again, not something in my control.

Max™ was confused, so I helped there. Martinuzz gave a European measure of speed (doubtless previously converted from the UK measure of speed that was also, likely to have been a reported estimate of no veracity, with "like, 50mph" being a roundish figure for a speed yet to be forensically established as anywhere near so exact) and I thought I might chip in.

My thoughts go out to those involved, but none of those involved would be here, at this moment, to receive my more emotional thoughts and wishes.  Excuse me for not gushing. As I will excuse anyone who does.  And then you ascribe a motive to a BBC reporter that is totally unhelpful, and as likely explained by both a fast-moving situation needing more reporting upon and the basic uncertainty of a phrase (unusual, that it isn't "allahu akbar", if that was the ideological intention) which right now is pure hearsay. A similar reluctance to mention the "Britain First" cry at the Jo Cox murder makes the BBC reluctant to be Fasciphobic, does it?

But, for better or worse, people want to talk about this, so this is me talking in as measured a way as I can. If that seems cold to you, I'm not bothered.

[Lagslayer]

If they are 2nd and 3rd gen, they should have assimilated by now.

Also, are you serious? "If you kill your enemies, they win"
Surely you can't be such a walking meme as this.

[Wolfhunter107]

Are you, Lagslayer? Do you really think that killing somebody won't piss off their relatives?

[Starver]

Integrated. Not assimilated.  The difference is what causes tensions.

And it's nth-generation immigrants that are the problem. The offspring, or offspring's offspring, who are probably being told (not entirely with integrity from the one telling) how the grass was greener on the previous side the fence. Not the original immigrants who knew what it was they were leaving, and at least once had a high opinion of life here, possibly still do.

It's not totally a current problem to solve. Bad/unhelpful attitudes in the past kept the families from properly integrating, or current rabble-rousers turn the impressionable youth off of the path of the (at least marginal) integration of the parents.


You can't demand homogeneity. It would just increase the pressures to de-conform. Also, the Jehovah's Witnesses a few doors down would suffer, and (as a non-theistic person, even before I consider my possible offset from the system's preferred universal constant) I'm not seriously looking to do that to them,

[smjjames]

Nobody's demanding homogenity (except maybe white supremacists, but that's another matter entirely), and it would fall straight into ISIS's message of a war of civilizations.

Also, we can't do anything about the past (as much as people like to strawman, "if X's parent's hadn't immigrated here, then Y wouldn't happen" (it'd just be someone else who ends up doing it)), but we can do something about the right now.

[Starver]

So long as we don't use "assimilation", we are thus in agreement.

[hector13]

Also, we can't do anything about the past (as much as people like to strawman, "if X's parent's hadn't immigrated here, then Y wouldn't happen" (it'd just be someone else who ends up doing it)), but we can do something about the right now.

Well you've been told about the fallacy you do too, "someone would end up doing it anyway"

[TD1]

That is bad logic. If fewer came, fewer would be here to do these acts - more importantly, the groups which combine to support and create that ideology wouldn't exist.

[smjjames]

Also, we can't do anything about the past (as much as people like to strawman, "if X's parent's hadn't immigrated here, then Y wouldn't happen" (it'd just be someone else who ends up doing it)), but we can do something about the right now.

Well you've been told about the fallacy you do too, "someone would end up doing it anyway"

I was thinking of it as a time paradox type problem, so, it's time paradox logic.

Too late. They're already here to stay. Why? Because they aren't the one's that are coming- they're the kids, and the kids of those kids, who grew up in the same places that you call home. Deporting them would be stripping them of any citizenship, and that is simply not allowed by your government. If you want to make a difference, you can ban immigration from the troublesome areas for the next... 40 years or so. That'll start making an impact on the number of potential terrorists.

Exactly, you still have to deal with the ones still there/here, and the obvious solutions like deporting them and/or stripping them of citizenship simply aren't politically workable.

A lot of solutions (that I've seen on the forum anyway) deal with those that can be deported, but not really any that deal with those that are still there, and can still make babies btw. (that last bit was tongue in cheek sarcasm).

Anyways, we have yet to know the identities of those behind this, wouldn't be surprised if they were also nth gen immigrants since that's the trend.

[Leafsnail]

If they are 2nd and 3rd gen, they should have assimilated by now.

Also, are you serious? "If you kill your enemies, they win"
Surely you can't be such a walking meme as this.

What if your enemy is an ideology that thrives on martyrdom?

[Starver]

Homegrown/foreignly-indoctrinated seems to be the almost universal pattern of 'that kind of terrorist' in Britain.

The recent Manchester Bomber had close/recent family links to Libya, and trips there (and maybe Syria?), but a number of the people involved in similar activities haven't gone anywhere more foreign than Wales¹, physically. Though with the power of the Internet they have travelled into a shared mindscape with fellow antagonists of all nationalities, and none.

Anyway, that's likely the issue behind this. But far too early to be anything but baldly speculative about this recent incident.


¹ A bonus joke there for the etymologists amongst you!

[Neonivek]

Nobody's demanding homogeneity

Not by that name specifically.

Yet when you demand that people shouldn't be able to practice their culture, that people should be vetted according to whether their beliefs match the home country, and limitations on the visibility of said culture... Do you really need to say that?

I mean I guess I could say that all those people are white supremists and it isn't like the UK doesn't have its own issues with racism and rivals or possible exceeds that of the US... Yet I don't exactly think that is the case.

Yet let me see EXACTLY how many people in the UK are calling for homogeneity... and the numbers suggest... 38%. This is separate from the people in the UK who find that multiculturalism has been executed poorly (Which is extremely high. Yet "Multiculturalism has failed" and "Multiculturalism itself is bad" are two separate ideas though often spoken of in the same breath or as if they are the same)

Though... Oddly enough there is a split between party lines. apparently a solid majority of people in UKIP, they are also the people who most strongly believe that Muslims themselves are a dangerous entity.

Goodness the UK Independence Party sure does attract a very specific kind of person.

[Reelya]

I still think there's some merit in the idea that the same sort of social disenfranchisement that leads to MRAs, alt-right etc (perhaps antifida too) could be at play with "homegrown" islamic activists. You have young men who feel disenfranchised and they'll glomp onto anything: the causes they join might be bullshit, but that doesn't mean the sense of disenfranchisement isn't real. It's a real issue, and we're seeing the results on various sides of politics.

The extremes of this on the right are that guy who gunned down a whole church full of black folks, or Timothy McVeigh level terrorists. Or the Joker cinema shooter in Colorado. People who are disassociated and want to cause carnage, but it's a little easier to self-rationalize when you can throw a "cause" label on it.

Or that guy in Portland who stabbed people. A guy who randomly stabs people against Allah might have exactly the same personality type as someone who randomly stabs people for Allah.

[smjjames]

I still think there's some merit in the idea that the same sort of social disenfranchisement that leads to MRAs, alt-right etc (perhaps antifida too) could be at play with "homegrown" islamic activists. You have young men who feel disenfranchised and they'll glomp onto anything: the causes they join might be bullshit, but that doesn't mean the sense of disenfranchisement isn't real. It's a real issue, and we're seeing the results on various sides of politics.

The extremes of this on the right are that guy who gunned down a whole church full of black folks, or Timothy McVeigh level terrorists. Or the Joker cinema shooter in Colorado. People who are disassociated and want to cause carnage, but it's a little easier to self-rationalize when you can throw a "cause" label on it.

The Aurora Cinema shooter wasn't left or right anything, he was just absolutely crazy, though evidently coherent enough to rig up his apartment as one big booby trap.

I thought MRA (Mens Rights Activists) was just an ironic reactionary thing to Feminism? Could also be WMS (White Male Supremacy) cloaked in another name though.

However, the disenfranchisement is definetly a major thread through all of what we've seen. There also seems to be another thread where it seems like a lot of them are mentally ill in some way or another, but it's more likely that such people are just more vulnerable to ISIS's manipulations than an actual thread to follow.

[Reelya]

MRAs are too much playing the victim card to be a new face for male supremacy. Male supremacists play the alpha-male card, MRAs are whiny betas.

MRAs are basically a type of postmodern feminism for men who feel alienated from society, it uses all the same types of rhetoric. They talk about feminazis/matriarchy the femocracy etc, they talk about misandry instead of misogyny, and how "the system" is stacked against men. They also talk about unfair outcomes: male suicide, males who suffer abuse, education system ingrained bias against boys, institutional rape of males. That's feminist speak except with genders flipped, it's not traditional masculinity.