Paris Attack

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

+1


fred?? are you there fred? it's me, jk.

-1

I'm sorry, but while I do think the discussion between Mn_Mark and I got both political and heated, I want it to be read.

I would like the arguments for why bigotry is not the same as logical discussion to be noticed, and be accessible for reference later, by myself and as many others as possible. If it gets ignored, then nothing will be gained.

We all need to learn to ever-more-easily identify, and reveal, supremacist notions. I include myself in that.

I will, however, agree to end this branch of the conversation now.

That way we can resume discussion of the central thread topic.



Edit: It just occurred to me that the "move thread" suggestion may have been made out of a desire to see administrative action in response to the content covered. If the site administrators also feel that this is warranted, it may be useful to recognize that while Mn_Mark does have a right to think and express whatever he wishes, he does not have a right to be provided an audience with which to advance a white supremacist agenda.

If site administration does want to take a stand on this, either a ban on posting, or a revocation of his account, would achieve that.

I should emphasize that I am not demanding this. Only pointing out what a consistent response would be. This thread is fundamentally about the right to free expression. Only the editorial administrators of the site can decide what they choose their scope, and tolerance to be. Either way, I will happily accept their decision, since my role in this sub-thread is now concluded.

It is not an easy decision, since it embodies the whole debate in a microcosm. I don't envy their role right now.

[vinoveri]

Re: Paris Attack

reason can only guide decisions relative to established goals. goals are ultimately not logical choices but value judgements.

imo, some goals are not value judgments; humans for instance have a desire and will to "know"; it is part of their nature and they use reason and imagination (and of course wrong information) to fill this need (not saying they end up knowing truth, just that they are driven to know independent of a value judgment)

value judgments are not always synonymous with first principles or axioms;
"All men are created equal" - axiom and arguably value judgment
"Man should do what is really good for him" - self evident truth; therefore man should seek hydration and nourishment - goal which is not value judgment

[jk]

Re: Paris Attack

your "self-evident truth" is a tautology in an evolutionary system. so saying it adds no new knowledge.

[vinoveri]

Re: Paris Attack

your "self-evident truth" is a tautology in an evolutionary system. so saying it adds no new knowledge.

kind of like your avatar? (please take no offense)

from the truth (or tautology as you prefer) the non-value-judgment based goal/action follows;

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

I was unclear, and consequently misunderstood. I apologize for both.

No worries….same, same if I am unclear.



Since that isn't what I believe, I don't know how I could take offense. We've made some progress, but we aren't becoming enlightened at ever-increasing rates.

But that same fact will produce ever greater problems in the future if we don't progress where we can.

How would you rate the risk of a dangerous disconnect between social progression running into the strong headwind of natural human behaviour combined with the very fast tailwind of the democratisation of previously state monopolised violence?

I'd rate it as extremely dangerous myself, and I'm not sure if most grasp how potentially dangerous it may be(and that's thinking "glass half full".

I'll certainly grant you that it appears slim at times. But there are numerous data that show that in spite of common misperceptions, human-caused violence can decline. For starters, it has declined considerably as the centuries have passed, technological advances in killing each other notwithstanding.

Has it? I would think the horrors of the first mass industrialized violence in WWI would be an outlier trending to the high side.

Followed by not only WWII, but preceded and followed by the 1st/2nd order effects(tens of millions dead) stemming from the domestic ideological wars of the Soviet Union and China.

This has been studied a great deal. The most famous currently fashionable scholar is Steven Pinker, though there are of course many others.

The abstract of Pinker's most recent book reads:


I'm not going to claim that his book on the subject is the most accessible one, but you did ask for empirical evidence, and this one has 832 pages (and as the pitch says, over a hundred of graphs).

Cheers, I will try and give it a crack.


Entirely inoculated? Of course not! That is why societal pressure and social norms are required to reinforce behavior that de-escalates violence. It is why hate speech, which can and should be protected by law from force, or legal prosecution, should nonetheless be pointed out and shunned by civilized society.

People do have a right to be jerks, and even harbor racist or violent thoughts. They don't have a right to be respected while doing so. That difference is precisely what leads society to advance, if it is to do so at all. Shame is powerful, and should be used for good when that is possible.

Agreed. But the shame side of things can also escalate into a new Spanish Inquisition. Unfortunately, we don't have a universally respected arbiter in the court of public opinion.

I believe it was you who referred to this as "calling out the fart in the room." You were very right. We HAVE to call out the odious farts in the room, if we want to live in a society that isn't filled with the stench of pointless hatred.

As jk pointed out through the cartoon he posted, this is the flip side of free speech. Yes, the cartoonists' right to publish safely should be defended with a full throat. But we also have an obligation to speak loudly in opposition to hate-filled views in those moments when free speech is NOT under direct assault. If I would have seen the cartoons prior to attack, I hope I would have done that too. (I do my best to do so on these pages, as well.)

It comes back again to Voltaire's comment on repugnant ideas: disagree with what is said (when its existence isn't threatened) defend the right to say it (when it is). Both parts matter.

Quite a few good quotes from Voltaire worth paying attention to. But it's worth noting that no one is perfect, not even Voltaire. I think I recall reading he had some less than progressive thoughts on slavery/race which would be completely out of step with today. I'm surprised it hasn't been used as ammunition to discount/disparage his worthwhile ideas.

That's how we advance. By acknowledging that we aren't, any of us, ever immune. That we require each other to keep ourselves in line.
(Well, that and by the passing of generations, when people are beyond convincing.)

Isn't there a problem with the speed of technological progression and the passing of power between generations?

Those entrenched in power for the foreseeable future are not from the younger/progressive populations we hope will lead us to a brighter future.

Isn't the transfer of power between generations fairly static?

And doesn't that present a clear and present danger to stability?


The difference stems from the battle of ideas. The setting of aspirations for our human race. It requires defining ourselves not only by what the forces pressing on us say we must be and do, but also defining ourselves at least in part by how we can best be, and what we should aspire to do.

Don't aspirations follow Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

Needs come before wants. If a substantial chunk of the population you lead has unfulfilled needs, don't aspirations wants go on the back burner?


Hey, I'm not even trying to defend the idea that it is easy to accelerate societal change to keep up with technological requirements. It isn't. I'm only pointing out that as long as it isn't attempted, it is impossible. And I do think it is necessary:I've done just enough military-funded R&D to know that what you are assuming to be an unlikely or distant "unless" ... just isn't. The advance of technology is fundamentally double-edged. It is becoming very easy to do things that were very hard not long ago. Custom DNA, any sequence you want, in an e.coli host cell? No problem at all, and using off-the shelf, untrackable equipment. And that's just one possibility for the very near future.

The simple fact is that technology really IS the forcing function. Not only does it mean that we CAN live in a single, small, world, it means we HAVE to.

I would agree, but my concerns relate around the disruptive effects of technology combined with base human nature.

Think about it. While the internet has provided a platform to facilitate human advancement, the majority of web traffic is about base human wants/needs in the form of porn. Not exactly Star Trek.

Technology is disrupting the sovereign state(as displayed by the rise of the non-state actor gaining some capabilities previously held only by sovereign states).

The democratisation of war fighting capabilities by individuals, groups, non-state actors means there are even more entities that all demand a vote(or is that hold the right of veto?) via threat of violence/disruption that will only increase in capability as we move forward.

Sorry, but that last boldface line just isn't true. I have said before (and meant it): I am not a pacifist. Progressive doesn't mean stupid. Nor does it mean you can't compare two scenarios and make a decision about what is "least bad." You are conflating two orthogonal axes, in this fear. Pacifism is not causally related to progressivism.

We DO have to make hard choices. And yes, people WILL still die.

But that's very different from saying we want them to. That those deaths are in themselves valid goals.

It is the difference between war and genocide. And I'll freely agree that gray areas exist. But even amongst all the grey there is a need to draw a line, and say "thus far, and no farther." Up to this point lies justifiable war, beyond, only murder. The need for that line will never go away, no matter how grey the world.

And its definition, too, has evolved as technology, and society, has progressed.

It will continue to do so.

Will we be one of the nations that helps it advance? Or one of the ones that is a monstrous holdout, with no moral standing?

I assume by helping the world advance implies a willingness to place the people of the planet above the people of your own country?

If so, doesn't that go against basic human selfishness I've focused on and tribal politics that have existed since we self organised?

So far we've mostly been the former. But it is still possible, by clinging to old ideas and definitions, to become the latter. The world is changing ever faster. Are we re-evaluating with it?

I will pose a question to your question:

How often have tribal humans ever voluntarily given up near monopoly power voluntarily for the greater good?

In this universe, a guy hiding in a cave in Pakistan can hit New York city, with nearly no military technology at all. And there is nothing at all that can eliminate, or in the long term, even prevent the rapid growth of, that kind of capability.

So we have no choice but to work on the motive instead.

Means, motive, and opportunity. Only one can be reduced in the long run. They will eventually have more means than they do today, advancing technology makes that inevitable. And no matter how much we try, as long as even communication exists across borders, there will be opportunities.

Will there also be vastly more with sufficient motive?

Isn't that a pleasant way of saying everyone(not really, but I think we agree on certain individuals/groups/NSAs/sovereign states) gets a veto?

How does that work.

The funny thing is I'm a pretty strong supporter of the US's 2nd Amendment(particularly in its role as unpaid "check/balance").

I've often heard/read the expression "An armed society is a polite society".

Maybe that's relevant here. But we are neither homogenous in our values nor aligned in our goals.

What about when, not if, we are armed with grey goo?

While I'm an optimist at heart, the disconnect between the velocity of technological advancement/democratisation and cultural and generational leadership inertial tells me that we are looking at 1-2 potentially quite dangerous decades of dangerous and completely unpredictable disruption.

I wouldn't have a clue as to how long until we see the benefits of quantum computing and genome breakthroughs.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the disconnect it has and will increasingly have in the near future with human cultural inertia and hard coded behaviour.

I've had some conversations with folks over the years how software was quickly outpacing hardware(for common wants/needs). Then it seemed we entered a period where hardware outpaced software(outside of gaming).

What happens when technology outpaces humanity?

I'm not talking bad sci-fi where our web enabled refrigerators try to kill us.

But the far more likely reality of a backlash from cultures that drown in, rather than ride, the tsunami of technological change.

[don]

Re: Paris Attack

Before the 1980’s, the dominant ideology in the Middle East was pan-Arab socialism, a secular ideology that viewed Islamic fundamentalism as socially and economically regressive. Islamic fundamentalists engaged in terrorist attacks against the “pan-Arab socialist” governments of Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq and other governments that aligned themselves with this ideology at various times.

Islamic fundamentalism was virtually extinguished from 1950-1980, with Saudi Arabia and later Qatar being the last bastion and protective base of fundamentalists who were exiled from the secular countries. This dynamic was accentuated during the cold war, where the U.S. aligned itself with Islamic fundamentalism — Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states — while the Soviet Union became allies with the secular nations that identified as “socialist.”

When the 1978 Saur revolution in Afghanistan resulted in yet another socialist-inspired government, the United States responded by working with Saudi Arabia to give tons of weapons, training, and cash to the jihadists of the then-fledgling fundamentalist movement, helping to transform it into a regional social force that soon became the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The U.S.-backed Afghan jihad was the birth of the modern Islamic fundamentalist movement. The jihad attracted and helped organize fundamentalists across the region, as U.S. allies in the Gulf state dictatorships used the state religion to promote it. Fighters who traveled to fight in Afghanistan returned to their home countries with weapon training and hero status that inspired others to join the movement.

The U.S. later aided the fundamentalists by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying Libya and waging a ruthless proxy war in Syria. Fundamentalists used these invasions and the consequent destruction of these once-proud nations to show that the West was at war with Islam.

Islamic fundamentalism grew steadily during this period, until it took another giant leap forward, starting with the U.S.-backed proxy war against the Syrian government, essentially the Afghan jihad on steroids.

Once again the U.S. government aligned itself with Islamic fundamentalists, who have been the principal groups fighting the Syrian government since 2012. To gain thousands of needed foreign fighters, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states promoted jihad with their state-sponsored media, religious figures, and oil-rich donors.

While the Syria jihad movement was blossoming in Syria, the U.S. media and politicians were silent, even as groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS were growing exponentially with their huge sums of Gulf state supplied weapons and cash. They were virtually ignored by the Obama administration until the ISIS invasion of Iraq reached the U.S.-sponsored Kurdish region in 2014.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/...charlie-hebdo/

[Raz]

Re: Paris Attack

I guess Barack is just as dumb as "W".

[shiny!]

Re: Paris Attack

I strongly disagree with the author on one point. He states:

The discrimination that French Muslims face has increased dramatically over the years, as Muslims have been subject to discrimination in politics and the media, most notoriously the 2010 ban on “face covering” in France, directed at the veil used by Muslim women.

One of the most repressive customs under currently practiced Islamic fundamentalism is the requirement decreed by men that women must cover their faces in public. Women don't get to make the rules, they just have to live under them.

The veil is not merely for modesty. It effectively prevents women from connecting to other people in public and building support networks outside the home. France has wisely forbidden this practice. In the writer's twisted logic, freeing women from the veil is in itself repression! He believes women should be free to be as repressed as their menfolk decree. Next, he'll be supporting stoning and honor killings of women as free expressions of religion.

Some, perhaps many Islamic women have been enculturated to accept the veil, but women who don't want to wear it have little freedom to object under fundamentalist Islam. They have little freedom in any sense of the word.

For people to talk of Islam, they need to speak of it as two codes, two sets of rules, two realities: Men's Islam and Women's Islam. For women under fundamentalist Islam, they have the freedom to accept daily discrimination and repression or be beaten and/or killed by their oppressors. The author calls this "religious freedom."

[Raz]

Re: Paris Attack

... For people to talk of Islam, they need to speak of it as two codes, two sets of rules, two realities: Men's Islam and Women's Islam. For women under fundamentalist Islam, they have the freedom to accept daily discrimination and repression or be beaten and/or killed by their oppressors. The author calls this "religious freedom."

+1.

Fundamentalist Islam IS Islam. A "reformed" non-militarist "islam" is not what Mohammed had in mind, nor is it the Islam of the most learned and often cited Islamic jurists and imams of the past 1,000 years.

[vt]

Re: Paris Attack

In 1980's Afghanistan we were fighting a Soviet invasion, not fundamentalist Islam.

The support of fundamentalist Syrian fighters other such measures are not the desire of the American population, it's the policy of a crazy White House.

Also the American people support the current Egyptian leadership not the Muslim Brotherhood friends of the White House. The MB might have been democratically elected, but then they destroyed the constitution and basic freedoms of the people. Sedition is dealt with swiftly.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

The whole discussion probably should have been in Political Abyss from the first posting. As soon as you talk about Islam and free speech and attacks you're going to get into the same fundamental political/moral discussions people always seem to have. Not really finance-related.

No.

The above statement implies that notions of white supremacy are equal in value and impartiality to valid criticisms of both religion, and free speech.

They aren't.

The difference is fundamental, and inescapeable. It is NOT, as you would have us believe, only a difference in degree. It is a difference in kind as well. Not merely quantitatively different, but qualitatively different as well.

The difference can be shown unambiguously, and objectively.

Instead of arriving at a conclusion containing hatred, white supremacist arguments use that as a starting point for all other logic.

The former circumstance may be negotiated in calm discussion among rational people. Any hate isn't intrinsic. In the latter, the argument is fundamentally incapable of being anything other than hateful, unless the hateful axiom is extirpated. It requires disrespect for certain people.

It is only when people don't know the difference or see their intent that such arguments can ride on the coattails of valid arguments from sensible people, collecting "+1"s, and other forms of support, pushing arguments toward the extremes through the use of euphemistic and misleading language, and stirring up anger so that people become more ready to accept your hateful fundamental premise:

That white people are intrinsically better than all other people.

... but now we do know. We have seen through your smokescreen to observe your real views, and called you on them. You still deny they are hateful, but you also don't refute the logic that proves that they are.

You can't. It isn't incorrect. Your ideas ARE fundamentally based on hate.

I may well have explained it with insufficient clarity, in my passion, but I am willing to explain it again more calmly to any who don't yet follow the reasoning. As often as necessary, until there is no longer any doubt.

[Woodsman]

Re: Paris Attack

In 1980's Afghanistan we were fighting a Soviet invasion, not fundamentalist Islam.

Yup, and using fundamentalist Islamists as our muscle to do it.

The support of fundamentalist Syrian fighters other such measures are not the desire of the American population, it's the policy of a crazy White House.

Crazy Neocons, actually, but a mere quibble.

Also the American people support the current Egyptian leadership not the Muslim Brotherhood friends of the White House.

Looney tunes, brother. Looney.

On June 13, 2012, Republican members of Congress, led by Michele Bachmann, alleged that Abedin "has three family members–her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations"[16][17] These claims have been widely rejected and condemned by a variety of sources, and are generally regarded as a conspiracy theory. The Washington Post called Bachmann's allegations "paranoid," a "baseless attack" and a "smear." Republican Senators, led by John McCain, stated: "The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government." The Seattle Times compared Bachmann's accusations to the witch-hunts of Joseph McCarthy, calling the claims "unsupported... assaults by an unthinking zealot." The Anti-Defamation League condemned the letter as well, referring to it as "conspiratorial" and saying that the Representatives involved should "stop trafficking in anti-Muslim conspiracy theories". Abedin was subsequently placed under police protection after she received threats of violence, possibly connected to the allegations.

Oh, and you forgot Benghazi.

[vt]

Re: Paris Attack

I agree we used the fundamentalists in Afghanistan in the 80's; that's all you have there! Duh!
Plus we are talking the early 1980's here, not long after your Conservative phase. All ancient history.

I also agree that the Neocons were also pushing us to get active in Syria recently. The American people were totally against it.

Nothing looney about Americans not wanting the MBs in control of anything. Americans also don't want fundamentalist Christians or atheists running governments either.
So do you agree the MB should have suspended the Egyptian constitution? Do you agree with attacks on non Muslims?

For the record I feel 95% or more of Muslims are moderate and want to live in peace, without Sharia law.

Michelle Bachman group has no more credibility. Benghazi is not a part of this discussion.

[Woodsman]

Re: Paris Attack

Yes, "that's all." Truth, history, that's all. Nothing you're interested in.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

I agree we used the fundamentalists in Afghanistan in the 80's; that's all you have there! Duh!
Plus we are talking the early 1980's here, not long after your Conservative phase. All ancient history.

I also agree that the Neocons were also pushing us to get active in Syria recently. The American people were totally against it.

Nothing looney about Americans not wanting the MBs in control of anything. Americans also don't want fundamentalist Christians or atheists running governments either.
So do you agree the MB should have suspended the Egyptian constitution? Do you agree with attacks on non Muslims?

For the record I feel 95% or more of Muslims are moderate and want to live in peace, without Sharia law.

Michelle Bachman group has no more credibility. Benghazi is not a part of this discussion.

I've had the chance to live/work with quite a few muslims, both shia and suuni in a largely fundamentalist islamic country.

Personally, I don't know what the % of total muslims identifying as fundamentalist, in support of sharia law, and in support of becoming THE dominant global ideology would be.

With such a significant chunk of the global population identifying as muslim, I think it's safe to say in raw numbers(if not the unknown %) it's a pretty large number.

What may also make it sound far scarier is say a comparison with something like nazism in the worst case, or more realistically a cross section of insurgencies(typically within a sovereign state or across a mere 2/3 bordering countries) for a global perspective.

Typically, insurgencies are represented by only a low to mid single digit % of participants. If and when momentum is achieved, that percentage of largely passive/disinterested "band wagon jumpers" explodes exponentially as perceived and real successes are achieved.

In 1941 France you could count the number of Maquis on one hand. By the time the Allies had taken Paris in late 1944, everyone had jumped on the band wagon once victory was assured. 6 months prior in the lead up to D-Day, Maquis numbers were still very small and incredibly disparate. Most French were fence sitters in reality 6 months prior to their return to freedom.

That's not a dig at the French, it's largely how these things tend to roll.

Another example would be with the likes of the taliban. I don't think the % of folks who actively participated and supported the taliban was high at all. I reckon you're looking at the same low to mid single digit % of population.

The implementation of harsh taliban rule was involuntarily accepted, in exchange for consistency of rule(albeit harsh) and the perception of reducing graft.

People accepted(both voluntarily and involuntarily) quite harsh fundamentalist rule in exchange for a focus on consistency and corruption.

People are funny.

Worst case scenario, fundamentalist militant islam represents a clear and present danger to non muslims and liberal muslims across the planet in terms of a global-ish century long insurgency that is more cohesive and effective and capable of gaining far more momentum than we estimate(a bigger/slower version of 79/80).

Best case scenario, fundamentalist militant islam is a 21st century version of mid-late 20th century expansionist cold war communism. While the threat is real and genuine, it is overblown and fails to account for the fact that the suuni/shia hatred can often outrank the hatred of us infidels, much like the Soviet/Chinese hatred often outranked the hatred for us capitalist factory owners in need of re-education(due to proximity as well as internal ideology) resulting in more of a cannibalistic than expansionistic ideological outcome.

My cop out answer is I think the reality is somewhere in the extremely wide gulf in between.

My suggestion would be to develop more effective long-term immigration policies(more like professional sports free agency than naive progressive refugee do-gooderism)that tangibly raise the average of the host nation and control measures such as the deterrence from family unit deportation; more effective border security; supporting reformist/moderate islamic scholarship as aggressively as credibility will allow; disengaging from hypocritical and contradictory relationships with unreformed fundamentalist states and/or states that promote fundamentalist ideology by acts of commission or omission; and shooting a relatively small number of foreign militant fundamentalist islamists in the face and/or successfully discrediting them.

In the 1970's Ogaden War which few know about, a strange thing happened. The US/Israel supported one side, while the Soviets/Cubans supported the other side. Then they swapped.

A bit of a surreal Cold War footnote.

What's surreal today is the US and theocratic Iran, mortal enemies for the better part of the last 35 years(bar Iran/Contra and Herat 2001), are now closely aligned in their opposition to ISIS.