12 killed in shooting at satirical newspaper office in Paris

Well, yes and no. Officially we run society along a bunch of rules which, I guess, are black and white in the way a flock of penguins in a snowstorm at night is black and white. Unofficially there is a lot of psychology going on in how we run things (kind of inevitably), but it is not mindfully applied psychology, more's the pity.

You're putting your finger right on the problem there. It is fairly easy to understand what makes some people listen to hate preachers (I could explain, but that would be another wall-of-text), but if we do we have to confront some pertinent flaws in how we raise our children and what kind of society we raise them in. We'd also have to confront why so many people in the Middle East have taken a dislike to us over the last 60 years or so. And we'd have to examine the psychology of religion and the religious rarely feel very comfortable with that. We'd be staring into some big abysses and find them staring right back at us. Most people prefer to live in denial.

That's one way to define an extremist. Another would be to define them in terms of the nature of their beliefs and actions rather than their prevalence. But I'm saying that those who fail to distance themselves from extremists claiming to act in their name will get lumped with them. That doesn't mean that they belong there, but that is how people categorise things.

Every action is born from thought.

We can certainly game the system. If you understand what a person thinks, feels and does, you can make an informed guess of what he is likely to think, feel and do next in response to something. We can thus influence the likelihood of a certain behaviour. But we cannot control it and we cannot make it happen.

Well, there was a lot of gaming the system involved there. Post WWII the Marshall Plan comes to mind, as does the instatement, support and subsequent overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the formation of an interim government for Iraq.

Historically speaking no, we haven't, but that's another debate.

 

And what about those attackers or those that hold extreme views that are born and raised in the west.

But very few thoughts result in action.

The why do soldiers carry out there orders ? Have they not been conditioned to carry out the orders of their commander, even if they may not think or feel they are the right orders.

Economic support is not the same as dictating how people should live their lives, money allows people to do more with their life than just trying to make it to tomorrow.

History is a very long time so while you're correct that historically speaking we haven't, i would say in more enlightened, modern times we have.

 

As I said: we have to confront some pertinent flaws in how we raise our children and what kind of society we raise them in. Attraction to extreme views is not specific to any ideology. It is a way of thinking, not a set of beliefs. And there's plenty of it even in our Western society. But you don't see it in the same way that people standing in Trafalgar Square don't see the shape of the British Isles.

But all action is born from thought.

That is the end product of a whole sequence of self-selecting influences. Who becomes a soldier in the first place, and for what reason. Their indoctrination and training, playing on the way people innately think, feel and behave. The way they deal with cognitive dissonance. The threat of execution if they desert.

It's all gaming the system, but in the end some soldiers still desert, and some still disobey (and some go crazy. A few end up shooting their colleagues in places like Fort Hood). Military studies found that in Vietnam 70% of soldiers deliberately shot to miss their target, because they didn't feel like killing some utter stranger on the other side of the world in a conflict they did not really understand or feel invested in. In simulations of nuclear war they found that 10% (IIRC) didn't turn the missile launch key. Soldiers not blindly following orders is a big problem in the army.

You're a highly intelligent guy; don't be naïve now. That economic support came with distinct obligations.

We helped Saddam Hussein's party into power via a coup in 1963, then supported him in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's, and eventually overthrew him in 2003. I could also talk about our involvement in Iran (1953 onwards), South America (1960's onwards), Afghanistan (1800's onward and still going strong). But again, that is another debate.

 

Per Husain Haqqani, the quote "Insulting the Prophet" thing is a recent thing driven by politics in colonial times and wasn't a issue further back: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-must-shed-their-narrative-of-grievance.html

 

Sorry, when you initially said in the Middle East i assumed you were only applying the theory of radicalisation to that one area. Personally I'm not sure radicalisation is caused by the way we raise our children, but more an effect of the society we live in and how it creates a sense of disenfranchisement, that the rules work against you, your rights are constantly violated, and you have little power to change your life for the better.

But very few thoughts result in...Haven't we been hear already.

But in the end it only needs 1 person to press the button, or pull the trigger, the result is the same, people die.

But AFAIK none of that economic support came with obligations on how they should govern, that being forum_user's original premiss. At least i think it was as he hasn't bothered to elaborate on his initial rant.

 

These are all important variables. But how children are raised also has a major impact. It's all to do with attachment, theory of mind, the capacity for critical and autonomous thought and internal vs external directedness.

And the army, despite its best effort cannot control who pulls the trigger and at who.

It totally did! It was all about capitalism vs communism, remember? The idea was to establish in the recipient countries Western-capitalist friendly governments through financial and business support (just like aid to the Third World comes with lots of strings attached), the accurate perception being that otherwise economic destitution risked driving countries into the arms of Communist ideology.

Iran is another example of how the West decided another country should be run, with devastating consequences for the Iranians, and ultimately negative consequences for us.

 

I've been thinking about this some and...

We all say we support free speech, but have we really thought through what that means or are most of us just jumping on the current politically correct bandwagon?

One of the big downsides to free speech, and the reason it bumps up agains religion so often, is that in a free society nothing can ever be sacred. Sacred as in "we all believe in this and if you blasphemy against it we will kill you". In a free speech society everything is fair game for taking a piss on, often literally.

Let me give an example. Let's say your mother, a fine, upstanding woman who spent her life working to help those in need, died last week. In a free speech society there is nothing to stop me from writing a letter to the editor of the local paper saying she was a two-bit whore who tortured puppies. It doesn't matter that it's not true, it doesn't matter that my words are extremely hurtful to you and to those who loved your mother, I get to say it to everyone who will listen. It's my right to be an ass and lie about your dearly departed mother, and if you do anything about it besides try to set the record straight then you are impinging on my rights.

When you support free speech you are supporting the rights of the Westboro baptist Church to protest at soldier's funerals carrying signs saying "God hates America".

When you support free speech you are supporting the KKKs right to burn crosses in public (with a suitable permit, of course).

When you support free speech you are supporting the BNPs right to hold anti-immigrant protests (I think, not totally clear on UK politics).

In a society that embraces free speech nothing can be sacred, everything is profane, and fair game for any idiot who wants to tear it down.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for limitations on speech, but I am acutely aware of what I'm supporting when I say I support free speech. I realize that by supporting free speech I'm supporting anyone's right to take a piss on the things that I hold dear. I realize that by supporting free speech I am supporting the rights of people I don't to say things I really really don't want to hear.

So, my question to you is, do you know what you're supporting when you support free speech?

Have you thought about what free speech costs you?

I encourage you to give it some thought.

On the topic, I also recommend the Popehat blog which deals extensively with first amendment law, and with "censorious asshats" who try to subvert it.

 

Say something that will upset me.

Go on.

Absolutely anything.

If it helps, I have a mother (one-bit whore), daughter (0.5-bit whore) and infant son (bast@rd, and a 0.25-bit whore).


Most things I hear just make me laugh. The more laughs the better, I say.

What would it really matter if The Sun did a front page about your dead Mum's nasty habits?

Either the story would be true, in which case, you've got little to complain about. Or it's false, in which case, who gives a ****, plus you've probably got some easy income coming your way from libel action.

Plus she's dead, so... come on, let it go.

And she was nasty.

 

That's because you have a modicum of intelligence.

 

Nah, I sold it for a Kinder Surprise the other week.

I got a little plastic wind-up motorbike inside me egg.

One of my better deals.

 

Freedom of speech is just our sacred cow. To other cultures however, it may just be a cow. We don't seem to have quite got our head around that here in the West.

 

And when the cows are at odds its the most aggressive, loudest cow with the biggest horns that seem to win out.

Unfortunately Muslims believe that the rest of the world should hold sacred the same things that they do. I simply don't and won't accept that. Its forcing their religion beyond the boundaries of its own believers. That's unacceptable regardless of the religion.

 

Muslims don't. Fundamentalists, whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, do.

 

http://www.thejournal.ie/dr-ali-selim-charlie-hebdo-cartoon-1870437-Jan2015/

That dude is a respected academic. Not a fundamentalist. He intended to use a disgraceful anti-blasphemy law to force his religious beliefs on those that do not share them should any of the hebdo cartoons been published in the Irish media.

A law which is not in place to protect religious freedoms, both to practice and to be free from. But to protect Irish exports to Muslim countries. So don't tell me this is purely the will of people who are out roaring in the streets burning effigies and shooting up whatever they find offensive.

 

Is it not the responsibility of a culture to learn what other cultures sacred cows are though, i mean we wouldn't take a trip to India and chop up a cow because we fancied some burgers.

 

Nope, but neither should we get into the habit of imposing our (purported) Western democratic values on other countries --by force if necessary. But we regularly do, and this is what starts off conflict with people like Al Qaida.

The fundies do what they do because they believe their religion to be an absolute truth. We kind of tend to treat our beliefs the same way.

 

Sorry, but how is he forcing his beliefs on us? He is simply using the democratic legal framework available to him to challenge an action he disagrees with, which is how it is supposed to work. If his case doesn't have merit, it will get thrown out. End of story. The anti-blasphemy law he used is entirely Ireland's own law.

 

Western democratic values, or the belief that each individual should be allowed to live their lives as they wish (within the law), without being oppressed ?

Is it right to stand idly by when a regime is using physical violence to enforce it's beliefs on individuals ?

 

That would be our interpretation. Shouldn't we ask the local population how they experience it and what they'd like us to do?

 

Well that's the idea of democracy, each individual get a (supposed) say in the type of society they want to live in.
How would you go about asking the local population how they experience it if they are fearful of speaking out against their oppressors ?