|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 17 2019 11:35 micronesia wrote:
For the second, I asked, how do we get people overall to nurture each other's self esteem, and you linked me to a book. That is not a valid answer. Unless the book is titled, "How to get people overall to nurture each other's self esteem in 3 easy steps," you have stiff-armed me. Even if that was the title of the book, you would have a responsibility to summarize to some extent how the book can actually get people overall to nurture each other's self esteem.
I've been in the thread a while and I'm working as I do this. I will not be able to answer your questions within minutes.
As i've already said building self esteem is not easy. That is a universal human condition. If you want an easy answer you won't find it from me. Someone with an easy answer is probably selling you snake-oil.
Onto the 2nd question, I've provided you with the definition of self esteem in a previous post.
Let's start with nurturing the self esteem of children.
We cannot “give” a child self-esteem; but we can support the practices that will lead a child to self-esteem, and abstain from the actions that tend to undermine a child’s self-esteem.
An effective parent can convey anger or disappointment without signaling withdrawal of love — and can teach without resorting to rejection, humiliating behavior, or physical or emotional abuse, all of which can damage a child’s fragile sense of self.
A child whose thoughts and feelings are treated with acceptance tends to internalize the response and to learn self-acceptance. Acceptance is conveyed, not necessarily by agreement, which is not always possible, but by listening to and acknowledging the child’s thoughts and feelings, and by not chastising, arguing, lecturing, psychologizing, or insulting.
if you want further details... let me know.
|
|
|
Jimmy is reminding me of this article I read that said 26 out of the last 27 mass shooters from America came from single mother households. Here's a snippet from that article:
Fatherlessness is a serious problem. America’s boys have been under stress for decades. It’s not toxic masculinity hurting them, it’s the fact that when they come home there are no fathers there. Plain and simple. Add that to a bunch of horrible cultural trends telling them that everything bad is good (gang culture, drugs, misogyny, etc.), and we’ve got a serious problem on our hands. Venker goes on to explain that of CNN’s list of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History, ( www.cnn.com), only one was raised by his biological father since childhood. “Indeed, there is a direct correlation between boys who grow up with absent fathers and boys who drop out of school, who drink, who do drugs, who become delinquent and who wind up in prison,” she writes. “And who kill their classmates.”
Here are some statistics about children being raised by single mothers: + Show Spoiler +63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
Father Factor in Education – Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.
Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.
Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse – Researchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
Father Factor in Incarceration – Even after controlling for income, youths in father-absent households still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those in mother-father families. Youths who never had a father in the household experienced the highest odds. A 2002 Department of Justice survey of 7,000 inmates revealed that 39% of jail inmates lived in mother-only households. Approximately forty-six percent of jail inmates in 2002 had a previously incarcerated family member. One-fifth experienced a father in prison or jail.
Father Factor in Crime – A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk. A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father. Forty-two percent grew up in a single-mother household and sixteen percent lived with neither parent
Father Factor in Child Abuse – Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect. The overall rate of child abuse and neglect in single-parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, whereas the rate of overall maltreatment in two-parent households is 15.5 per 1,000.
Daughters of single parents without a Father involved are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 711% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a pre-marital birth and 92% more likely to get divorced themselves.
Adolescent girls raised in a 2 parent home with involved Fathers are significantly less likely to be sexually active than girls raised without involved Fathers.
43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]
90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978]
71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999]
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]
85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control]
90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28]
71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]
75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows f for all God’s Children]
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]
85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]
Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]
Census Fatherhood Statistics
64.3 million: Estimated number of fathers across the nation
26.5 million: Number of fathers who are part of married-couple families with their own children under the age of 18.
Among these fathers –
22 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old (among married-couple family households only).
2 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative.
2.5 million: Number of single fathers, up from 400,000 in 1970. Currently, among single parents living with their children, 18 percent are men.
Among these fathers –
8 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old.
42 percent are divorced, 38 percent have never married, 16 percent are separated and 4 percent are widowed. (The percentages of those divorced and never married are not significantly different from one another.)
16 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative.
27 percent have an annual family income of $50,000 or more.
85 percent: Among the 30.2 million fathers living with children younger than 18, the percentage who lived with their biological children only.
11 percent lived with step-children
4 percent with adopted children
< 1 percent with foster children
Recent policies encourage the development of programs designed to improve the economic status of low-income nonresident fathers and the financial and emotional support provided to their children. This brief provides ten key lessons from several important early responsible fatherhood initiatives that were developed and implemented during the 1990s and early 2000s. Formal evaluations of these earlier fatherhood efforts have been completed making this an opportune time to step back and assess what has been learned and how to build on the early programs’ successes and challenges.While the following statistics are formidable, the Responsible Fatherhood research literature generally supports the claim that a loving and nurturing father improves outcomes for children, families and communities.
Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers.
Studies on parent-child relationships and child wellbeing show that father love is an important factor in predicting the social, emotional, and cognitive development and functioning of children and young adults.
24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father.
Nearly 20 million children (27 percent) live in single-parent homes.
43 percent of first marriages dissolve within fifteen years; about 60 percent of divorcing couples have children; and approximately one million children each year experience the divorce of their parents.
Fathers who live with their children are more likely to have a close, enduring relationship with their children than those who do not.
Compared to children born within marriage, children born to cohabiting parents are three times as likely to experience father absence, and children born to unmarried, non-cohabiting parents are four times as likely to live in a father-absent home.
About 40 percent of children in father-absent homes have not seen their father at all during the past year; 26 percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children; and 50 percent of children living absent their father have never set foot in their father’s home.
Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.
From 1995 to 2000, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes slightly declined, while the proportion of children living with two married parents remained stable.
If the question is do most criminals come from single parent households then I think the answer would be yes. Especially so if they were raised by single mothers.
|
|
|
On March 17 2019 11:54 JimmiC wrote:
I think you are missing his question. It is not how do you build self esteem in an individual. It is how do you get a society of people to build self esteem in their children or each other. If you believe this is the root of the problem, what is the solution.
ah ok. i think i see what you mean. On that large of a scale that you mention all I can do is recommend certain books to people.
On March 17 2019 11:35 micronesia wrote:...
Unless the book is titled, "How to get people overall to nurture each other's self esteem in 3 easy steps...
If you are going to randomly bring up the concept of the deterioration of the family unit in a discussion about a mass shooting, you should be much more prepared than this to discuss it.
My way of improving things and lowering the probability of mass shootings applies to a family and local community level. Be a better family member and a better community member. Best way to do this is to nurture the self esteem of others during interactions with those around you. This lowers the probability of someone "slipping through the cracks". Nothing is guaranteed though.
also, at a local community level it helps with this issue...
On March 17 2019 10:16 Nebuchad wrote:
It's also important to remember that fascists represent a direct threat to people around them.
You can lower the probability of someone slipping through the cracks in your local area by being a better community person. Volunteer at the local Food Bank perhaps? Build and/or admin a community forum board for people to discuss local issues? befriend your neighbours?
|
On March 17 2019 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:
My suggestions are making it harder for fascists to spread their garbage online and reach a target audience of teens to young adult males, which happen to be the demographic that is the most prone to ideological violence. Reinforce hate speech laws so that fascists can't abuse the rules of the marketplace of ideas. We could also do something about the islamophobic and more generally anti-immigration climate that we have in the first world.
It would also be great if there were no leaders in the world whose reaction to Christchurch was: "It's terrible that he shot all these innocents, he should have fought the invasion of the muslim hordes, something that is totally happening, in a more civilized way".
Those are a few thoughts, just spitballing here.
forget 'islam' or any other group. you cannot squelch people's ideas. if you think that by trying to close mainstream channels you will eliminate whackos from communicating you are mistaken. sure, it might be a little more inconvenient but one does not just align with mainstream ideals because he can't access/spread hate freely on mainstream sites. you cannot use 'regulation' of a market in this sense. you are just talking about censorship. as much as i hate the spread of hatred, i more so hate censorship. people are going to do what they are going to do. we're always on the backfoot trying to mitigate the fallout and bullshit each other kidding ourselves we can prevent the next one from happening through the investigation of thought crimes
|
United States42689 Posts
On March 17 2019 14:02 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2019 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:
My suggestions are making it harder for fascists to spread their garbage online and reach a target audience of teens to young adult males, which happen to be the demographic that is the most prone to ideological violence. Reinforce hate speech laws so that fascists can't abuse the rules of the marketplace of ideas. We could also do something about the islamophobic and more generally anti-immigration climate that we have in the first world.
It would also be great if there were no leaders in the world whose reaction to Christchurch was: "It's terrible that he shot all these innocents, he should have fought the invasion of the muslim hordes, something that is totally happening, in a more civilized way".
Those are a few thoughts, just spitballing here. forget 'islam' or any other group. you cannot squelch people's ideas. if you think that by trying to close mainstream channels you will eliminate whackos from communicating you are mistaken. sure, it might be a little more inconvenient but one does not just align with mainstream ideals because he can't access/spread hate freely on mainstream sites. you cannot use 'regulation' of a market in this sense. you are just talking about censorship. as much as i hate the spread of hatred, i more so hate censorship. people are going to do what they are going to do. we're always on the backfoot trying to mitigate the fallout and bullshit each other kidding ourselves we can prevent the next one from happening through the investigation of thought crimes
I feel like there's a difference between not allowing people to read certain books at the local library and allowing media sites to create insular bubbles of radicalized consumers who are conditioned to reject anything outside the ever more extreme content created to keep them coming back.
I'm all for letting people consume whatever food they want, but I'd be against a company that put heroin in candies because of the negative externalities beyond that individual. Can that not apply to the media people consume too?
|
On March 17 2019 14:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2019 14:02 Alejandrisha wrote:On March 17 2019 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:
My suggestions are making it harder for fascists to spread their garbage online and reach a target audience of teens to young adult males, which happen to be the demographic that is the most prone to ideological violence. Reinforce hate speech laws so that fascists can't abuse the rules of the marketplace of ideas. We could also do something about the islamophobic and more generally anti-immigration climate that we have in the first world.
It would also be great if there were no leaders in the world whose reaction to Christchurch was: "It's terrible that he shot all these innocents, he should have fought the invasion of the muslim hordes, something that is totally happening, in a more civilized way".
Those are a few thoughts, just spitballing here. forget 'islam' or any other group. you cannot squelch people's ideas. if you think that by trying to close mainstream channels you will eliminate whackos from communicating you are mistaken. sure, it might be a little more inconvenient but one does not just align with mainstream ideals because he can't access/spread hate freely on mainstream sites. you cannot use 'regulation' of a market in this sense. you are just talking about censorship. as much as i hate the spread of hatred, i more so hate censorship. people are going to do what they are going to do. we're always on the backfoot trying to mitigate the fallout and bullshit each other kidding ourselves we can prevent the next one from happening through the investigation of thought crimes I feel like there's a difference between not allowing people to read certain books at the local library and allowing media sites to create insular bubbles of radicalized consumers who are conditioned to reject anything outside the ever more extreme content created to keep them coming back. I'm all for letting people consume whatever food they want, but I'd be against a company that put heroin in candies because of the negative externalities beyond that individual. Can that not apply to the media people consume too?
there are lots of e-books about grooming children that, if they are found on your eq, you are going away. and i'm ok with that. at least those have some real intent behind them. it would be hard to figure some one would consume these pdf's for research reasons, though i am sure there is at least one person who has accessed them out of curiosity. should he be arrested for possession of this material? maybe. and maybe he would be exonerated.
i feel that because the average individual has so much more access to all forms of media, a greater degree of discretion needs to be applied. how many times have you heard of the individual who becomes radicalized by these materials? probably the times they ended in tragedy. how many times have you heard of individuals accessing the same material and don't become active shooters? zero. and i think that the number that have accessed these materials pales to the numbers it actually inspires to action by several orders of magnitude.
so no, i don't think any reading material should be off limits to the general public. my only suggestion would be to monitor the ones that heavily invest their time into digesting them but even then you will probably get more false positives than results.
|
On March 17 2019 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:
My suggestions are making it harder for fascists to spread their garbage online and reach a target audience of teens to young adult males, which happen to be the demographic that is the most prone to ideological violence. Reinforce hate speech laws so that fascists can't abuse the rules of the marketplace of ideas. We could also do something about the islamophobic and more generally anti-immigration climate that we have in the first world.
It would also be great if there were no leaders in the world whose reaction to Christchurch was: "It's terrible that he shot all these innocents, he should have fought the invasion of the muslim hordes, something that is totally happening, in a more civilized way".
Those are a few thoughts, just spitballing here.
i believe that a lot of this hatred has been purposefully exported worldwide to force powers to pick sides in proxy wars. do you really think every rationally-thinking person WANTS to pick between SA/Iran and Israel/Palestine? No. But provocateurs know that humanitarians and neocons can't help but look outside when genocide or civil war erupts. So even if these atrocities are not committed on your soil or by/against your tribe, you cannot sit on the fence. So you have to choose between the lesser of two evils and so you've fallen into the trap.
edit: for instance Syria. lots of conspiracies of false flag operations but it still holds up. every time we hint we are going to back out, suddenly innocent Syrians are murdered by Assad and we are drawn back in. This is not a bug
|
On March 17 2019 11:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2019 11:18 micronesia wrote:(b) An important aspect of community and family building involves learning how to nurture the self esteem of others. By nurturing the self esteem of others you will in turn nurture your own self esteem."
How do we get people to nurture each other's self esteem? The reach of the people in this thread is pretty limited. for far reaching impact i recommend the book i linked entitled "The 6 Pillars of Self Esteem". For local impact, I nurture the self esteem of others within my own little network of people. As another example, KelianQatar does the same thing within her little network of people. The book I linked works much better when the person to whom I've recommended it can come back to me with questions. I can also tailor certain ideas to their situation. Keep in mind, self esteem building is not easy.
I wonder if you ever reflect so had on why brown people that commit crimes do the things they do. I cant recall you ever questioning why an Isis fighter would join ISIS ? Ever wondered about their circumstances?
Im doing some searching and I cant find any evidence of it. You know why? Because when they do it they are just evil. Circumstances be damned. And dont for a second pretend like thats something youve thought about as hard as you just did here.
Also your solution is completely unsustainable in the given environment. The "family" structure that you are asking for cannot exist the way you want it to to the extent you are expecting it should because it is inexorably dependant on being able to afford a "happy family" something that is increasingly impossible given how the wealth inequality is reaching third world levels at least in the US.
|
On March 17 2019 16:33 Rebs wrote:
I wonder if you ever reflect so had on why brown people that commit crimes do the things they do. I cant recall you ever questioning why an Isis fighter would join ISIS ? Ever wondered about their circumstances?
Im doing some searching and I cant find any evidence of it. You know why? Because when they do it they are just evil. Circumstances be damned.
I think every human born has the potential to be good. This is why i believe in "innocent until proven guilty". This is why I believe in a constitution that gives everyone basic fundamental human rights. I do not believe anyone is "just evil". This kind of thinking dehumanizes others.
On March 17 2019 16:33 Rebs wrote:
And dont for a second pretend like thats something youve thought about as hard as you just did here.
If you want to delve into the deepest recesses of metaphysics and epistemology I can go that deep and that far if you wish. We might have to do it in a blog though. If you prefer.
On March 17 2019 16:33 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2019 11:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 17 2019 11:18 micronesia wrote:(b) An important aspect of community and family building involves learning how to nurture the self esteem of others. By nurturing the self esteem of others you will in turn nurture your own self esteem."
How do we get people to nurture each other's self esteem? The reach of the people in this thread is pretty limited. for far reaching impact i recommend the book i linked entitled "The 6 Pillars of Self Esteem". For local impact, I nurture the self esteem of others within my own little network of people. As another example, KelianQatar does the same thing within her little network of people. The book I linked works much better when the person to whom I've recommended it can come back to me with questions. I can also tailor certain ideas to their situation. Keep in mind, self esteem building is not easy. Also your solution is completely unsustainable in the given environment. The "family" structure that you are asking for cannot exist the way you want it to to the extent you are expecting it should because it is inexorably dependant on being able to afford a "happy family" something that is increasingly impossible given how the wealth inequality is reaching third world levels at least in the US.
yep, welfare for the rich must stop. Lower tax levels and stop building billion dollar sports stadiums for billionaires. Let the billionaire owners and millionaire athletes pay for the stadiums themselves.
https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/bison/9780803260160/
Warren Buffett: "Stop Coddling the Super Rich"
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
Governments must stop handing buckets of cash to the super rich. Lower the general taxation level.
On March 17 2019 16:33 Rebs wrote:
I wonder if you ever reflect so had on why brown people that commit crimes do the things they do. I cant recall you ever questioning why an Isis fighter would join ISIS ? Ever wondered about their circumstances?
these are good questions. they should be answered. I'm glad when these mass murderers are not killed and they are captured alive. Even if they end up in jail for a very long time... we can better learn what lead them down their awful path if they are taken alive.
On a local level, I walk past the "Pakistani Community Centre of Canada" on the North Service Road in Mississauga about 4 times a week. Everyone is so friendly, helpful, and polite. These people know how to build a community.
How many Pakistani people in Mississauga and Brampton join terror groups? My guess is ... not many. Strong communities and strong families are the key.
One can imitate success you know... its not always about punishing failure.
|
On March 17 2019 14:02 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2019 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:
My suggestions are making it harder for fascists to spread their garbage online and reach a target audience of teens to young adult males, which happen to be the demographic that is the most prone to ideological violence. Reinforce hate speech laws so that fascists can't abuse the rules of the marketplace of ideas. We could also do something about the islamophobic and more generally anti-immigration climate that we have in the first world.
It would also be great if there were no leaders in the world whose reaction to Christchurch was: "It's terrible that he shot all these innocents, he should have fought the invasion of the muslim hordes, something that is totally happening, in a more civilized way".
Those are a few thoughts, just spitballing here. forget 'islam' or any other group. you cannot squelch people's ideas. if you think that by trying to close mainstream channels you will eliminate whackos from communicating you are mistaken. sure, it might be a little more inconvenient but one does not just align with mainstream ideals because he can't access/spread hate freely on mainstream sites. you cannot use 'regulation' of a market in this sense. you are just talking about censorship. as much as i hate the spread of hatred, i more so hate censorship. people are going to do what they are going to do. we're always on the backfoot trying to mitigate the fallout and bullshit each other kidding ourselves we can prevent the next one from happening through the investigation of thought crimes
You aren't going to remove everyone who has those ideas but you will limit their scope and that's an excellent thing for society. Deplatforming works. Milo Yiannopoulos has less influence now than he did before, that's awesome. Alex Jones has less influence now than he did before, that's awesome.
I don't think people realize the extent of what is happening. There are videos on Youtube about white genocide that get hundreds of thousands of views. Some people are a little more clever and call it the great replacement, which gets them to 500k+ views. Some black bird talking overtly about how nazism is awesome gets almost 500k subscribers. Those are fucking large audiences for overtly fascist ideas. It's no wonder that it creates a bunch of fascists.
We could also talk about how ISIS propaganda videos are obviously censored whenever they pop up and how nobody thinks about what George Orwell would think. Can we imagine a world where people who promote the world view of ISIS without directly asking people to do specific acts of terrorism would get 500k viewers on Youtube? Don't think it's a great idea personally.
edit: the 26 out of 27 mass shooters stat is not true and has been retracted. It's good that we're not letting the fact that this specific terrorist grew up with both his parents distract us from talking about something else than fascism though.
|
On March 17 2019 19:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2019 14:02 Alejandrisha wrote:On March 17 2019 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:
My suggestions are making it harder for fascists to spread their garbage online and reach a target audience of teens to young adult males, which happen to be the demographic that is the most prone to ideological violence. Reinforce hate speech laws so that fascists can't abuse the rules of the marketplace of ideas. We could also do something about the islamophobic and more generally anti-immigration climate that we have in the first world.
It would also be great if there were no leaders in the world whose reaction to Christchurch was: "It's terrible that he shot all these innocents, he should have fought the invasion of the muslim hordes, something that is totally happening, in a more civilized way".
Those are a few thoughts, just spitballing here. forget 'islam' or any other group. you cannot squelch people's ideas. if you think that by trying to close mainstream channels you will eliminate whackos from communicating you are mistaken. sure, it might be a little more inconvenient but one does not just align with mainstream ideals because he can't access/spread hate freely on mainstream sites. you cannot use 'regulation' of a market in this sense. you are just talking about censorship. as much as i hate the spread of hatred, i more so hate censorship. people are going to do what they are going to do. we're always on the backfoot trying to mitigate the fallout and bullshit each other kidding ourselves we can prevent the next one from happening through the investigation of thought crimes You aren't going to remove everyone who has those ideas but you will limit their scope and that's an excellent thing for society. Deplatforming works. Milo Yiannopoulos has less influence now than he did before, that's awesome. Alex Jones has less influence now than he did before, that's awesome. I don't think people realize the extent of what is happening. There are videos on Youtube about white genocide that get hundreds of thousands of views. Some people are a little more clever and call it the great replacement, which gets them to 500k+ views. Some black bird talking overtly about how nazism is awesome gets almost 500k subscribers. Those are fucking large audiences for overtly fascist ideas. It's no wonder that it creates a bunch of fascists. We could also talk about how ISIS propaganda videos are obviously censored whenever they pop up and how nobody thinks about what George Orwell would think. Can we imagine a world where people who promote the world view of ISIS without directly asking people to do specific acts of terrorism would get 500k viewers on Youtube? Don't think it's a great idea personally. edit: the 26 out of 27 mass shooters stat is not true and has been retracted. It's good that we're not letting the fact that this specific terrorist grew up with both his parents distract us from talking about something else than fascism though.
so the onus is on big tech to censor hate speech? i don't think little suzy became an isis wife through watching a few propaganda videos nor do i think john decided to blow up a train because he saw a guy chop a journalist's head off. i don't think it is correct to give too much power to media. we have video games where we do much worse than the most evil jihadists do and yet not everyone is compelled to follow suit.
some have authoritarian personalities and are innately drawn to conservatism to the point of fascism but that doesn't mean we have to treat every internet user like a baby. no matter how many propaganda videos i watch i'm not going to become radicalized and for some people it will only take 0-1 acts of propaganda to turn them. let's not create a no-child-left-behind issue where we place a cookie-cutter over everyone's experience with media
everyone's experience with media is self-created; if people drift towards materials deemed sensitive or prone to radicalize, then sure, monitor those people (which is possible), but making them inaccessible is censorship and will prevent good actors from knowing what they are dealing with
|
Little Suzy absolutely became an isis wife through watching a few propaganda videos. That's actually the main principle behind propaganda: it makes people think stuff that they wouldn't otherwise. In your second paragraph, when you're creating a separation between people like you and people who might become fascists, you admit yourself that they get turned by watching a few propaganda videos. Are you sure you know what you're here to say?
It's fairly nonsensical to say that reinforcing hate speech laws means we're treating internet users like babies, and I'm not sure what you mean by "will prevent good actors from knowing what they are dealing with".
|
|
|
On the topic of propaganda: Facebook announced, that there were 1.5 million attempts to reupload the video on FB during the first 24hrs after the crime.
|
On March 18 2019 03:59 mahrgell wrote:
On the topic of propaganda: Facebook announced, that there were 1.5 million attempts to reupload the video on FB during the first 24hrs after the crime.
and less than 1.5 million attempts at terror attacks i presume.
propaganda can be effective but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. it's consumed in the context of some one's every day life. if it promises happiness to a person who is sad, then certainly that is more effective. it can also fall on deaf ears. it affects everyone differently and to varying degrees. simply turning it off and shielding people that are prone to indoctrination while not under gunpoint are going to fall for whatever ruse you throw at them. i don't think that warrants mass censorship.
|
On March 17 2019 12:28 JimmiC wrote:
Which brings up how correlation does not mean causation. And you need to look into what socio economic groups have more single mothers and so on.
Yes! Family structure is a good predictor variable for many externalizing and internalizing problems in children and youth, but it (often) turns out to be spurious when you control for family income, education etc. (there's a review in Patterson & Hastings 2006, in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research of some of these findings.)
|
On March 17 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
Little Suzy absolutely became an isis wife through watching a few propaganda videos.
I only believe this so a certain extent. I believe Suzy was convinced by her husband/lover and is probably in an extremely abusive relationship.
That's actually the main principle behind propaganda: it makes people think stuff that they wouldn't otherwise.
I find this hard to believe considering our innate confirmation bias. while it is sometimes interesting or even tempting to delve into conspiracy theory, people generally gravitate to content they agree with. radicalization goes against this. if you can provide contradictory evidence, please do.
In your second paragraph, when you're creating a separation between people like you and people who might become fascists,
yes i did, in the same way you separate yourself from the people you are talking about, whether or not you are included. i'm not saying i'm perfect and immune from bias. i am simply saying research suggests those with authoritarian personalities are more likely to take cues from others rather than think for themselves. i don't think this is for debate. that i am here talking to you about these ideas should cue you to think i don't think/behave in these ways.
you admit yourself that they get turned by watching a few propaganda videos.
yes, but with 2 factors in mind, which i've been driving at: personality/innate-- authoritarian personality more likely to accept authority despite their own inkling-- socialization//nurture-- i believe many are ushered into the caliphate by those who want to take advantage of the former. is that difficult to believe in such a sadistic cult as theism this would be implausible? please explain.
Are you sure you know what you're here to say?
yes..?
It's fairly nonsensical to say that reinforcing hate speech laws means we're treating internet users like babies, and I'm not sure what you mean by "will prevent good actors from knowing what they are dealing with".
i'm simply saying that the layman should have access to the same information as the elite. this is simply access of information. we cannot fight the enemy if we do not know the enemy. how would i know that jihadists love death more than we infidels love life if this wasn't proliferated? sheltering yourself from radicalism doesn't make it go away.
|
On March 18 2019 06:10 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2019 03:59 mahrgell wrote:
On the topic of propaganda: Facebook announced, that there were 1.5 million attempts to reupload the video on FB during the first 24hrs after the crime. and less than 1.5 million attempts at terror attacks i presume. propaganda can be effective but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. it's consumed in the context of some one's every day life. if it promises happiness to a person who is sad, then certainly that is more effective. it can also fall on deaf ears. it affects everyone differently and to varying degrees. simply turning it off and shielding people that are prone to indoctrination while not under gunpoint are going to fall for whatever ruse you throw at them. i don't think that warrants mass censorship.
You just list a bunch of things that are true about propaganda and then conclude that therefore censorship of fascists on Youtube isn't warranted. There is no link between your post and its conclusion. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with your post. You also seem to drastically underestimate the number of people who are susceptible to propaganda in general. Fox News is the most watched cable news network.
"I find this hard to believe considering our innate confirmation bias. while it is sometimes interesting or even tempting to delve into conspiracy theory, people generally gravitate to content they agree with. radicalization goes against this. if you can provide contradictory evidence, please do."
Radicalization works better and faster on recent converts to an ideology. But, like, who cares? Even if that wasn't true, you could encounter some propaganda that is similar to an ideology you already agree with. If you're a nationalist, or if you're one of the "I'm not a racist but..." people, it's a small leap from that to a fascist world view, you just have to push the right buttons.
"yes, but with 2 factors in mind, which i've been driving at: personality/innate-- authoritarian personality more likely to accept authority despite their own inkling-- socialization//nurture-- i believe many are ushered into the caliphate by those who want to take advantage of the former. is that difficult to believe in such a sadistic cult as theism this would be implausible? please explain."
Okay, what's the argument connected to this and how does it relate to removing the microphone that is currently attached to fascism.
"i'm simply saying that the layman should have access to the same information as the elite. this is simply access of information. we cannot fight the enemy if we do not know the enemy. how would i know that jihadists love death more than we infidels love life if this wasn't proliferated? sheltering yourself from radicalism doesn't make it go away."
Videos where fascists lie about the world to encourage you to follow fascism typically aren't the best source of information, whether you're a layman or the elite. You talk about knowing your enemy; ISIS propaganda videos are banned and yet you still got access to that information that you seem to believe is super important, even though it's super generic and not particularly useful in any way. How about instead of fascist propaganda we have some correct information about fascism on Youtube? Let's say, a video from Innuendo Studios about white fascism that is excellent? Sounds like it would be much better, and it's available for all of us laymen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
