At least 73 killed in Nice, Hundreds injured

[Relic]

10 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Except virtually all of the benchmarks you call out here have steadily risen for the last couple hundred years.

So...  There's that....

 

And that's wonderful. It really is. It never ceases to amaze me when I think of everything around me being a product of human cooperation. From the food I eat,  the water I drink,  the clothes I wear,  and mostly everything I touch and I use... it was all created for me by a complex system of ingenuity, and a loooong history of perseverance.

I am truly grateful. 

And now,  clearly,  we must do more to ensure a minimum standard of quality of life across the board, globally,  for everyone. Or we can proceed as we are,  straight towards something extremely dark. 

[DunderMifflin]

Regarding the industrial revolution and capitalism. I don't think it has decreased inequality at all.

There's absolute poverty, which has undeniably been decreased dramatically under capitalism and the IR. Meaning more people in the world having basic neccesities.

Then there's relative poverty which seems to dramatically increase under capitalism. Meaning those that are in position to exploit it are the ones that benefit, the saying "rich get richer" and all. And the charge that we don't get affordable smartphones without the existence of poverty to exploit.

So both the claims that capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than anything else in human history and that capitalism has bound more people to poverty than anything else both seem to have some sort of validity at this point.

Apologies if this is off topic but I think the topic of poverty at least in some way should be allowed to be explored in context of radicalization.

[ElizabethB.]

8 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

 

Apologies if this is off topic but I think the topic of poverty at least in some way should be allowed to be explored in context of radicalization.

Why? 

People that do radicalize come from all backgrounds. 

[DunderMifflin]

29 minutes ago, ElizabethB. said:

Why? 

People that do radicalize come from all backgrounds. 

And all religions.

And lack thereof.

And all different hues of skin color.

 

Radicalized by itself isn't necessarily a bad word IMO. I consider myself radicalized to a degree. I consider Bernie Sanders and his supporters to be radicalized.

Radicalized doesn't just mean willing to commit atrocities. Unless we are going by some new academic meaning of radicalized that I know about.

In regards to this specific case, there's evidence that economics and class were factors.

[Crixus]

Massive generalisation alert: 

People who are relatively satisfied with life are far less likely to radicalise in any context. This can be economical/financial, emotional, psychological and so on. So yes, poverty and systemic inequality is a definite factor. 

[Jo498]

Radicalized used to mean more extreme than Bernie Sanders, though.

Isn't it precisely the strategy of some conservatives to lump Sanders-style socialists light together with street-fighting communists of the 1920s or Pol Pot? And conversely, the strategy of some social liberals to lump grandma who does not approve of unwed mothers together with Hitler?

Radicalized should mean at least something like that the person in question has both serious doubts about the justice or feasibility of the current politico-socio-economic system AND is not completely against using extreme methods to change the system, usually because they believe that the system is too rigged and power relations too entrenched to be changed by means easily available within the system.

[Dofs]

"Radicalised" as a word means absolutely nothing without the context of what the person is radical about. Depending on that one radical person's actions and its consequences could be vastly different from another's to that point that they can't be genuinely compared. Whether a person is radicalised or not also completely depends on the opinion. One might think he is, another might think he is very mild about it. This word is too vague and abstract and does not tell anything.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

3 hours ago, Crixus said:

Massive generalisation alert: 

People who are relatively satisfied with life are far less likely to radicalise in any context. This can be economical/financial, emotional, psychological and so on. So yes, poverty and systemic inequality is a definite factor. 

Interestingly enough, there was a paper put out a few years ago that surveyed support for extremism in Pakistan which found that the poor were less likely to support extremist politics than people with money and the middle class. Here's a contemporaneous article about the study. 

[Jo498]

This is old news. The lumpenproles are almost never the ones planning or enacting the revolution. It is always/usually a class that has enough resources and knowledge not to be totally despondent or too busy with mere survival. They need sufficient knowledge to find someone to blame and sufficient strength to be very angry and act accordingly. E.g., those guys flying those planes in 2001 were typically engineering students.

[Fragile Bird]

When the Bangladesh attack occurred recently the police said many of the attackers were from wealthy families.

Many children of the wealthy turn their backs on the lifestyles of their families, as I said up thread.  When you read about it in an interview or a history book, the common theme is they attended some rally or group meeting or lecture and almost instantly, 'the scales dropped off my eyes and my ears were opened to the truth'.

That doesn't mean they immediately decided violence was the answer, it means they were on the path of a very different world view from the one they previously held. 

 

[Swordfish]

21 hours ago, Relic said:

And that's wonderful. It really is. It never ceases to amaze me when I think of everything around me being a product of human cooperation. From the food I eat,  the water I drink,  the clothes I wear,  and mostly everything I touch and I use... it was all created for me by a complex system of ingenuity, and a loooong history of perseverance.

I am truly grateful. 

And now,  clearly,  we must do more to ensure a minimum standard of quality of life across the board, globally,  for everyone. Or we can proceed as we are,  straight towards something extremely dark. 

Again, all the things you've called out have been steadily improving, which you acknowledge.  

So where is this nefarious trend you are referring to indicated?  What are the data points you are tracking that lead you to believe we are proceeding toward something extremely dark?

[Dofs]

Education and wealth do not always trump intense propaganda and indoctrination from early age. Imo, but those who can shake off something they were taught from since they were children are a minority, no matter how well educated or how rich they become. Hell, Germany has shown that intense propaganda can brainwash even educated adult people.

[DunderMifflin]

I certainly never tried to make the case that poverty alone is the cause of suicide attackers or terrorism.

I just think it should be allowed to be explored just like any other factor, such as mental health. There's never going to be a one size fits all solution to why people do these sorts of things.

Regardless of how flawless the logic of certain articles and authors may or may not be, i think its a mistake to easily dismiss class and poverty as possible factors for what conditions does extreme terrorism/radicalization/whatever you want to call it,  thrive in.  In a global context, all of Pakistan is very poor. 

In this specific case, I think evidence remains that class and finance are factors. Along with mental health and quickly attaching to something new.

 

[Dofs]

Pakistan is not the only poor country, there are quite a few of them so you can make a simple comparison between Pakistan and different poor countries. While other poor countries no doubt have lots of problems with crime, somehow almost all terrorism and suicide attacks that make the news have something to do with Islam. And I don't really think that it's a Jewish and American plot to only show Islamic terrorism in order to spread Islamophobia, like many Muslims seem to think. 

Also, while Pakistan is poor, Saudi Arabia with the most retarded and barbaric society, is not.

[DunderMifflin]

29 minutes ago, Dofs said:

Pakistan is not the only poor country, there are quite a few of them so you can make a simple comparison between Pakistan and different poor countries. While other poor countries no doubt have lots of problems with crime, somehow almost all terrorism and suicide attacks that make the news have something to do with Islam. And I don't really think that it's a Jewish and American plot to only show Islamic terrorism in order to spread Islamophobia, like many Muslims seem to think. 

Also, while Pakistan is poor, Saudi Arabia with the most retarded and barbaric society, is not.

Which countries are you thinking of?

[Dofs]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

Which countries are you thinking of?

On one hand non-Muslim African countries, Central and South American, some poor Asian countries, India etc. European ones like Moldova. On the other hand ME and Northern African ones. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Again, all the things you've called out have been steadily improving, which you acknowledge.  

So where is this nefarious trend you are referring to indicated?  What are the data points you are tracking that lead you to believe we are proceeding toward something extremely dark?

I don't know that water is improving.  Drinking water is safer now than say one hundred years ago pretty much everywhere, but there are plenty of examples of bottomline capitalist practices that needed to be curbed to keep it that way.  Same goes for food.  Because it's always cheaper to just dump poison in the river.  

Additionally, our freshwater supplies are dwindling.  So while those things might have improved for the most part on one timeline, there are still serious concerns about how we manage all of the stuff Relic listed, particularly when we move beyond the examination of quality alone and consider the other social and human costs associated with them.  awesome running shoes and shrimp are great, but have a decent chance of being produced by borderline slave labor.

[DunderMifflin]

38 minutes ago, Dofs said:

On one hand non-Muslim African countries, Central and South American, some poor Asian countries, India etc. European ones like Moldova. On the other hand ME and Northern African ones. 

Almost all these places have significant terrorist groups that are willing to attack civilians.

[Crixus]

18 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Interestingly enough, there was a paper put out a few years ago that surveyed support for extremism in Pakistan which found that the poor were less likely to support extremist politics than people with money and the middle class. Here's a contemporaneous article about the study. 

Yes, in the last couple of decades there has been a rise in what we refer to here as a specific strain of middle class morality. Since 9/11 for instance (anecdotal) far more people can be seen wearing hijabs here. Another factor in PK is the explosion of the media including social media, which has led on the one hand to a cultural liberalisation and opening up (seen especially in local media and entertainment) and on the other to a conservative backlash against what people see as 'Westernisation'. The divide is clear and growing.

However, my reference to poverty was related to madrassahs too: free religious schools that offer room and board to students. Many families send their children there simply because they cannot afford to keep them, and so that they may learn. Such madrassahs are often breeding grounds for extremism. The government has recently produced a list of those that should be shut down, with little success so far. 

Beyond that, I was not insinuating at all that 'poverty makes people a mass murderer': honestly, where do people get the ability to misconstrue others' words so blatantly? Is it a lack of reading comprehension or spite? Really tiresome. 

What I DID say was that people who are desperate due to circumstances may be more likely to radicalise. I also included 'emotional and psychological' there. And I also EXPLICITLY said this was a massive generalisation. Sigh.

[Dofs]

9 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Almost all these places have significant terrorist groups that are willing to attack civilians.

The scale is vastly different.