Jump to content

UK Politics - Put your mask in the bin and hug your granny


john

Recommended Posts

Ignore the problem, I'm sure it will go away now that this guy has been caught and will be brought to justice. Solving a problem requires first understanding it. I'm not certain cannibalism is currently a problem. But white supremacy and Incels (as just one subset of misogyny) are definitely problems. Hating and seething about them, and making fun of them, isn't going to make them disappear. Probably makes it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps start a thread so anyone inclined can discuss and empathise with these (literal) tossers.

I mean, this is not a new phenomenon. Weird, socially inept men have been struggling to get laid for centuries.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

So we should understand what conditions lead to their emergence, and whether and how we might change those conditions.

Sure, but I'm not sure that requires anyone to really listen to what these idiots have to say, more look at where they've come from.

And from further up the page- disliking/hating incels and white supremacists makes the problem worse, does it? The blame lies everywhere but at the feet of the poor lambs themselves, no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

Would that involve taking the threat of incels more seriously, and haven't you just been arguing that they're basically no harm to anyone and misunderstood?

I think the more important question is why people with obvious mental health issues are left to their own devices and given gun licences. Focusing on the incel thing in this case seems to be bit of a misdirection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that incels don't look like what we expect a terrorist movement to look like is exactly my point. We have to update our ideas of what a dangerous ideology/movement actually is.

There's substantial evidence that incel forums have played a part in radicalising and inciting some young men - who, yes, probably already had violent inclinations and mental health issues, but that's typical of the more 'usual' terrorist recruit anyway, whether we're talking IRA or Al Qaeda or whatever - to commit acts of violence to create terror in the public at large.

That these forums don't represent an organised movement or a particularly coherent ideology with an agreed set of societal goals suggests to me not that these men aren't terrorists, but that we need to reconsider how we think about terrorism. Al Qaeda showed us that you don't really need a centralised command structure to be a terrorist group, and even that your ideology and goals needn't be terribly well defined. Incel violence can be viewed as a development of those trends. 

(At least, that's my perception as very much a layman in this area. Others, I'm sure, would be much more knowledgeable.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

Somebody punch me in the face, but I agree with HoI here.

Just because a nutter with a gun visited a few dodgy forums, it does not make what happened a terrorist attack. 

 

 

Though that seems to be criteria enough if they’ve been visiting extemist Islam sites and shout a qu’ran quote while gunning/knifing people down.

Though this guy was white so he enjoys the privilege of being allowed to own a gun and being classed as mentally ill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Though that seems to be criteria enough if they’ve been visiting extemist Islam sites and shout a qu’ran quote while gunning/knifing people down.

Though this guy was white so he enjoys the privilege of being allowed to own a gun and being classed as mentally ill.

Not really. There are plenty of ‘Islamic’ attacks that have been treated as purely mental health issues. This sort of stuff is an absolute myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not really. There are plenty of ‘Islamic’ attacks that have been treated as purely mental health issues. This sort of stuff is an absolute myth.

Surely anyone And everyone  carrying out a premeditated mass casualty event is suffering mental health issues of some sort? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

There is a reason it’s not being treated as a terrorist offence, because it doesn’t meet the requirements of a terrorist offence.  It’s pretty simple.

This seems a bit tautologous - it's not terrorism because it's not being treated as terrorism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maltaran said:

This seems a bit tautologous - it's not terrorism because it's not being treated as terrorism?

If the authorities aren’t treating something as terrorism because they have determined it isn’t terrorism then I’d suggest that was a pretty good indicator it wasn’t terrorism 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Though that seems to be criteria enough if they’ve been visiting extemist Islam sites and shout a qu’ran quote while gunning/knifing people down.

Though this guy was white so he enjoys the privilege of being allowed to own a gun and being classed as mentally ill.

All Islamic terrorist incidents that I can think of involved some kind of statement, some group taking responsibility and linking it explicitly to a desired political outcome. That seems to be missing here. So I’d say we don’t know yet if this can be counted as terrorism; was it an attempt to further the Incel cause, but he just plum forgot to tell anyone? Or was it a situation that went horribly wrong and he panicked and shot up a bunch of people, and he also happened to be an Incel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 10:57 PM, Werthead said:

Fascinating documentary on the BBC (The Rise of the Murdoch Dynasty) about the Murdoch media empire. Not so much about its rise, weirdly, but its intersection with British politics, starting in the early 1990s and carrying through to the present day. John Major notes that his refusal to change his stance on Europe cost him the 1997 election because it cost him Murdoch's support, and he was happy (well, accepting) about that because he was not going to sell out his principles, whilst Blair very blatantly did. Murdoch's aides at the time and, in a roundabout way, Prescott and Campbell confirm that Blair basically gave his promise of a referendum on entry to the Euro as the price of Murdoch's support, and of course he knew that without the support of The Sun and other papers, they would never have a remote chance of winning that referendum, so it never happened (to Farage's glee, as he notes that Brexit would have been utterly impossible if Britain had entered the Euro in 1999). 

It's fairly solid in that it dives deep into interviews with Murdoch's friends and supporters (several of whom even say proudly they're doing the interviews with his permission), so it's not just a hatchet job from the usual suspects, but it's clever in that what those friends say about Murdoch's decision making and choices is sometimes more controversial than what his critics say. When one of his friends says that Murdoch genuinely did not know about the extent of the phone hacking it makes him sound incompetent; what should have been a humanising moment where the revelation of the Millie Dowler voicemail hacking actually caused Murdoch to flip out in rage at what his underlings had done merely drives home the fact he didn't know what was going on in his own organisation, or that his style of journalism had inspired that to happen.

Someone who emerges with a lot more credit and kudos than you'd think is Max Moseley, not exactly a paragon of virtue, who confirms here (the interview was filmed just a few weeks before his death, I believe) that he underwrote the legal costs of almost every single person who sued News International in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, as otherwise most of them would not have taken up the case and the story would have withered and died very quickly.

I think the documentary in question was first aired here in mid 2020 (assuming it's the same one by Owen Philipps, but going by your description that seems very likely). I also enjoyed it quite a bit. Since Mosley passed this May, and that they also took some time with the cutting and editing process, I'd guess they did the interview(s) with him in 2019.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, and I thought I was fairly clear the first and second time, my point is not that this meets the current definition of a terrorist offence. My point is that this type of incident ought to cause us to consider how we define terrorist offences.

If these numpties are closer to committing what the law defines as a 'terrorist offence' (an organised group, with a defined manifesto, advancing a cause through violence or the threat of violence) than an incel shooter, well, again, maybe we ought to reconsider the definitions we're using. I don't think that's a tremendously controversial thing to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...