News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

The New Zealand shooting - a bit of a ramble

Started by Asmodean, March 18, 2019, 04:14:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Asmodean

Post updated in light of new information

So... Here we are. Another attack in a country not used to its kind from the kind of person "everyone" fears might do something like it, but "no-one" considers an actual threat. Apparently, the terrorist in question was inspired by our own Knight-Terrorist Fjotolf Hansen (b. Anders B. Breivik) and in the most general of terms, I have the same sort of thing to say in this case, as I did in that one.

And what else is there to say? I see a lot of people to the right of Joseph Stalin in defence mode over a white guy shooting Muslims of darker shades. I see a lot of people to the left of said Stalin going "see?! You see?! We TOLDS you white supremacists and blabidiblabla." I see Sargon of Akkad going "Don't you dare blame GamerGate." And I see what appears to be a tiny contingent of people who vocally refuse to jump into the melee of the political blame-game. Although some of what I have to say is political in this day and age, I like to think of myself as a voice among the latter. EDIT: I apologize for the blatant hypocrisy of this thread. I did try not to politicize this tragedy, but in the meat of this post, I failed spectacularly, even if indirectly and in a round-about way. If nothing else, my hope is that you take away from this post its very last paragraph. The rest... It is meaningless without it.

As I said in response to someone coming close to pushing a political narrative (I do not doubt that it was done with the best of intentions, and yet...) I do not have a problem with Muslims. I do have one or two with their religion, but if I have not been wronged by a particular Muslim, directly or otherwise, then I'm happy to stay out of their way as long as they stay out of mine. What I do have an issue with, is using a tragedy like this one to push what in the year 2019 is a political narrative. "You don't need to be afraid of Muslims - they should be afraid of you." "Immigrants are not the problem - the natives are." Heard it all... Seen it all... Even got past my usual state of apathy to debunk a point or two.

Radicalization... Is it a consequence of free speech? Perhaps. In the ideal world, in which none of us live, free speech would act against radicalization, as in the free marketplace of ideas, they would rise and fall and rise again based on their merit, and they would do so under the clear blue sky, where they could and would be openly challenged. That is not the case.

I do apologize for making this next bit very political, but I cannot conjure a better example of what I perceive to actually be happening.

I do not associate myself strongly with any sort of organised camp where one has to tow the party line, sometimes against one's own convictions. I can see how it can sometimes be necessary to do so, compromise and the strength in numbers and what have you, but... I am not with them beyond a number of issues on which we all hold similar opinion. This gives an person a somewhat different perspective than that of the partisans, and there is a large group of people out there who will not even engage someone who does not subscribe to their ideology. There are some "right-wingers," particularly of the more religious variety, who are like that, but in the mainstream discourse, the specific people I'm talking about come from the sceptic "community" of the early 2000s. Having forsaken the God of Abraham for the God of Intersectionalism, in some cases far less hyperbolically so than others, they call for deplatforming, censorship and more-or-less un-personing of the individuals who dare speak out against their dogma.

Soem ideas are too dangerous to see the light of day, they say. I still remember Laughing Witch, when she was still on her way to becoming a disgraced lolcow or a martyr, depending on which side you are willign to assign labels from, trying to get Thunderf00t's ass fired for "spreading hate." With a photo of mr. Hansen on the screen, she proclaimed that it wasn't about Thunderf00t - it was about stopping that. That was Thunderf00t. What would something a person like Richard Spencer has to say look like to a person like that? No, best ban and deplatform and sweep it all neatly under the bed. Well... If ever you were five years old, you may have learned that under the bed is where the monsters are.

In more recent history, remember the Covington kids controversy? The one CNN is being sued for quarter of a billion dollars over? Well, some people took it upon themselves to call out this "despicable hate crime" (how does it look in comparison to this, actual despicable hate crime?) before the facts were in, and rather than fall face-first into the puddle of their own wrongness gracefully, some of them have never made a retraction, much less published an apology. Some have not even changed their opinion when presented with a more robust timeline and new information. Then, we had the Jussie Smollett controversy. The dude now charged with faking a hate crime. As of 27.03.2019, the criminal charges against him have been dropped. I can count on the fingers of one hand those from that very same camp as described above, who called him out and held him to the same standards as they would a political opponent. Most of those I follow and/or try talking to fell silent on the whole affair the second the narrative started to unravel.

On the off-chance someone I'm talking about might somehow find this post and read this, I'm not holding either against you. I do understand that even if you were to do "the right thing," at least as I see it, you would face one mother of a backlash from "your own." Tow the line, or you are one of them. It's difficult when you do have something to lose.

Political ramblings over with, what does the above have to do with the tragic murder of fifty people in New Zealand? Only this; "every" cause has its terrorists. Every cause, that is, where there is room for radicalization. It's not the "mainstream" fringe-dweller who grabs a gun or fills his underwear with high explosives. I would argue that a person who does that, feels like diplomacy has failed up until its last possible iteration - war. It may not even be the person himself - some people are more easily led than others, and... If you are not even willing to engage someone, has diplomacy not failed even before it began? I try to avoid using Sargon as reference these days, as I think he has stared into the abyss until it well and truly stared back, but he said something several times, mostly as a side point, in which there is some profound wisdom; unlike the modern day anglosphere-progressives, the "racist," the "Nazi," the "alt-right Islamophobe" - they "all," with or without quotation marks around their respective labels, are only too happy to talk to you about their beliefs and ideals. If you disagree - all the better. You see, they think they are right, and that there is a chance they might convince you of that. They will not change, and chances are, nor will you. However, as a gambler once said, "he who doesn't play is guaranteed never to win." If there is any hope of changing someone's values, of deradicalizing them, it lies not in driving them to where the monsters are, but in presenting them with values they may come to find superior to the ones they currently hold. It's a slim chance, yet it's the only real one we get. Let this stand once again as my message to the digital ether.

I condemn the terrorist's actions, and wish someone got through to him and people like him, other than those who apparently did. My condolences to those affected and the nation of New Zealand. No matter who you are or what you believe, in my less-than-humble opinion, no-one deserves to die at the hands of fanatics, no matter who they are or what they believe. Thing is though... The terrorist already won. The common narrative is, they never win. Well, this one did, at least right here and now.

"But The Asmo," I hear you say, "How can you say such a thing?!"

Well... He butchered his way to not only a platform under the abovedescribed clear blue skies for his opinions, but also to several other of his explicitly-stated goals. The finger-pointing, the meeting of hate with more hate, the... The mess of bubbles of people, large and small, all piling condolences upon opinion upon condemnation upon admiration upon just garden-variety trolling. All either denying blame or pointing fingers at each other, filled with righteous judgement of the unworthy.

The terrorist wanted a civil war. Shall we give him one, and make his victory total? Or shall we accept that there is no shield strong enough to deflect every bolt of sheer murderous lunacy, shot fron the crossbows of fanaticism of every stripe, and meet it in stead with openness and acceptance of each others' points of view in what's left of the free marketplace of ideas?

And while we decide, do let us not forget the people. Lives ended prematurely, or changed forever. Stories cut short, or altered in a much darker direction. Loved ones lost and lives to be rebuilt. Those this whole thing is, or at the very least should be about. Whatever your cause and persuasion - do please not reduce them to statistics, or worse, pawns on the chessboard of your ideological warfare.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/who-were-the-victims-of-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

No one


Asmodean

Hmm... Yes, they are. It's a matter of degrees though, and then, it's a matter of perspective.

Doing what I currently do with my non-existent free time, I actually see redeeming qualities aplenty in many of them. Thing is, it takes so little negativity to overcome that... Like a drop of poison to the pint of water. And it cannot be stopped. It can be hidden behind social structures and the niceties of the polite society, but you cannot stop hate, anger... Dare I say, "evil." I refer to my monsters-under-the-bed analogy from above.

Certainly, you can fight it, but in the First World of waning personal responsibility, of frailty in the face of what's out there, of societies unable to tackle attacks on pretty much all their members with strength and unity, we are slowly coming to a point where silencing bad ideas is the victory condition. If you beat them over the head, ban them, get them fired from their job - then, you are the true opposition, the resistance, the righteous few. If you talk to them, try to understand where they get their ideas from and engage them honestly, acknowledging what points they may have, and arguing what points they miss... Well, you are as bad as them then, aren't you?

Of course, the majority, perhaps even the vast majority of people do not think like that. What does it help when the fringes run the show?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
As I said in response to someone coming close to pushing a political narrative (I do not doubt that it was done with the best of intentions, and yet...) I do not have a problem with Muslims. I do have one or two with their religion, but if I have not been wronged by a particular Muslim, directly or otherwise, then I'm happy to stay out of their way as long as they stay out of mine.

I lack the subtlety to be comfortable with this distinction.
Am I supposed to be OK with female genital mutilation?
No skin off my genitals so none of my business?


Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
The terrorist wanted a civil war. Shall we give him one, and make his victory total?

Did he?  I expect he'll provoke Muslim attacks elsewhere.

QuoteMr Erdogan criticised the Anzacs for their role in the Gallipoli campaign and threatened to return anyone who came to his country with anti-Islam sentiment back in coffins.

Anzacs are us and NZ.  I wonder how they'll measure anti-Islam sentiment.








Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: No one on March 19, 2019, 11:42:33 PM
Humans are just awful fucking creatures.

If this is the case the mass murders are heroes, ridding the world of "just awful fucking creatures" and taking themselves out of circulation as well, win win.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Asmodean

#5
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 20, 2019, 08:33:05 AM
I lack the subtlety to be comfortable with this distinction.
Am I supposed to be OK with female genital mutilation?
No skin off my genitals so none of my business?
EDIT: for reasons of clarity, the distinction is this; peering through the veil of ignorance, a Muslim is just some person who comes from a family, culture or what have you, that follows Islam in some form and to some degree. You may go as far as to say that a Muslim IS a follower of Islam. A person being the sum of their parts, and Islam being one such part... What I'm saying is, until you demonstrate otherwise, I assume that you are more than your religion.

EDIT TO EDIT: What..? That's how I operate. There is another distinction to be made above; yes, a Muslim is technically a follower of Islam, just like a Jew is a follower of Judaism and a Christian is a follower of Christianity. However, as religions can be cherry-picked to unrecognizable, a person who may call himself Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian may not be that in the eyes of someone else. In this case, if you call your god Allah, YHWH or Jesus, that's good enough for me.

Are you asking me what you ought and ought not think? I can't tell you that. Personally, I consider myself indirectly wronged by those within my society who would mutilate their children, and so I have a problem with that practice, and even go as far as actively opposing it. Outside my sphere of influence, all I can do is argue my points from a personal perspective. I cannot tell another people how they ought to live while expecting to be left alone by them in turn.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 18, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
Did he?  I expect he'll provoke Muslim attacks elsewhere.
Not only that, but he has also been highly effective in getting all the predictable fronts to start shelling each other - metaphorically, for now - with renewed vigour.

QuoteAnzacs are us and NZ.  I wonder how they'll measure anti-Islam sentiment.
How they measure it, is one thing. Me, I would be equally concerned with how whatever we you may find yourself a part of does that.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Asmodean on March 20, 2019, 09:21:08 AM

Are you asking me what you ought and ought not think? I can't tell you that.

No, I'm just testing the I do my thing and let others do theirs idea.
I think it only works up to a point.


Quote from: Asmodean on March 20, 2019, 09:21:08 AM
Personally, I consider myself indirectly wronged by those within my society who would mutilate their children, and so I have a problem with that practice, and even go as far as actively opposing it. Outside my sphere of influence, all I can do is argue my points from a personal perspective. I cannot tell another people how they ought to live while expecting to be left alone by them in turn.

You can support (or not) the actions of your government/police to stop them doing things.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Asmodean

Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 20, 2019, 10:05:25 AM
You can support (or not) the actions of your government/police to stop them doing things.
Yes, I can. I thought I was pretty clear on this point. You see, my government is within my sphere of influence. The government of Somewherelsistan, however... Not so much.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Bad Penny II

Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Bad Penny II

#9
Quote from: Asmodean on March 20, 2019, 09:21:08 AMPersonally, I consider myself indirectly wronged by those within my society who would mutilate their children, and so I have a problem with that practice, and even go as far as actively opposing it.

Do you? that seems a bit convoluted to me
Define convoluted
Convoluted: Highly complex or intricate and occasionally devious
I didn't have the "and occasionally devious" in mind when I used it.
Redefining in ignorance?
Yes, maybe, I don't know.

I'd be viscerally appalled.
That's the beauty of diversity in action.
Yes of course, the beauty of diversity.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Asmodean

#10
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 20, 2019, 03:25:37 PM
Do you? that seems a bit convoluted to me
It's simpler than it sounds. I have some tiny influence on my society's course. If I find certain practices objectionable, I object to them. If enough people agree, then the society itself may be said to agree, and this goes the other way too, like in this case. My society frowns upon female genital mutilation to the point where it's illegal. I agree. Some people do not, but since most of us do, they do not get to do things their way unopposed, sometimes in pretty serious ways. Proper channels, etc.

EDIT: Ok, let's go with the example at hand and do some of my infamous "simplifying."

"We" object to female genital mutilation. "You," who is otherwise a part of "we," do not. In fact, "you" are in favour of it for cosmic teapot reasons. If "you" would like to practice it relatively unopposed within the "we," you would first have to convince enough "mes" that your view on the matter is more valid, or otherwise somehow "better" than "our," to the point where "we" would agree with "you." If there is no hope in Hell of "you" accomplishing that, and further, if this matter is of supreme importance to "you," then maybe, just maybe "we" does not in fact include you.

There are nuances, of course. For example, it may be that in order to change some supremely important (in your opinion) aspect of your society, with which you disagree, first you'd have to change the very "proper procedure" for such a change. Still, at the end of the day, you are back to the above. At some point, you'd have to convince "me" to follow you rather than "them" in sufficient numbers to matter. *END EDIT*

Bleh... I'm pretty much explaining social contract here, am I not?

Quote
Define convoluted
Convoluted: Highly complex or intricate and occasionally devious
I didn't have the "and occasionally devious" in mind when I used it.
Redefining in ignorance?
Yes, maybe, I don't know.

I'd be viscerally appalled.
That's the beauty of diversity in action.
Yes of course, the beauty of diversity.
Could you explain the colour coding? Is it like... You arguing against an imaginary you? Or an imaginary me? Or someone else, imaginary or otherwise?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Asmodean on March 21, 2019, 09:12:31 AM
Could you explain the colour coding? Is it like... You arguing against an imaginary you? Or an imaginary me? Or someone else, imaginary or otherwise?

Sorry mate, the green is a counter me.
Replies are slow coming on HAF these days, it's my coping mechanism.

If I didn't reply to your post, (and by the way I did like your the monster under the bed allusion) No one would of, it's where we are now. 

I think everyone should have a counter person for the good of the forum.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Asmodean on March 21, 2019, 09:12:31 AM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 20, 2019, 03:25:37 PM
Do you? that seems a bit convoluted to me
It's simpler than it sounds. I have some tiny influence on my society's course. If I find certain practices objectionable, I object to them. If enough people agree, then the society itself may be said to agree, and this goes the other way too, like in this case. My society frowns upon female genital mutilation to the point where it's illegal. I agree. Some people do not, but since most of us do, they do not get to do things their way unopposed, sometimes in pretty serious ways. Proper channels, etc.

EDIT: Ok, let's go with the example at hand and do some of my infamous "simplifying."

"We" object to female genital mutilation. "You," who is otherwise a part of "we," do not. In fact, "you" are in favour of it for cosmic teapot reasons. If "you" would like to practice it relatively unopposed within the "we," you would first have to convince enough "mes" that your view on the matter is more valid, or otherwise somehow "better" than "our," to the point where "we" would agree with "you." If there is no hope in Hell of "you" accomplishing that, and further, if this matter is of supreme importance to "you," then maybe, just maybe "we" does not in fact include you.

There are nuances, of course. For example, it may be that in order to change some supremely important (in your opinion) aspect of your society, with which you disagree, first you'd have to change the very "proper procedure" for such a change. Still, at the end of the day, you are back to the above. At some point, you'd have to convince "me" to follow you rather than "them" in sufficient numbers to matter. *END EDIT*

Bleh... I'm pretty much explaining social contract here, am I not?



That sounds awful, I could turn libertarian in reaction.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Asmodean

Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 21, 2019, 01:08:16 PM
Sorry mate, the green is a counter me.
Replies are slow coming on HAF these days, it's my coping mechanism.

If I didn't reply to your post, (and by the way I did like your the monster under the bed allusion) No one would of, it's where we are now. 

I think everyone should have a counter person for the good of the forum.
That's sensible. I have an occasional debate with an imaginary me as well. Helps an person approach an issue from multiple angles.

Honestly, I did not expect much in terms of replies to this thread. It started out as a bit of a disjointed ramble in the wake of me reading the terrorist's manifesto, and seeing him "troll" his way to victory after what he did... Well... There was thoughts, what needed some structuring, and writing blog posts... Helps.

In any case, I think we have an interesting discussion going here. I appreciate being challenged. I see that appreciation as a point of pride, in fact.

Quote from: Bad Penny II on March 21, 2019, 01:37:45 PM
That sounds awful, I could turn libertarian in reaction.
Do you mean anarchist? In this instance, what I propose is not a form of top-down governance, but a mode of mass interpersonal interactions, where the government is the means of enforcement. It's not contrary to Libertarianism.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.