That seems dated. Perhaps 4G/LTE belongs at the bottom now?
I do think that there are different forces at play for radicalised people in Iraq and in the west or other more peaceful areas of the world. This link between lack of opportunity and extremism isn’t as strong in the UK at all:
Members of the British Muslim community who are most at risk of radicalisation are more likely to have depression and be socially isolated, a pioneering research study led by Queen Mary University of London has found.
The research found those most resistant to radicalisation were more likely to be migrants not born in the UK, have poor physical health and have a higher number of friends and family.
Researchers developed a new way of measuring risk of radicalisation based upon asking participants about their sympathies and condemnation towards 16 terrorist actions (for example, use of suicide bombs to fight injustice). Those who showed most sympathies towards terrorist acts are deemed most at risk, and those who showed most condemnation are most resistant to radicalisation.
I know this video is by Prager University and has a number of problems, but I thought it was interesting to see the parallels between Islamic extremists and white school shooters (a number of whom have been influenced by MRA and PUA ideology). Both groups are doing something that most people would find hard to imagine. There’s no justification for it, even though there are problems in the world that are real. People talk about shooters as victims of a failed mental health system, even though some of these people who had mental problems were being treated for them, and probably had more access to healthcare than the general population. Poverty is another problem, but most of these people weren’t poor at all. If you look at their family houses, they were doing better than most people I know. In both cases (going to Syria in the expectation of fighting with ISIS and shooting up a school), it’s a suicidal act and not just an aggressive one. ISIS is very clear about that, and even advertises the fact that you’re likely to die. If a school shooter doesn’t kill himself, he generally expects to be killed by the police.
Another thing is that a lot of people who are radicalised get that way online, rather than from their immediate environment. People travelling from Europe to Syria haven’t lost family members; those who have are leaving Syria and aren’t a big risk. The Paris attackers had stable jobs and families who cared about them. The video talks about reframing the argument so that there’s a new system of rules by which they are the victims and everything makes sense, while their violence is an appropriate response. PUAs say that women are really in control, but men just have to follow a few simple rules to gain the status and sex that they’re entitled to. Like jihadists, they are liars and do not reflect a real foundation for greater justice. Typically, they just end up hurting the men who believe them and the many women who these men come into contact with. The isolation and bitterness haven’t disappeared, just metastasised.
I think with both of these groups, there is an increasing risk of radicalisation nowadays. Social cohesion is really important and many men are pretty isolated from society. This is more the case where these men are part of a minority group. Depression is an important issue, and men and women often deal with it in different ways. In both cases, I think “hate the system, not the person” is a good principle. Men are not inherently violent and dangerous, our cultures often make them like that. People can get defensive about this, so it’s important to point out that it’s not feminism’s fault, or women’s fault. They often suggest and promote real solutions. I’m not defending any bad actions on my part or anyone else’s either, just saying that it keeps happening in specific contexts and we need to look at root issues rather than just blaming individuals who often represent the predictable results.
In both cases there are possible real solutions out there, but the easy answers are just making things worse. Scott Adams calling for MRAs to “stop being pussies” isn’t going to help: they know others despise them and can fit that neatly into their worldview. Acting like they are automatically creepy does the same thing; some people really don’t know a lot about relationship dynamics and think that being a nice guy who doesn’t talk about sex is the right way to oppose sexism and attract someone. In some ways I think claiming that not all Muslims or men are like that is beside the point: it’s a significant enough problem in both groups and it represents a corrupted and toxic form of male or Muslim identity. It needs to be confronted and replaced with real alternatives where these men are supporting a more positive society.
So… its interesting to me… that this entire conversation has gone this way, and everyone is pretty much on the side of “yeah, no, he sucks and has sucked for a long time” - and yet when Crumb puts forth views so very similar to this I got called a troll for pointing them out? Why for that happen?
“Internet”, no need to specify the mode of transport
I don’t know. I don’t know much about Crumb to be honest, not familiar with him except by what I’ve seen here via Mark, but I’d say I find Crumb (and Eichhorn) even more repulsive - but with them I find their material unreadable, not just their random internet crazy screeds in the background.
This conversation (about this interview)? It looks like those comments got eaten, I guess that’s one point in favour of being able to view the whole conversation including deleted parts after the fact.
Personally, I think Crumb shows a bit more self-awareness; he’s honest about the fact that he’s a mess and his views aren’t correct, just his own opinion and the result of different damaging experiences. He’s not a role model, but I like an interview like that where someone is open and specific about negative feelings - it takes away some of the power if you can identify where they’re coming from.
I’ve just lived in enough different cultures in my life that when I see a large number of terrible people in a culture, most of me is wondering what made them like this. Honestly, some of the worst men I’ve met have been Americans (although there are plenty of good people there too). I knew some American men in China who had so little self-awareness and such a casually exploitative attitude towards women (especially Chinese women) that they were basically sociopathic. Not by nature, it was obviously a learned cultural attitude. One of these guys (who I had the pleasure of sharing an apartment with) ended up admitting to me that he had serious problems and asked for help. This isn’t just an issue of mental illness, and in other countries I’ve seen much less of this attitude.
Crumb points out the particularly American “extreme isolation, alienation, loneliness” which affected him and his brother, and I think he’s right. I do feel sorry for people like this - they are harming other people, but in spite of their wealth and privilege they are often fundamentally miserable and depressed people who hate themselves. I think this obsession with sex as the solution is part of the problem - humans need much more than this and no amount of sex or objects will satisfy these basic needs that they don’t even seem to recognise.
Yeah, the comments were so bad they got nuked and someone got a time out, good times being a lady on the internet lemme tell ya!
My issue with the interview wasn’t so much Crumb, as you say, he is somewhat self aware, but the interviewer… holy crapsticks, not in the least.
And you’re right, its not mental illness, its culture. We think a prince kissing a comatose princess is the height of romance and then we wonder why we have issues of consent…
(I am replying to the Adams quote, not CH directly, natch)
No you won’t, no you aren’t, and yes you should.
Want to not feel isolated and alone? (As referenced in a comment up there) Then don’t take the ‘path of least resistance’ (shudder especially because it is flat out wrong). Know what gets you “hugs”? Listening to people, empathizing with them, and not talking At them (wait a sec, am I breaking my own rule…?)
And if your logic is:
if ($cake =< 0) { rampage(); }
Then you are not a normal boy and the problem is you. It’s called a tantrum, and most of us grow out of them by, oh five years old.
This. x1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00
The funny thing about this “normal” claim of his… he’s spent innumerable hours trying to assert that he is anything but normal. He talks endlessly about his “certified genius IQ” - which by definition is not normal. Normal = 100. Thats how IQ works. So this sudden appeal to normality… just smacks of bad faith arguing.
Adams seems to have taken a notion that is pretty plausible at a population level (want some risky violence done? young adult males with limited economic options and no family ties are a time honored choice!) and then gone running with merry abandon into the weeds with it.
It would certainly be very, very, unsurprising to me; and probably not very controversial to suggest in just about any company, that if you are looking for cannon fodder, young adult males who see their prospects as limited(even better if they see their prospects as limited by the machinations of the enemy you wish to pit them against; but just plain economic stagnation and poor prospects for achieving the culturally recognized trappings of adulthood is a good start) are a fantastic place to start.
Kids are too feeble, as are old people; and women seem(for whatever combination of nature and nurture) somewhat less likely on average to be up for some pointless and risky violence; and men who lack a sense of grievance, have family connections, are busy enjoying their white picket fence and house in the burbs, etc. are likely to be more risk averse.
However, that population-level recruiting wisdom is a long way from anything like a general ‘if I don’t get laid I get kill-crazy’ conclusion; much less the ‘hey, just tell the jihad boys that they can score faster by overthrowing their command!’(never mind the fact that ISIS HQ actually dedicates some care and attention to providing wives and sex slaves, at least selectively).
I’d be curious to know if he was too blind to quit while he was still on modestly solid ground; or whether he realized that he was starting from a more or less uncontroversial premise and actively wished to push it until he had something attention-getting?
Oh don’t worry, he’s been like this for years.
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner.
Cake <= 0?
Negative cake???!
Yes. Negative cake. Gotta catch those edge cases where the Federal Preserve (and jams and jellies) and the CAKE-DIC introduces Quantitative Eating and we all start to use proxies for cake since they aren’t worth the frosting piped on them.
@zfirphdn’s law.
Well, it’s a lot better than the story it’s based on. We meet the prince king as he has just broken into the castle where Talia is sleeping:
At last he came to a large, beautiful drawing room, where he found an enchanting girl who seemed to be sleeping. He called to her, but she would not wake. As he looked at her, and tried to wake her, she seemed so incredibly lovely to him that he could not help desiring her, and he began to grow hot with lust. He gathered her in his arms and carried her to a bed, where he made love to her. Leaving her on the bed, he left the palace and returned to his own city, where pressing business for a long time made him think no more about the incident.
But Talia, who was not dead, but merely unconscious, had become pregnant, and after nine months she gave birth to twins, as beautiful a boy and girl as ever were born. Kindly fairies attended the birth, and put the babies to suck at their mother’s breast. One day, one of the infants, not being able to find the nipple, began to suck at his mother’s finger. He sucked with such force that he drew out the splinter of flax, and Talia awoke, just as if from a long sleep. When she saw the babies, she did not know what had happened or how they had come to her, but she embraced them with love, and nursed them until they were satisfied. She named the infants Sun and Moon. The kindly fairies continued to attend her, providing her with food and drink, which appeared as if delivered by unseen servants.
The king at last remembered Talia, and thought to himself that he would go again to the palace in the wood, to see if the lovely lady was still sleeping there…
You do not really want to get me started on “fairy tales” - cuz I will not shut up about The Frog Prince.
Moral of the story:
…don’t mess around with flax?
Sometimes i think fairy tales were just previous generations version of Jackass.
Sleep with one eye open, even if you’re locked in your castle.
