Stochastic Terrorism and Edgelord Humour

[luchog]

We know he committed an act of terrorism, we can see he was soaked in memes which are common from mass communications. It isn't difficult to infer inspiration, given his circumstances and his targets.

And if you are able to, you will only need thousands more recent examples to show the equivalency you wish to show.

Oh FFS, is it time for "a pox on both your houses"?

The original article on stochastic terrorism covered this, left as well as right, religious and non-religious.

The focus of this thread has been on right-wing white supremacist/fascist terrorism because 1) that is the overwhelming bulk of terrorist activity in the western world at this time; 2) right-wing terrorism is on the rise while religious terrorism in on the decline, and left-wing terrorism is verging on non-existent by comparison; and 3) many western governments, most notably the US government, underestimate or outright downplay the threat posted by right-wing terrorism, while trumpeting -- and in some cases grossly over-exaggerating -- the threat posed by Islamist terrorism and to a lesser extent left-wing terrorism.

Yes, left-wing terrorism is bad. No, antifa-activities do not constitute terrorism (with maybe one or two outlier exceptions). Statistically, left-wing terrorism is a mere blip, an anomaly, compared to right-wing and Islamist terrorism. It's worth watching, but proportionately, the bulk of anti-terrorism resources need to be directed to combating right-wing terrorists at this time.

 

[wareyin]

What on Earth are you talking about?

I have reason to doubt whether the process described by the OP applies exclusively to people motivated by right-wing ideology, since there is nothing in the defintion which restricts it to right-wing ideology and nothing in human nature which prevents left-wing ideology from causing radicalization, especially when we're talking about the sort of people who are prone to take their us-vs-them talk to the streets.

If you choose to believe the Congress shooter wasn't motivated by his stated beliefs re: the 1%, that's fine. I'm not going to do a deep dive on it for you.

I get it. Right wing terrorism is the vast, overwhelming, and current threat. But you found a single guy from 2 years ago that, if you squint and hold your tongue just right, might have fit the bill, so that's what you want to focus on.

Here's the thing: if you want us to worry about (as luchog put it) a verging on nonexistent problem, it's sort of incumbent on you to show why we should worry about the one guy 2 years ago rather than the thousands of people now.

 

[d4m10n]

The original article on stochastic terrorism covered this, left as well as right, religious and non-religious.

And I'm saying that's probably a good approach.

The focus of this thread has been on right-wing white supremacist/fascist terrorism because 1) that is the overwhelming bulk of terrorist activity in the western world at this time; 2) right-wing terrorism is on the rise while religious terrorism in on the decline, and left-wing terrorism is verging on non-existent by comparison; and 3) many western governments, most notably the US government, underestimate or outright downplay the threat posted by right-wing terrorism, while trumpeting -- and in some cases grossly over-exaggerating -- the threat posed by Islamist terrorism and to a lesser extent left-wing terrorism.

That's all well and good, except that I'd say Islamist and Christianist terrorists are broadly right-wing in terms of motivations and ideologies (e.g. they both want secular law brought into conformity with their own interpretations of holy writ, women dressed modestly and not leading men, etc.).

Statistically, left-wing terrorism is a mere blip, an anomaly, compared to right-wing and Islamist terrorism. It's worth watching, but proportionately, the bulk of anti-terrorism resources need to be directed to combating right-wing terrorists at this time.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[luchog]

That's all well and good, except that I'd say Islamist and Christianist terrorists are broadly right-wing in terms of motivations and ideologies (e.g. they both want secular law brought into conformity with their own interpretations of holy writ, women dressed modestly and not leading men, etc.).

Except that this ignores profound differences between them, and the bulk of right-wing terrorism.

Islamists are similar to religious-right Christian dominionists, true. But they're significantly different from the other right-wing factions who are more signficant forces in domestic terrorism at this time. And not even all dominionists ascribe to the same flavour of Christianity the various behavioural codes.

The bulk of right-wing terrorists, although ostensibly associated with some flavour of Christian religiosity, are generally not particularly religious people. The ideology that drives them is not particularly religious, but is based on emotionalism, in-group/out-group dynamics, fear of the "other", and a desire for simple answers to complex problems which absolve them of responsibility for their own lives and circumstances. White supremacism and nationalism are the primary motivators for domestic terrorists in the US and many other Western nations. It is more secular than religious despite having some of the trappings of religion.

 

[d4m10n]

It is more secular than religious despite having some of the trappings of religion.

I remain skeptical of this claim. Most of the white supremacists I've read up on have had at least some ties to Christian Identity^WP along the way.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I remain skeptical of this claim. Most of the white supremacists I've read up on have had at least some ties to Christian Identity^WP along the way.

I believe there's also a sizeable percentage of white supremacists involved in the so-called neo-pagan religious movements, particularly those which profess to be revivals of worship of Scandinavian deities. Odin, Thor, and all that.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Oh for pity's sake. The Holocaust. Remember that?

No, I don't remember. I wasn't born yet. I don't even remember the Kennedy assassination.

In the grand scheme of things, the holocaust was one of many genocides that have been perpetrated throughout history. The fact that it happened doesn't prove that the nazi ideology explicitly calls for the genocidal murder of millions of my fellow citizens. I have read the Platform of the National-Sopcialist German Workers' Party and the Twelve Theses and don't see any explicit calls for the death of any particular ethnic, racial, or religious group of people as such. I haven't read Mein Kampf, The Myth of the Twentieth Century or This Time the World any other book that promotes the nazi ideology. So my knowledge is incomplete.

I'm not saying that the holocaust was not intentional or that the nazis are not responsible for the holocaust. But the holocaust isn't proof that nazi ideology explicitly calls for the murder of millions of my fellow citizens any more than the holodomor is proof that mass murder is part and parcel of the socialist ideology.

 

[Mumbles]

I remain skeptical of this claim. Most of the white supremacists I've read up on have had at least some ties to Christian Identity^WP along the way.

The guys in Charolettesville were perfectly happy to attack a church during their nighttime rally. In fact, in every one of these Nazi wannabe protests I've seen in the US, the various religious leaders have universally fallen on the side of the counterprotestors. At most, the white nationalists mention "God" in the usual routine way, or will put some rune that the Nazis used to use on their shields or armbands or whatever.

 

[bignickel]

Anyone catch The Daily Show yesterday, featuring the story on a kid who had his acceptance to Harvard rescinded after they read his "Edgelord" materials from 2 years ago.

He argued that he shouldn't be judged on what he wrote years ago; Trevor Noah pointed out that that's exactly what colleges and universities do: they ALWAYS judge you for what you did in high school before deciding if they'd like you to join their campus.

 

[theprestige]

Anyone catch The Daily Show yesterday, featuring the story on a kid who had his acceptance to Harvard rescinded after they read his "Edgelord" materials from 2 years ago.

He argued that he shouldn't be judged on what he wrote years ago; Trevor Noah pointed out that that's exactly what colleges and universities do: they ALWAYS judge you for what you did in high school before deciding if they'd like you to join their campus.

Were those writings part of his high school curriculum?

And do they really subject every applicant to this level of scrutiny? My understanding is that mostly they ask for transcripts - records of subjects studied and grades received - and other voluntary information that the applicant may expect or hope is relevant.

 

[jimbob]

No, I don't remember. I wasn't born yet. I don't even remember the Kennedy assassination.

In the grand scheme of things, the holocaust was one of many genocides that have been perpetrated throughout history. The fact that it happened doesn't prove that the nazi ideology explicitly calls for the genocidal murder of millions of my fellow citizens. I have read the Platform of the National-Sopcialist German Workers' Party and the Twelve Theses and don't see any explicit calls for the death of any particular ethnic, racial, or religious group of people as such. I haven't read Mein Kampf, The Myth of the Twentieth Century or This Time the World any other book that promotes the nazi ideology. So my knowledge is incomplete.

I'm not saying that the holocaust was not intentional or that the nazis are not responsible for the holocaust. But the holocaust isn't proof that nazi ideology explicitly calls for the murder of millions of my fellow citizens any more than the holodomor is proof that mass murder is part and parcel of the socialist ideology.

I suggest you read the links that luchog posted in the OP.

Nazism is explicitly violent white supremacist ideology. Sometimes, they try to dress it up a bit.

 

[luchog]

I believe there's also a sizeable percentage of white supremacists involved in the so-called neo-pagan religious movements, particularly those which profess to be revivals of worship of Scandinavian deities. Odin, Thor, and all that.

White supremacist involvement in neo-Paganism has effectively driven all of my non-racist Asatru friends pretty much back into the closet. After spending decades fighting their way through all the bigotry against their religion from mainstream Christian culture, and all of the discrimination that entailed, they're stuck having to hide again because of the racists loudly and visibly appropriating their belief system. Many of them are as anti-Christian (eg. Varg Vikernes) as they are anti-POC and anti-immigrant.

The Black Metal and Neofolk scenes have largely been taken over by white supremacists, a huge percentage of whom are neo-Pagans of some flavour or other, or just outright anti-religious.

 

[luchog]

Were those writings part of his high school curriculum?

And do they really subject every applicant to this level of scrutiny? My understanding is that mostly they ask for transcripts - records of subjects studied and grades received - and other voluntary information that the applicant may expect or hope is relevant.

Nope.

As the number of people seeking post-secondary education increases, competition for the limited number of seats becomes increasingly fierce. High-school transcripts and standardized test scores are a relatively minor part of what the acceptance committees look at these days, because there are always far more high-scoring applicants than there are available seats at universities. Even in this era of spiraling education costs. Grades are merely the first step in the screening process.

So to weed out applicants, universities are increasingly looking at non-academic activities and performance, giving preferential treatment to those involved in volunteer programs, sporting activities, community programs, family history, and so on. This is especially true at the large private colleges and universities, but even state-run, publicly-funded schools do this with applicants who are not already covered under a specific, limited-focus scholarship or admissions program.

 

[luchog]

I suggest you read the links that luchog posted in the OP.

Nazism is explicitly violent white supremacist ideology. Sometimes, they try to dress it up a bit.

Anyone who hasn't read at least Mein Kampf has no business trying to dictate to others what Nazi ideology "actually standards for". If someone feels they want to talk authoritatively on the subject, then there's also a myriad of other foundational writings that need to be considered, particularly those of Jakob Graf, Eugen Fischer, Hans F. K. Günther, and of course the Nazi's inner circle (Goebbels, Goering, Rosenberg, Himmler, etc.). And, of course, they should research the volkisch movements that spawned the Nazi party.

Anyone who says that the Holocaust wasn't presaged in their writings is either profoundly ignorant, or a flat-out denialist.

 

[theprestige]

Nope.

As the number of people seeking post-secondary education increases, competition for the limited number of seats becomes increasingly fierce. High-school transcripts and standardized test scores are a relatively minor part of what the acceptance committees look at these days, because there are always far more high-scoring applicants than there are available seats at universities. Even in this era of spiraling education costs. Grades are merely the first step in the screening process.

So to weed out applicants, universities are increasingly looking at non-academic activities and performance, giving preferential treatment to those involved in volunteer programs, sporting activities, community programs, family history, and so on. This is especially true at the large private colleges and universities, but even state-run, publicly-funded schools do this with applicants who are not already covered under a specific, limited-focus scholarship or admissions program.

How is that "nope"?

This is all information that the applicant supplies voluntarily to improve their chances. The university isn't going on fishing expeditions into every applicant's social media from high school. Are they? Or did this kid provide the info voluntarily?

 

[luchog]

How is that "nope"?

This is all information that the applicant supplies voluntarily to improve their chances. The university isn't going on fishing expeditions into every applicant's social media from high school. Are they? Or did this kid provide the info voluntarily?

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to anything going on in the social media world for at least the last decade. Scanning Facebook and other social media sites is de rigeur for a lot of applicant screening. Employers do it, Universities, even volunteer organizations.

Last time I had to get job-search training (mandatory for anyone on unemployment benefits), they warned us about that, and recommended either temporarily killing it, or preferably (since employers tend to look at anyone without a social media presence as suspicious), creating a social media account specifically for job search purposes.

Other agencies do it to screen out undesirables, or to inform decisions between otherwise equally qualified candidates. The focus is typically on Facebook, because of its real name policy.

I can recall some controversy early on, and IIRC at least one lawsuit, regarding employers mandating that job applicants and/or employees provide their social media account information. I also remember a number of high-profile firings of employees based on their Facebook profiles. There were a few threads in this very forum about it.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

You wanna quote the parts that show how he was radicalized, and by who/what organizations?

If you are able to prove this case (which doesn't appear likely so far), you will have one on the left from 2 years ago, to thousands on the right in the past year alone. You have a lot of work to do if you want to make others worry about what you want them to worry about.

Do you have a link to the list of "thousands" of right wing attacks in the last year alone that are equivalent to the shooting of a congressman?

 

[Mumbles]

Nope.

As the number of people seeking post-secondary education increases, competition for the limited number of seats becomes increasingly fierce. High-school transcripts and standardized test scores are a relatively minor part of what the acceptance committees look at these days, because there are always far more high-scoring applicants than there are available seats at universities. Even in this era of spiraling education costs. Grades are merely the first step in the screening process.

So to weed out applicants, universities are increasingly looking at non-academic activities and performance, giving preferential treatment to those involved in volunteer programs, sporting activities, community programs, family history, and so on. This is especially true at the large private colleges and universities, but even state-run, publicly-funded schools do this with applicants who are not already covered under a specific, limited-focus scholarship or admissions program.

Also...it's Harvard. They had an absurdly low acceptance rate, even when I applied back in 1994, so they can easily toss whoever they want out, and just send out an acceptance letter to some other person that applied. And I'm sure that once they learned that Kyle, the advocate for Maximum Guns, also liked to refer to his own classmates using racial slurs (this part is important - he designed his messages to appear hateful by his own admission), they said "Nah." And I'm pretty sure that the black incoming freshmen class will mostly be fine with this - not because they think he is a serious risk, but because they'd just rather not be around that sort of crude bigotry.

Also, while he says it was "years ago" it was actually 16 months from then until his rejection. Rounding to the nearest year, that's not even two "years".

I'm sorry, but I know both people who went to Harvard, and people who were rejected. The latter includes myself, likely due to a combination of family issues during high school, and a physics teacher who insisted that I was sabotaging his class because I didn't talk enough (I'm not kidding), so I simply have no sympathy at all for someone who gets tossed out because they loved using racial slurs to attack their classmates so much.

 

[theprestige]

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to anything going on in the social media world for at least the last decade. Scanning Facebook and other social media sites is de rigeur for a lot of applicant screening. Employers do it, Universities, even volunteer organizations.

Do universities do it, though? Is it actually de rigeur for the Harvard admissions process? Aside from this one report of this one kid getting denied, is there any evidence that this is a standard practice that Harvard applies to every applicant?

I get that it would make sense if it were. I even get if you would be surprised to learn that they don't (assuming they actually don't).

What I'm asking is, beyond the (reasonable) assumption that this is what happens, is the assumption actually correct?

You seem to be reaffirming the assumption as if it answers my other question. It doesn't, and that's okay. Maybe we just don't know if this is standard policy. Maybe we'll find out in coming days, one way or the other. In the meantime, I'm not sure what you expect me to do with your affirmations, except note them and wait for answers.

 

[wareyin]

Do you have a link to the list of "thousands" of right wing attacks in the last year alone that are equivalent to the shooting of a congressman?

Well, you're going to have to tell me what you think is equivalent. The Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting killed 11 last year. No congresspeople were wounded, however. How does that compare in your book?