#Extremism

[commonsensecommentary]

“I have a hot tip for the fanatics who have decided that setting Tesla cars ablaze is preferable to debate: The carbon footprint of a lithium battery fire is incompatible with your professed climate goals.”

[notaplaceofhonour]

y’all really out here calling Israel “imperialist” with a name like “Arabs of Conquest” & Arabic text in the shape of a sword

[brantheblessed]

[aqlstar]

Not ideal- and this with Musk cozying up to the AFD too.

[odiabonecessario]

Even though I don't fully agree with blackpill, I still see its merit and points — just like radical feminism at its essence. Having said that, treating a group of people like they're not human beings should ever be something worth considering

[probablyasocialecologist]

The history of social movement activity suggests that reforms are more likely to be achieved when activists behave in extremist, even confrontational ways. Social movements rarely achieve all they want, but they secure important partial victories by demanding considerably more and matching radical rhetoric with radical action. This reality is frequently obscured, because movement moderates often claim sole ownership of victories that have been assisted massively by those within the same movement whom moderates derided for being excessive and embarrassing.

Verity Burgmann, The Importance of Being Extreme

[notaplaceofhonour]

ya idk the fact someone can not only post shit like “the shooter is a hero” “a figurehead is a powerful thing” “[a shadowy, unspecified] ‘They’ are scared and might kill him in secret to keep his mouth shut” “keep the hatred burning” “watching their fear is the closest thing I’ve felt to joy” on this site but get 50K+ notes for it isn’t worrying at all /s

[weemietime]

Okay okay, I’d like to preface this by saying that I’m already deeply ashamed and embarrassed of myself for my behaviour and all, so if you think I don’t feel guilty and am bandwagoning, I’m not, I’m genuinely upset about what I did and there’s no one who could possibly hate myself more than me. And also, I’m not Jewish myself, but you could probably tell by what I’m about to say next.

So I was one of the many people who was a radical supporter of whatever has become of the pro Palestine movement (yes, I know, embarrassing behaviour) and I was perpetuating a lot of antisemitic things and would get super defensive about it because I truly didn’t think that what I was saying and/or doing was antisemitism and I also thought that I was genuinely helping people by being so… radical about things. A few months ago, I took a break from social media and on that break I sort of realised how much I don’t know about the harmful radical movement I was supporting and the Jewish and Israeli people that I was actually hurting by not listening to, and I truly am sorry and I do wish to become an ally, a good ally at that, but I do wonder if I’ve done too much damage already, I probably have. So yeah, I guess I was just wondering how I could possibly do better. I probably shouldn’t even be asking you this, you can totally block me if you want, I swear I’m not trolling or anything, but yeahhhh

The best thing that you can do for yourself and your community is to be honest about your perspective! How it happened, how you got radicalized, the things you said and why you said them. Some people won't be ready to forgive you and that's ultimately their prerogative. But people like you are the reason I am here, because I believe it is possible to form a bridge between our people and find a way to dialogue and call people back in from the extremism they've been indoctrinated into.

I'm fairly open about my history on here, but when I was a child I got indoctrinated into a violent gang. I adopted a lot of extreme beliefs and engaged in horrible, violent acts both under duress and of my own volition. So when I talk about indoctrination I am talking about something I have personal experience with. The people who I victimized to this day probably still have legitimate hate for me, and that's their right. I don't need to convince them I'm a good person or a changed person or whatever, you can't really undo harm or make up for harm like that, that's not how it works.

Once you put that out there, that's it. But at the same time, kind acts and good acts stand on their own, too. So I try and do outreach like this, to share my perspectives, to educate people on how extremism and radicalism and appetitive aggression work because I can't fix what I broke. All I can do is serve as a warning beacon for others going down a bad path, and I don't have any ability to know if that makes me a cosmically good or bad person.

Baruch dayen ha'emet. It's what we say when people die: G-d is the true judge. Only G-d knows those answers and I just have to have faith that G-d will judge me with compassion and understanding, and allow me to state my case. It's an ongoing conversation, you aren't ever just one thing or another thing. You grow, and learn, and that slowly changes the landscape.

I hope this helps in some manner! And I appreciate you sending this, we need to keep these avenues open, we have to build these bridges or else nothing will change. It's that simple.

[everythingseasoning]

Suguru Geto - JJK character analysis (near complete?) (edit: after spending a lot more time thinking about JJK, this analysis is not near complete, and I will update this post sometime)

“I gave everything I had, and it failed. It all crashed in front of me. And nobody did anything— not before me— not now. I’m seeing something nobody else sees. I’m sitting in these shadows and nobody cares about me. And here Gojo is, not doing a thing— and they praise him.” - my interpretation of Geto’s thought processes post Riko Amane’s assassination.

Crying about Geto because he went through so much. Geto was caring and idealistic before he defected. After such intense, prolonged trauma caused by the darkness of humans, and after growing disillusioned towards the world due to how unhelpful jujutsu society was— Geto felt utterly confused, resentful, and abandoned. The very system that was supposed to represent goodness (Jujutsu Society) simply prolonged the cycle of pain and suffering. It failed everyone— it failed him. Everything he’d believed was a shattered mirror, reflecting the cracks and flaws of humanity— and Geto saw that. Jujutsu Society praised Gojo for his innate talent, whilst neglecting the cracks in its system and the world, and neglecting Geto. In Geto’s turmoil, Geto was overcome by disenchantment— losing his faith and shedding his past sense of self— his good nature replaced with bitterness towards Gojo, simultaneously accompanied with a developed, narrow perspective on normal humans. (As we see with “Are you the strongest because you’re Satoru Gojo, or are you Satoru Gojo because you’re the strongest?” — Geto brings up the age old question of nature Vs nurture. He’s essentially asking Gojo if his power is the reason for his success, or if his power shaped his identity. Who is Gojo? Did he get any choice in defining himself? —He didn’t. Gojo’s whole personality is based off of his power, which determined how he was treated— the Strongest, seen as a functioning tool. —And regarding Gojo’s power: What was once a deep admiration towards Gojo, turned into resentment and envy from Geto’s end, as Geto realized Gojo wasn’t changing the corrupt systems, nor did Geto have the luxury of power to have made a difference. Geto felt spurned, and also believed normal people were unworthy of ruling, and the only way to save the world from its already unjust systems was to overthrow everything and use power to rule. After all, power is all that matters in terms out how you can change the world, which is your worth in the world— and Geto wanted that. He wanted power. He wanted to be worthy the way Gojo was— he was hurting. Maybe if he had Gojo’s level of power, he wouldn’t be in this much pain. Maybe he would’ve been able to stop other people from being evil and actually have had footing in this world. Maybe people would be listening to him, appreciating him. —Or maybe, Jujutsu Society was just a phony, after all. And normal humans were useless to change anything— all they did, in Geto’s mind, was feed into the evil nature of the world. …Geto became resentful, callous, cold, evil because of the wrongdoings inflicted on him, which resulted in his misinformed beliefs about humans and his behavior run wild with blind spite. He truly believed that the pain he inflicted on humans was justified, and he reveled in it because he had been hurt so deeply and saw it as reparations, even.

Do I believe what Geto did was okay? Absolutely not. He had much too rigid a way of seeing humans— as all bad— and that was a fallacy. But he was only 17 when he faced such confusing, extreme, difficult circumstances, and it distorted his worldview. I can’t blame him. He WAS good. But being around constant darkness wore him down, thus he descended into a callous man devoid of empathy. His actions after defecting are deplorable and not okay, however, he truly deserves compassion too. Many others, had they been in his situation, would’ve ended up horribly warped too.

How could Geto have done better, so as not to become the evil, rigid and disillusioned, cold and harmful, person he became? This is an important question. I’m still figuring it out myself. This analysis is to be continued. For now I’d say that he was unable to empathize with humans beyond his own pain and suffering, and it’s a cautionary tale about how wrapped up we can get in our own trauma and suffering— which leads us to being incapable of seeing and understanding things beyond our own individual pain, which leads us to inflicting undue injustice into others. It’s crucial that we take the time to understand the depth and complexity of humanity. The inherent value in humans.

I’m sorry, Geto. For all you went through, and for ever judging you without the fuller scope of understanding. You deserved better.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Colin Wright

Published: Dec 23, 2024

A new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has revealed an alarming surge in anti-civil activity online following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The NCRI study, titled “Killing with Applause: Emergent Permission Structures for Murder in the Digital Age,” highlights the profound societal implications of this event, showcasing the disturbing normalization of violence against corporate figures and the role of social media in amplifying such narratives.

While the specifics of Thompson’s murder are shocking, the NCRI warns that the broader cultural shift it appears to be facilitating may be even more worrisome. The data reveals an evolving “permission structure” online—a system in which social media platforms amplify narratives, and susceptible individuals provide justification—resulting in the normalization of violence on a scale previously confined to small extremist communities.

The murder, which occurred outside a Manhattan hotel during an investors’ conference, has sparked a wave of online glorification, memes, and merchandise celebrating the shooter, Luigi Mangione. The NCRI’s findings expose an unsettling trend: mainstream social media platforms are becoming breeding grounds for rhetoric that not only justifies violence but also facilitates its transition from the digital realm to the real world.

Public Opinion Reflects Shifting Norms

The NCRI’s research reveals a major societal shift, highlighting how public opinion has veered dangerously toward accepting violence as a legitimate response to perceived systemic injustices. Nearly half of Americans surveyed (44 percent) believe that Thompson’s murder was at least somewhat justified, reflecting a growing openness to violent means of addressing grievances. This finding is particularly alarming as it indicates that support for such extreme measures is no longer confined to isolated groups but is increasingly mainstream.

The data shows that social media plays a critical role in shaping these attitudes. Among heavy social media users—those who spend more than 5.4 hours per day on these platforms—the justification rate surges to 64 percent, starkly contrasting with just 23 percent among low-use individuals (0-1.3 hours per day).

Even more concerning is the generational divide: a staggering 78.8 percent of respondents aged 18-27 expressed at least partial justification for the murder, signaling a profound shift among younger demographics toward endorsing “targeted violence.”

The younger generation’s overwhelming approval for violent actions suggests a troubling cultural normalization of aggression as a tool for addressing grievances.

Platforms of Concern: Bluesky and Beyond

One of the most striking revelations in the NCRI study is the role of mainstream platforms like Bluesky in fostering permissive attitudes toward violence. Bluesky, widely lauded by political progressives as a kinder and friendlier alternative to X/Twitter, now exhibits the highest justification rates for the UHC CEO’s murder (78 percent), surpassing even extremist platforms like Gab and 4chan.

Bluesky’s user base skews younger and more tech-savvy, demographics that the NCRI study identifies as particularly susceptible to violent rhetoric. The combination of algorithmic amplification of extreme views and a vulnerable audience creates an environment ripe for the proliferation of violent narratives. This grim reality was recently illustrated when Bluesky users called for the murder of journalist Jesse Singal, en masse, due to his fact-based reporting on pediatric “gender medicine.” Users even posted what they believed to be his address and photos of his apartment door online.

Across social media platforms, including X, Reddit, and TikTok, there has been an alarming increase in content justifying violence. Viral hashtags like #EatTheRich and “Free Luigi” dominate many online discussions, and moderation efforts often lag behind the pace of content creation and dissemination, allowing violent rhetoric to flourish.

From Memes to Real-World Impacts

The transition of violent rhetoric from online spaces to real-world actions is perhaps one of the most troubling revelations of the NCRI study. Viral memes, fancam edits, and merchandise such as “Free Luigi” t-shirts have commodified his image. Events like the “UHC Shooter Lookalike Contest,” held in Washington Square Park, reveals how online rhetoric is influencing real-world behaviors. Participants, many of whom were dressed to mimic Mangione, gathered to celebrate and parody the assassination, demonstrating an alarming erosion of societal norms.

On social media, fancam edits and viral videos glorify Mangione’s actions, framing him as an anti-establishment icon. According to the report:

These videos frequently feature romantic or hyperbolic captions, highlight niche cultural affinities, or focus on his physical appearance, further amplifying his image and fueling narratives that glamorize his actions. This glorification fuels permission structures that could inspire others to perceive violence as a legitimate form of activism.

The hashtag #EatTheRich has surged by over 500 percent week-over-week, accompanying calls for violence against corporate figures and circulating “CEO Wanted” posters and executive “hit lists.” These posters, which feature “mocked-up mugshots of healthcare executives,” promote vigilante justice and represent “a deliberate attempt to provoke fear and destabilize corporate leadership.”

According to the NCRI report, “The murder of Brian Thompson appears to have catalyzed a dangerous feedback loop, where glorification, humor, conspiracy, and targeted harassment create an environment ripe for further violence.”

This blending of online rhetoric and offline action reflects what the NCRI describes as an “emergent permission structure,” which they describe as “a framework that justifies previously unacceptable beliefs or actions, with a clear division of labor: Social media platforms provide the amplification, while psychologically susceptible individuals provide the justification…” Taken in concert, these elements form a system that normalizes and even glamorizes acts of violence.

The Lionization of Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione’s transformation from an obscure figure to a symbol of anti-establishment resistance has been meteoric. Within days of his arrest, his social media following exploded from 5,000 to over 400,000. The slogan “Free Luigi” was posted 47,000 times in 48 hours, generating nearly 800,000 engagements across X and Reddit.

The commodification of Mangione’s image extends beyond social media. T-shirts, mugs, and other merchandise featuring his likeness are being sold on e-commerce platforms, trivializing his actions while profiting from the controversy. New cryptocurrency “memecoins” such as $LUIGI have also emerged, turning a deadly act into a speculative financial opportunity.

Psychological Drivers

The NCRI study identifies three key predictors of support for the murder: authoritarian tendencies, heavy social media use, and diminished personal agency. These factors interact in a synergistic way, with social media amplifying authoritarian predispositions and fostering the normalization of violence.

The combination of authoritarianism, an external locus of control, and social media’s amplifying effects appears to be a perfect storm for radicalization. These factors interact in a way that makes violence seem rational and even heroic to those who might otherwise feel marginalized or voiceless.

The interaction between these psychological drivers is particularly pronounced among younger demographics, who are both heavy social media users and more likely to experience anxiety or disillusionment with traditional systems. The NCRI study reveals that among users aged 18-27, those with high authoritarian tendencies and heavy social media use were the most likely to justify violence.

A Call to Action

The NCRI study concludes with a warning:

As digital platforms become arenas for ideological conflict, the consequences extend beyond individual incidents of violence to threaten broader public safety and societal cohesion. This transformation underscores the urgent need for strategies that address the root causes of digital radicalization and mitigate its impacts.

The challenges we face require a comprehensive and collaborative response. No single entity can address the complexities of digital radicalization alone. Policymakers, educators, platforms, and community leaders must work in unison to restore the moral boundaries against violent extremism.

The study concludes:

The spread and scope of justification for murder have significantly eroded what was once the monopoly of fringe communities in supporting violence and glorifying shooters online. This shift underscores the urgency of initiatives aimed at reinforcing the bonds of civic trust and restoring civility. Such efforts are essential not only in countering the tide of extremism but also in fostering a resilient society where dialogue and mutual respect prevail.

==

EDIT: Wow, this managed to attract the murderous psychopaths. I hope you'll be just as understanding when someone kills someone you care about and justifies it in the name of nebulous "systemic" somethingisms.

If there was ever any doubt about Colin's premise, it has been proven by the insanity of those cheering it on in the reblogs.

The death penalty is unfair, unjust, and evil, unless you walk up to a rich guy you don’t like on the sidewalk and shoot him in the back. The only form of the death penalty that’s okay is the form that doesn’t include a judge, jury, or court, and where the executed person has not been charged with, convicted, or even accused of any specific crime.

You don't get to call it "justice" when it's not just bypasses but is in direct violation of the law.

"Arbitrarily killing people I don't like is good akshully," is not the moral high-ground you think it is.

How many times do you think you would have been shot dead if it became acceptable for someone to simply arbitrarily execute you because they don't like you, what you do for a living, what you do with your free time, what you eat, what you stand for, or any other random disapproval?

🤔

[mindblowingscience]

People not only think political news is likelier to be true if it reinforces their ideological biases, but will tend to trust news more if it leads them to adopt more extreme (and even incorrect) beliefs, finds a new study by a UCL researcher. The study, published in American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, found that when people were presented with new information on politically sensitive topics, individuals on both sides of the political spectrum struggled to detect whether the information was true or not, and were biased towards trusting news that aligned with their political beliefs. Moreover, it found also that when given news that could plausibly be true or false, people trusted news that drove them to be even more extreme than they already were, which could lead to greater political polarization.

Continue Reading.

[commonsensecommentary]

“Around a dozen UC Berkeley students walked out of class on Friday afternoon and took to Sproul Plaza to protest former President Donald Trump’s reelection to the highest office.”

(12 students protested? That’s all? At Berkeley? In deep Blue California? One can only hope this is an indication that young adults are finally getting a clue about the Marxist/Totalitarian agenda that has been destroying America for many decades. Maybe we’re seeing small signs of a return to sanity.)

[schraubd]

The Israeli Right Wants to End America's Israel Bipartisanship

Bibi spoke before Congress today, giving his usual bluster in the face of growing Democratic discontent over his hard-right governance and naked disregard for Palestinian life and rights. Well over a hundred congressional Democrats boycotted his speech, and even some who attended gave scathing reviews (my favorite comment came from Rep. Jerry Nadler, who bluntly described Netanyahu as "the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2100 years ago."). One comment I've heard many times is that Bibi has been recklessly pissing away the historic bipartisan support Israel has enjoyed in Congress to tie himself ever closer to the GOP. This has been occurring since at least the Obama administration and only seems to be accelerating. Why is he taking this step? At the bad place, Abe Silberstein hypothesizes that this is a "calculated" decision, predicated on the notion that Democrats will eventually abandon Israel anyway. I agree it is calculated (which doesn't mean it isn't reckless), but I actually might make an even more controversial point -- Bibi wants to drive Democrats away. The breakdown of the consensus is, for him, a positive good. The rationale is straightforward. Certainly, in an "ideal" world, both American political parties would support Israel in whatever it does, all the time. But in reality, a bipartisan "consensus" around Israel is going to be inherently moderating -- Democrats prevent it from drifting too far to the right, and Republicans from it drifting too far to the left. It's no accident that in the early 2000s (the apex of the consensus), Democrats and Republicans alike generally coalesced around things like support for two states, veneration of Oslo, and so on. There was, certainly, a lot less in the way of Democratic support for sharp and harsh Israel critique, but you were also less likely to see Republicans openly come out in favor of occupation forever. It was the epitome of a mushy middle. The problem is that Bibi is not part of the mushy middle, and it is affirmatively bad for him if American politics on Israel sit on moderate, middle ground. A theme I've hit on repeatedly in my writing is that polarization actively benefits extremists, and will be pursued by them, even if it reduces overall levels of popular support for their broadly-defined "camp". Polarization gives more space for extremists to flourish, and Bibi is nothing if not a right-wing extremist. Imagine you're Bibi and you have a choice between two worlds: one where 8 out of 10 Americans support Israel, but they're evenly divided between "left" and "right", and another where only 5 out of 10 Americans are pro-Israel, but 4 of them are conservative. He's going to pick the latter, because in the latter universe the pro-Israel faction is dominated by conservatives, and so will be a far more hospitable environment to his brand of unabashed and unapologetic conservatism. In the first world, the parameters of pro-Israel are set via a balance of liberal and conservative interests. In the second, they're set solely by conservatives -- even as the median position of Americans shifts away from support for Israel, the median position of self-described pro-Israel Americans shifts sharply to the right.  For that reason, it should not surprise to see Bibi and his allies seemingly doing everything they can to alienate American Democrats even in the face of stalwart support from Joe Biden. Are they spitting in his eye? Yes, and intentionally so. For them, having Democrats as part of the "pro-Israel" camp is more constraining than it is enabling. They'd much rather the parameters of pro-Israel be set solely by the right -- the better to consolidate their own power. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2k9Rxb0

[abcphotoblog]