Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[MonkeyHead]

I dont think the goal of the Woolwich attackers was killing though. The kill was a tool to get attention - they knew through conducting such an act the world would be watching through the news, print media and internet, allowing them to have thier say with people listening in a shocked horror. For me, the close up nature of the brutality (thinks to the instant footage generated by the public) makes it all the more horrific.

 If killing was the goal, more than one person would now be dead.

[Sheb]

Killing is never the goal. Even Al-Qaeda doesn't believe it can purge the world of infidels a suicide bomber at a time. It's always to get a message across.

[shadenight123]

Monkey, I know it might sound completely off-topic, but I just wasted five minutes of my life watching your avatar 'complete' itself.
It was hypnotic to say the least.
XD

That said, I think we can divide 'actions' in three categories.

Those to Raise an Issue
Those to Spawn Terror
Those to Kill Someone.

The first is like the Buddhists who burn themselves, or suicides committed by indebted people. They bring forth an issue, but they don't have the 'push' to make someone find a solution to it in a reasonable amount of time.
The second are those who commit actions to potentially harm others, like explosions, messages about bombs in schools, and things like that. Terrorist actions are generally here if they target the population or public areas.
The third and last are those who 'attack' to kill, not to display an action of fear but to bring across an objective with killing. Kill the president to topple the government type of things.
The third type is the one that is generally done by 'enemy of state' groups. There are no explosions, no massive 'we fight in the name of god' or 'Jihad for all!' The third type is the 'You government suck. We anarchist hate you. We kill as many of yours as we can' or 'We wanted money from the bank, excuse us while we lay waste to your economy'. It's clear-cut. It's easy to NOT fear it because you don't know who's enemy and who isn't. There isn't a 'common trope' with whom you can associate the enemy, and that is why it isn't fearful.
'Neo-Nazi' in Germany strike immediate reaction.
'Muslim terrorist' does the same. Why? Because they are identifiable 'tropes' that ring a bell.
And they 'bleed' out into common life too.
I see a white skinned guy with blond hair and blue eyes striking down a black skinned man? He's a Nazist! Arrest him officer! (Nevermind it might actually be self-defense or what not)
The Italian over there claims the Government should rule over everyone with honesty? Oh damn, a Fascist! Let's arrest him!
The American is ranting about mexican immigrants, when he himself is an immigrant? Yeah, hello 'murican'.
This 'Tropes' identify a 'Genre' of population.
Humans categorize people. No need playing a 'racist!' card. It's the truth.
I think of English people as guys who drink tea at five.
Then they can be as diverse as they are, but 'He's English' always makes me think 'he'll take his tea with milk at five o'clock, then'.
'French' makes me say 'Frogs and baguettes'.
Russian goes with 'Vodka'.
American actually goes with McDonald.
Iraq goes with 'petrol' and 'sand'.
We associate things, and the game of association is risky, because it isn't 'logically deduced' but 'instinctively' deduced.

Think 'Muslim'. The first words you thought are what you truly think them to be, even when your brain comes around and says 'now come on, don't be hasty'
If you say anything different than your first thought words, then you're an hypocrite, but it doesn't matter...because the words you first thought are your undeniable truth of what you truly think.
And what you were brought to think too.

[Sheb]

"Muslim" bring pictures of baclava and mint tea in my mind. Way tastier than terror. 

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The American is ranting about mexican immigrants, when he himself is an immigrant? Yeah, hello 'murican'.
This 'Tropes' identify a 'Genre' of population.
Humans categorize people. No need playing a 'racist!' card. It's the truth.
I think of English people as guys who drink tea at five.
Then they can be as diverse as they are, but 'He's English' always makes me think 'he'll take his tea with milk at five o'clock, then'.
'French' makes me say 'Frogs and baguettes'.
Russian goes with 'Vodka'.
American actually goes with McDonald.
Iraq goes with 'petrol' and 'sand'.
We associate things, and the game of association is risky, because it isn't 'logically deduced' but 'instinctively' deduced.

Think 'Muslim'. The first words you thought are what you truly think them to be, even when your brain comes around and says 'now come on, don't be hasty'

You being a racist who thinks of everything in terms of stereotypes does not make everyone else the same. Let me guess, you think of Jews and picture gold? Christ.

[shadenight123]

And you have missed the point. It isn't racism. It's defining through association. And the point was that 'racist' thought isn't born, but created by the newspaper and the media.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And the point was that 'racist' thought isn't born, but created by the newspaper and the media.

And nurtured by the prejudiced mind.

[shadenight123]

Prejudice too isn't inborn. It's created by circumstances. And dependent on portrayal of facts. Take shebs words for example. I am sure that wherever he grew up, he was regularly in touch with people who easily disproved the notion of muslim=terrorist. Someone who grew up elsewhere will have different approaches to the matter. Nature cannot define humans. Nurture can and will.

[Sheb]

However, while you can't help associating some words -like muslims- with others in a subconscious level, it's rather easy to shrug that off whenever you have to seriously think, talk or interact with the people represented by said word. I know full well that not all Muslims are arabs and that middle-eastern food isn't representative of all of them.

[Scoops Novel]

I don't wish to overuse my appeal to authority quotient for the day, so please take an imperfect example of subconscious association as it is, Mictlantecuhtli.

[DWC]

I was kind of thinking about this earlier. I think prejudice is much more wide-spread then people think, it's really engraved in their minds and reinforced by society and the media. While sexism and racism are taboo anymore, regular prejudice against people is as strong as ever.

What comes to mind when you think of a 'soccer mom'? Or how would you consider a guy that drives a huge truck and tailgates everybody? Or a veteran just back from the war? A pawnbroker? A young businessman in a nice suit? A college lacrosse player? People tend to look at others and see caricatures in everybody, like people are stock Hollywood archetypes and make these assumptions and stick to them before and after they even know the person.

I can't help up think entertainment media with it's similar narratives and predictable characters are fueling this sort of pathos in people.

[Leafsnail]

British police are arresting anybody who makes anti-Muslim statements!!
http://www.businessinsider.com/in-britain-police-arrest-twitter-and-facebook-users-if-they-make-anti-muslim-statements-2013-5

Here is one of those people calmly criticizing Muslims

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I still don't approve of arresting people for speech, their stupidity aside. Especially with Islamists making similar statements and not getting arrested.

In fact, it'll probably only make the EDL act more crazy if they have proof that they're being "suppressed" by the government.

[Leafsnail]

An Islamist who called for a violent crusade while posing with a billhook would definitely get arrested.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That looks more like a machete than a billhook.

More to the point, I'm not so sure. Somebody out there on the internet is almost certain to have done something like that, but there's no report of such an arrest. Only of anti-Muslim extremists. It suggests a quiet bias by the government, which itself exhibits one of many problems with hate speech laws.