Well being in Iceland and getting so much news from the EU, UK, and nordic nations, there are a host of things we can do, integration is a key one.
I know that a big part of the UK's problems with its Islamic communities is the isolation of these communities, and how these communities want to raise their kids in Muslim schools, teach things antithetical to UK school standards, and we have to work to stop this. How you do it, maybe abolishing religious schools for children under 18?
There is no easy answer to any of this, because of how much we value freedom of speech, freedom of religion.
Panorama did a good piece on the problem of religious schooling on the UK, and this does not exclude Jewish and Christian schools who are rather radical in their teachings.
What will it take for you to admit change is happening? Sharia law across western nations? Or something more minor such as separate swimming pools for men and women?
After decades of post-modernism, Western societies also have very little offer as an attractive alternative.
A lot of the attackers - at least in Europe - hold a lot of similarities to the general Western underclass - marijuana abuse, out of wedlock children, and heavy pornography use.
They are losers in every sense of the word, but not victims. The rhetoric of Islam holds more potency than the crude cultural gangster signalling of an inner-city or cartel gang.
WTF is this psychobabble even about peter? The western underclass is characterized by marijuana abuse, out of wedlock children and heavy pornography use? WTF are you actually trying to say here. Do you come from a heavy Christian background? Sounds like some serious bias in that direction.
This thread is a train wreck. Not sure most of the people in it know what most of the other people in it are even trying to express. Me included.
People should be trying to explain themselves as simplistically and clearly as possible. Using as much jargon as you can does nothing but obscure the communication.
Maybe I wandered into the wrong thread. Carry on with your psychobabble.
The Following 26 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
After decades of post-modernism, Western societies also have very little offer as an attractive alternative.
Yes, we in the West are short of morally rigid cults by which the unrighteous can be transformed into the righteous through violence. How sad it is that we have moved on from unambiguous morality to a more nuanced and inclusive worldview! Oh, for the good old days when a brisk bombing of the heathen natives was just the thing to channel a young man's passions and keep him safely made useful.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Last edited by jammies; 08-17-2016 at 05:16 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
On what to do about radicalization of Muslim youth, so far the most succesful model seems to be the Aarhus model. (AKA "the hug a terrorist model").
The Aarhus model is about as stereotypically left wing approach as you can get.
In comparison, the popular right wing approach of increased surveillance, limitations to the human righs of Muslims (for example controlling how they can dress) and harder police measures have proven to only increase the problems.
You see, I don't give a flying ficus about any of the talking heads posted in this thread. Left or right, they're mostly just collecting speaker fees, selling books and generally attention whoring. What matters are the actual policies put in place, and the results they bring.
People are way too concerned with what they feel, and way too concerned about "is this right or wrong" and "who makes the better arguments". ISIS is not a hypothetical. What matters is what works. "Hug a terrorist" works. Right wing policies don't work.
More generally on the term "regressive left", it's your stereotypical weak man fallacy. It's picking the most radical and/or terrible proponents, and claiming they represent the whole.
It also always seems to be a kind "No True Scotsman" in reverse. If you're a moderate, reasonable left winger, you're no real leftie.
Last edited by Itse; 08-17-2016 at 06:52 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
WTF is this psychobabble even about peter? The western underclass is characterized by marijuana abuse, out of wedlock children and heavy pornography use? WTF are you actually trying to say here. Do you come from a heavy Christian background? Sounds like some serious bias in that direction.
British psychologist and former prison doctor Theodore Dalrymple has been eloquently warning of the perils of the moral void and self-destructive behaviour of the underclass for some time. Maybe that's what peter is getting at.
Personally, I'm a liberal atheist. However, I'm becoming deeply troubled by what the void left in the wake of the collapse of religion. Unbridled hedonism and social breakdown on one side, and the allure of dogmatic and extremist politics on the other. I know the worst thing someone in our society can do is judge others, but it's difficult to remain blithely indifferent to the almost complete collapse of marriage and family among the poor, and the ugliness of a secular culture with little impulse besides gratifying personal pleasure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
This thread is a train wreck. Not sure most of the people in it know what most of the other people in it are even trying to express. Me included.
People should be trying to explain themselves as simplistically and clearly as possible. Using as much jargon as you can does nothing but obscure the communication.
I'm all for plain language. But our modern, secular outlook has tremendous difficulty addressing the root causes of radical Islam because we look for rational and materialistic explanations for everything. In an age when we assumed the march of reason and progress would be inevitable, what do we make of dramatic upsurges in deeply irrational impulses? We reach for the standard bogeymen - poverty, political oppression, bigotry. To me, those explanations are woefully inadequate. We're dealing with people who, collectively or as individuals, utterly reject our liberal and materialistic worldview. Who crave a moral and emotional lodestone that our modern world simply does not provide, and whose response to its absence is fury, mass murder, and martyrdom.
Maybe that can be explained in plain language. I don't know. But it won't it easy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-17-2016 at 07:29 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
... eloquently warning of the perils of the moral void ... Unbridled hedonism ... blithely indifferent ... the ugliness of a secular culture ... what do we make of dramatic upsurges in deeply irrational impulses? ... Who crave a moral and emotional lodestone ...
Maybe that can be explained in plain language. I don't know. But it won't it easy.
apparently not.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
British psychologist and former prison doctor Theodore Dalrymple has been eloquently warning of the perils of the moral void and self-destructive behaviour of the underclass for some time. Maybe that's what peter is getting at.
Personally, I'm a liberal atheist. However, I'm becoming deeply troubled by what the void left in the wake of the collapse of religion. Unbridled hedonism and social breakdown on one side, and the allure of dogmatic and extremist politics on the other. I know the worst thing someone in our society can do is judge others, but it's difficult to remain blithely indifferent to the almost complete collapse of marriage and family among the poor, and the ugliness of a secular culture with little impulse besides gratifying personal pleasure.
On this point specifically, this is what the process of moving from a culture dominated by religious guidance to one of secularism looks like. One is forced to make up their own mind, and the general public has difficulty making sense of the chaos and the void. This was a problem that the existentialist philosophers attempted to address, with varying degrees of success. What we're left with is a morality that is no longer decided for us, and instead we're forced to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.
To Thor's point, if you're isolated in a community that deals with every problem with vitriol, anger, and hatred, then you're likely to think that's a good way to deal with things. It's entirely possible that if these young people were exposed to writings of wisdom from those who are attempting to make sense of the post-modern world, they might find coping mechanisms outside of anger and violence. Pluralism is just one existentialist concept that could be a solution, but merely finding purpose in life without religion providing the framework for a lost soul is ultimately preferred.
BTW, this prescription goes for the reactionary right and the regressive left as well as disaffected youth. Having access to wisdom is probably the only answer in the long run, and consequently, education and exposure to different ideas is likely the best solution for everyone involved in the equation.
The problem becomes how to connect to this wisdom and accurately understand it en masse.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Last edited by Cali Panthers Fan; 08-17-2016 at 08:22 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Unbridled Hedonism and social collapse without religion? What planet are you operating on? Most of the least religious countries are also deemed to be some of the best places to live: http://www.usnews.com/news/best-coun...by-perception\
Unbridled Hedonism and social collapse without religion? What planet are you operating on? Most of the least religious countries are also deemed to be some of the best places to live: http://www.usnews.com/news/best-coun...by-perception\
The perception that morals are governed by religious fears, and without them humanity just can't cope and will devolve into chaos is absolutely wrong.
Not sure where the unbridled hedonism comment is coming from either. Milennials have been trending downwards from previous generations in rates of unprotected, promiscuous sex, binge-drinking, etc. All of this despite having much bleaker prospects than their parents' generations.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
But our modern, secular outlook has tremendous difficulty addressing the root causes of radical Islam because we look for rational and materialistic explanations for everything.
Our modern, secular outlook has no trouble at all in addressing the root causes of radical mysticism, Islamic or otherwise (like the quaint version of Christianity advocated by peter12). That some do not accept the primacy of those ideas is not an indictment of the ideas, but an epiphenomenon of human nature, that has evolved both to seek for something that is not there to be found, and to be far better at rationalizing beliefs than discarding them for the rational.
As I've said before, radical Islam is just the latest flavour of radicalism, which has changed its form from anarchist to fascist to communist to Islamist over the last hundred years, and that will no doubt will gain new forms in the next hundred. You "deal" with such by having better ideas that lead to better outcomes in your society, something that cannot be roadside bombed or suicided away. We are already winning this war. That is why our opponents become increasingly desperate.
That being so, however, many young men* like violence, and like power over others, and like to escape responsibility for their actions. That will never change (other than, perhaps, technologically modifying the genes that cause this behaviour) and rather than focusing on a particular subset of such young men, it is a more useful to think about how society should try to moderate the actions of ALL such young men by socializing them successfully.
*Some men grow out of this, some don't, but the young are the mainspring of armed discontent.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
That being so, however, many young men* like violence, and like power over others, and like to escape responsibility for their actions. That will never change (other than, perhaps, technologically modifying the genes that cause this behaviour) and rather than focusing on a particular subset of such young men, it is a more useful to think about how society should try to moderate the actions of ALL such young men by socializing them successfully.
What mechanisms do we have, in 2016, to properly socialize young men? Especially when growing numbers of young men have no stable father in their lives? The collapse of marriage as an institution among the poor - and increasingly the middle-class - has been a social (and economic) catastrophe.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Our modern, secular outlook has no trouble at all in addressing the root causes of radical mysticism, Islamic or otherwise (like the quaint version of Christianity advocated by peter12). That some do not accept the primacy of those ideas is not an indictment of the ideas, but an epiphenomenon of human nature, that has evolved both to seek for something that is not there to be found, and to be far better at rationalizing beliefs than discarding them for the rational.
As I've said before, radical Islam is just the latest flavour of radicalism, which has changed its form from anarchist to fascist to communist to Islamist over the last hundred years, and that will no doubt will gain new forms in the next hundred. You "deal" with such by having better ideas that lead to better outcomes in your society, something that cannot be roadside bombed or suicided away. We are already winning this war. That is why our opponents become increasingly desperate.
That being so, however, many young men* like violence, and like power over others, and like to escape responsibility for their actions. That will never change (other than, perhaps, technologically modifying the genes that cause this behaviour) and rather than focusing on a particular subset of such young men, it is a more useful to think about how society should try to moderate the actions of ALL such young men by socializing them successfully.
*Some men grow out of this, some don't, but the young are the mainspring of armed discontent.
Sorry, what quaint version is that? I have frequently called myself an existentialist Christian. Although I go to service frequently, I am not orthodox.
What mechanisms do we have, in 2016, to properly socialize young men? Especially when growing numbers of young men have no stable father in their lives? The collapse of marriage as an institution among the poor - and increasingly the middle-class - has been a social (and economic) catastrophe.
The teleology (I am doubling down on fancy words) of Western liberalism is atomization and individualization. This is all well and good if you have the luck or the will to exist within or create a social environment that allows your individual skills to thrive.
I've mentioned Charles Murray's Coming Apart as a good first step into understanding why certain communities are thriving, and others are rapidly failing. Incidentally, more successful communities are strongly Christian or at least attend a church regularly.
Islam, with its mythos of dominance, war, and eschatological finality, enters into the personal void like nothing else.
The teleology (I am doubling down on fancy words) of Western liberalism is atomization and individualization. This is all well and good if you have the luck or the will to exist within or create a social environment that allows your individual skills to thrive.
I've mentioned Charles Murray's Coming Apart as a good first step into understanding why certain communities are thriving, and others are rapidly failing. Incidentally, more successful communities are strongly Christian or at least attend a church regularly.
Islam, with its mythos of dominance, war, and eschatological finality, enters into the personal void like nothing else.
Really?
At least as of 2010, non-hispanic blacks had the highest instance of regular church attendance in the US. I wouldn't say that community is thriving.
Economic stability, strong education and upward mobility has far more to do with successful society than does religiousness. Nordic countries are increasingly secular and are increasingly successful societies with little crime and high quality of life. People don't want to hurt others or commit crime because what's the point? What do they have to gain in a society where they're treated well overall? And when they do commit crime, jail is meant to rehabilitate them and turn them back into useful members of society, not just to repeat the same crimes and end up in jail all over again.
It's not about religiousness, it's about morality. True Christianity, that actually reflects the beliefs of Christ (treating others as you want to be treated, taking care of the less fortunate, etc) is good for this. But the bastardization of Christianity in the US that has made it hateful and oppressive and exclusionary is far from helpful.
People can be moral without being religious.
Also this whole "breakdown of marriage" is inane to me. Women nowadays don't have their success tied to being one half of a marriage, and thus often they choose not to tie themselves down. My parents both had a father present in their lives, but one of them was a PTSD riddled alcoholic and the other was an alcoholic, drug addicted pedophile. Just because fathers were present in those days doesn't mean they were always good fathers. It just meant that their wives had no option but to stick it out if they wanted to keep their kids.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
What mechanisms do we have, in 2016, to properly socialize young men? Especially when growing numbers of young men have no stable father in their lives? The collapse of marriage as an institution among the poor - and increasingly the middle-class - has been a social (and economic) catastrophe.
That's a fair question, and I don't know the answer - while I don't think much of the argument that society is becoming "less moral", the collapse of marriage has indeed had a hugely negative effect on the proper socialization of - especially - young men. Good fathers are important, most humans denied proper structure and hierarchy will take whatever they can find to replace it, no matter if that be otherwise entirely malign.
I suspect new familial institutions need to be created, maybe developed along the lines of the Israeli kibbutz, although that has been somewhat of a failed experiment. This is where we can look at more traditional societies, where grandparents and siblings and cousins are more involved in the upbringing of children, and try to reinvent that in a way that spreads the responsibility more equally among many adults rather than expecting mothers to do all the heavy work.
There are, contrary to what it might seem, many things I admire about less cosmopolitan societies. One thing I don't agree with, though, is the idea that different cultures are equal, or that some cultures aren't better than others. I realize that there was an understandable and entirely fair reaction against the pernicious idea that the white man was obliged to teach the benighted his civilized ways, when the white man wasn't all that civilized himself. Still, though, if your society doesn't accept basic human rights because your culture (hello Saudi Arabia!) believes women are chattel, your culture is inferior *in that way*, just as Canadian culture is inferior to, for example, Filipino culture in respect and caring for the aged.
That's the one myth of the left I really take issue with - cultural relativity. It's contradictory with the liberal idea of human progress, for one: if all cultures are equal, why even try to change your culture, since you're just going to end up with something different, and not better? It's a pessimistic view of humanity that is logically only consistent with fatalism.
If you accept that progress is possible, the inescapable conclusion is that some cultures really have progressed more, and are better, than others. This shouldn't be a cause for complacency and smug self-congratulations, but rather an opportunity to look at other cultures to see what *they* do better than *we* do, then to understand how they do it, and then to emulate them.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Unbridled Hedonism and social collapse without religion? What planet are you operating on? Most of the least religious countries are also deemed to be some of the best places to live: http://www.usnews.com/news/best-coun...by-perception\
