We need to discuss the online radicalisation of young, white men (Iraq, middle east)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was some talk in the thread about the Quebec mosque shooting about how and why it happened. It's obvious Elliot Rodger, Dylan Roof and all of the others didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Around Trump's surprise win of the election I remember reading a few good think-pieces about how and why more and more white men seem to be joining or aligning themselves with hate-groups based around white male superiority.
IE
Quote:
That loose network of blogs, forums, subreddits and alternative media publications colloquially known as the “manosphere”. An online subculture centred around hatred, anger and resentment of feminism specifically, and women more broadly. It’s grimly fascinating and now troubling relevant.
In modern parlance, this is part of the phenomenon known as the “alt-right”. More sympathetic commentators portray it as “a backlash to PC culture” and critics call it out as neofascism. Over the past year, it has been strange to see the disturbing internet subculture I’ve followed for so long enter the mainstream.
These people are now part of the political landscape.
Inside a student center ballroom, Spencer addressed some 400 students who had turned out for the event, some in support and some in protest. After a meandering introduction about “elective identities” and “rooted identities” — an idea written extensively about by the philosophers of Nazi Germany — Spencer quickly moved on to the crux of his speech: how white people’s history of racist domination justifies his white nationalism.
“Many young men are told to keep their anti-[people of colour], sexist views from their ‘lib’ family and friends,” she tweeted, “Hence this surprise from the mainstream.
“When we talk about the online radicalisation, we always talk about Muslims. But the radicalisation of white men online is at astronomical levels.”
Personally? I don't expect white people, either liberals or conservatives, to lift a finger to do a thing about this. There's one thing white people don't do, and that's see themselves as a cohesive group. Everyone is a lone shooter or solitary bad egg with white skin, but every brown or black person that commits a crime is indicative of a deeper issue within their respective culture.
White men are more guilty when they commit crimes than literally any other group could be living under white supremacy, because everyone else has to deal with negative effects of white supremacy on their lives socially and economically, yet every effort is made to try to absolve them of responsibility of whatever they do.
It's a historical pastime. From presidents and slaves, to Christopher Columbus, to FDR and racism. It's always excuses and reasons why their mess ups have to be overlooked. There is one odd thing I noticed, all of these articles about radicalization seem to point out the sexual frustration of these men. There's seems to be some kind of testosterone link.
I see it as a combination of the patriarchy and expectations set by the media, but a lot of it comes down to "my sex life isn't what I want it to be, let me make it everyone else's fault". Disenchanted, cornered, young males with feelings of inadequacy on the fringes of society being told that The Other is the cause of everything wrong with the world and that they're doing themselves and the world a favor by ridding the world of that Other.
Society tells that them white men are top dogs socially and economically across the world. That makes them believe that they're entitled to any women they choose. We constantly reinforce imagery and ideology that expresses that men (especially white men) are owed whatever they want - including sex.
Pretty scary how groups of people can radicalize because they feel estranged from society and think that society owes them something, be it a job, respect, sex, success, etc. This is what happens when white people sacrifice social solidarity in the name of capitalistic pursuit.
Many cultures have some version of the "you're not a man until you ____", which can be toxic, but many of them still have a level of social cohesion where young men know that they will have the support of their families and local community. They are still swaddled in the warmth of a reliable social fabric. But for young, white men in our current climate, I don't know if they see themselves as having a culture.
Media consumption simply tells them that white men are defined by their success, not by their socialization - whether that success be physical (conquering enemies), romantic (acquiring a love interest/sex), mental (outsmarting others) or financial (being a CEO). The other useful source of information, parents and peers, provide conflicting information - be nice to others, but play to win. Treat women with respect, but go out and sow your wild oats. Obey the law, but "boys will be boys". Try to fit in, but be yourself. Don't say hateful things to minorities, but also don't bring one of them home to us.
There may be some psychological/neurological evidence that men, more than women, look externally when trying to find the source of their problems. It's not that they're unattractive or unfunny, it's that all the women are whores who just want to date jerks. It's not that they're unqualified for the job, it's that Blacks are being given the upperhand. So amidst their conflicted messages and their raging hormones, some of them go searching for an external "threat" rather than face the knot of confusion within.
I imagine many of these men feel alone, lost, in pain, angry, bitter, insecure. They don't realize that, from birth, society has held them to an implied contract that goes something like this: "You'll be on the right side of history and the best side of the law. You'll be rich and famous and adored. You'll be treated as the most important. The only condition is that you have to care about success more than anything else - more than family, more than friends, more than lovers, more than emotions, more than art, more than equality."
Some of them can't or don't know how to uphold that contract. And instead of recognizing the contract for what it is - a bad deal - they go looking for reasons for why they're failing to succeed. Feminists, gays, minorities, whatever. Anyone who seems to pushing back against the social grain, calling their contract into question. Where they should see allies, they see enemies.
Layered on top of this cultural issue is a biological reality: Some men have more testosterone and are more aggressive. They want more sex than they can get. They want to pick fights. Their insecurities feed these impulses.
I don't really know what to do with these young men. Talking to them via the Internet probably isn't the answer; it's too easy for them to retreat. Part of this is a cultural problem about white privilege that we need to resolve as a society; part of this is a parental problem where parents need to talk to their sons more and encourage them to be more open about their feelings; part of this is a media problem where the Internet lets *******s prey on the weak under the guise of "free speech."; part of this is a medical problem in how we relate to and treat mental health issues. The solution won't come from one place.
It's pretty complicated. I do remember learning in class back in high school that when young people feel alienated, they may join gangs. Later on, when "religious" cults became popular the same reason was given for the attraction. Not feeling that they belonged, not feeling powerful enough.
I don't understand white privilege because, being white, I have never felt privileged. Being a woman, I am more inclined to see male privilege. So I guess I can't add much, but that was a very insightful post.
Last edited by toosie; 02-03-2017 at 06:17 PM..
Reason: Deleted orphaned part
I don't know if I can discuss it because off the bat I don't think I agree with most of it. Voting for Trump isn't a symptom. The two you named, Dylann Roof and Elliott Rogers, were clearly not normal from the get go so it's mental illness you want to be talking about.
As for regular, run of the mill people who become disenfranchised and join "hate groups" I don't know. Some of it is just who you hang out with, (online or IRL), a learned behavior. ANGER and HATRED are very powerful emotions and it's a hard habit to break.
It's pretty complicated. I do remember learning in class back in high school that when young people feel alienated, they may join gangs. Later on, when "religious" cults became popular the same reason was given for the attraction. Not feeling that they belonged, not feeling powerful enough.
I don't understand white privilege because, being white, I have never felt privileged. Being a woman, I am more inclined to see male privilege. So I guess I can't add much, but that was a very insightful post.
A LOT of folks feel this way, & I completely understand. I'll break it down a little further.
No set of "privileges" should be interpreted to mean that someone has it easy in every situation.
The perfect example of white privilege operating independently to socioeconomic privilege is in the way employers respond to applicants with names that indicate different ethnic backgrounds. It's even been outlined in some topics on here that resumes were "thrown out" if they had certain names.
A white person from a poor background still gets the benefit of having a white-sounding name. This is an example of white privilege. The term does not mean that all white people are generally "privileged" in the sense of coming from affluent backgrounds. It means that there are circumstances where being white confers a benefit not available to those of other races. Those sorts of circumstances certainly exist.
The very fact that it's not easy for you to pick out instances of white privilege operating in the lives of more disadvantaged white people is a testament to what a privilege it really is.
For example, a white person can walk into a store and browse around without buying anything and never have to think twice about whether someone is watching them or whether their movements are considered suspicious enough to warrant them being accosted by security. A black person of the same economic background walks into a store and often assumes he's being watched closely (and would be correct quite a bit) and has to go out of his way to not look suspicious.
A white person can get pulled over for a moving violation and have his only worry be how much it will hurt his wallet, a black person has to fear for his safety and whether he's going to be arrested for what would only warrant a ticket for a white person.
Money and social status certainly factor in. Rich whites have privileges that poor whites don't have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
I don't know if I can discuss it because off the bat I don't think I agree with most of it. Voting for Trump isn't a symptom. The two you named, Dylann Roof and Elliott Rogers, were clearly not normal from the get go so it's mental illness you want to be talking about.
As for regular, run of the mill people who become disenfranchised and join "hate groups" I don't know. Some of it is just who you hang out with, (online or IRL), a learned behavior. ANGER and HATRED are very powerful emotions and it's a hard habit to break.
If mass shootings were to be treated as a "mental illness" we'd still have to examine why such an illness disproportionately affects White Men.
Last edited by toosie; 02-03-2017 at 06:18 PM..
Reason: Edited quoted material
In view of the increased polarization and perceived alienation throughout North American society, I have to question why single males, and single white males alone, are almost invariably characterized as "potential mass shooters", and cited, along with the supposed "easy accessibility of firearms", as one of the primary causes, if not the root cause of an escalating level of interpersonal violence and hostility.
Allow me the luxury of adding a few personal observations. I grew up in a community of 25,000 in upstate Pennsylvania, a place where sport hunting is a common, but not universal pursuit, and by coincidence, extreme high-tech rifles suited for Olympic-level target shooting, are custom-crafted nearby. Authors like Stephen Hunter, W.E. B. Griffin and the late Tom Clancy all sell well here, and Ted Nugent was a big draw at the annual Bloomsburg Fair (the state's largest) a few years ago.
I can recall two incidences, both when I was in high school, of local adolescent boys shooting themselves (one fatally) with Dad's deer rifle, but only one since (that with a pistol), and I attribute the reduced incidence to greater public awareness A young man in Pennsylvania today can't obtain a hunting license without passing a safety course, and know this to be the case in several other states.
Personally, I have never handled anything bigger than a .22-caliber rifle on a shooting range -- that as part of my required undergrad Phys Ed instruction in college; that course did little more than help me to understand that for physical conditions related to a spinal issue, I'll personally never be a good shot (and would last about thirty seconds in open combat). But that course also helped me to recognize that one reason Americans have acquitted themselves well on the battlefield when called upon is that the average American male from a rural background knows how to handle a rifle before he is inducted.
(And as an aside, it's also seldom noted that a substantial number of gun deaths involve aging single men, confronted with physical and mental deterioration on "the ride downhill", who decide to take control of their own exit). And as a final point, let's take note that many of the mass attacks (not just shootings) in recent years -- Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Columbine High, Orlando, San Bernardino, Fort Hood -- fell outside the "white loner" stereotype.
We clearly have a problem with polarization, alienation, and resentments of causes either imaginary or real in contemporary North America, but speaking for myself, I see it more as a product of the distortion and detachment from what really happens in day-to-day-life in a society which, in the process of de-industrialization and transition to a personal-service-based and sensitivity-oriented economic system, has inadvertently downplayed the role of the male as primary provider and defender; that, and a network of mass media which is increasingly female-oriented and female-consumption-driven. It's a by-product of what is likely the single greatest societal change in centuries, and it can't be undone even if that were desirable, but some of the adjustments can have deadly consequences.
Master Michael Moore, who has been prattling about the remote possibility of a military coup for the past day or two, is a white male, BTW.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-31-2017 at 08:16 PM..
There was some talk in the thread about the Quebec mosque shooting about how and why it happened. It's obvious Elliot Rodger, Dylan Roof and all of the others didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Around Trump's surprise win of the election I remember reading a few good think-pieces about how and why more and more white men seem to be joining or aligning themselves with hate-groups based around white male superiority.
Personally? I don't expect white people, either liberals or conservatives, to lift a finger to do a thing about this. There's one thing white people don't do, and that's see themselves as a cohesive group. Everyone is a lone shooter or solitary bad egg with white skin, but every brown or black person that commits a crime is indicative of a deeper issue within their respective culture.
White men are more guilty when they commit crimes than literally any other group could be living under white supremacy, because everyone else has to deal with negative effects of white supremacy on their lives socially and economically, yet every effort is made to try to absolve them of responsibility of whatever they do.
It's a historical pastime. From presidents and slaves, to Christopher Columbus, to FDR and racism. It's always excuses and reasons why their mess ups have to be overlooked. There is one odd thing I noticed, all of these articles about radicalization seem to point out the sexual frustration of these men. There's seems to be some kind of testosterone link.
I see it as a combination of the patriarchy and expectations set by the media, but a lot of it comes down to "my sex life isn't what I want it to be, let me make it everyone else's fault". Disenchanted, cornered, young males with feelings of inadequacy on the fringes of society being told that The Other is the cause of everything wrong with the world and that they're doing themselves and the world a favor by ridding the world of that Other.
Society tells that them white men are top dogs socially and economically across the world. That makes them believe that they're entitled to any women they choose. We constantly reinforce imagery and ideology that expresses that men (especially white men) are owed whatever they want - including sex.
Pretty scary how groups of people can radicalize because they feel estranged from society and think that society owes them something, be it a job, respect, sex, success, etc. This is what happens when white people sacrifice social solidarity in the name of capitalistic pursuit.
Many cultures have some version of the "you're not a man until you ____", which can be toxic, but many of them still have a level of social cohesion where young men know that they will have the support of their families and local community. They are still swaddled in the warmth of a reliable social fabric. But for young, white men in our current climate, I don't know if they see themselves as having a culture.
Media consumption simply tells them that white men are defined by their success, not by their socialization - whether that success be physical (conquering enemies), romantic (acquiring a love interest/sex), mental (outsmarting others) or financial (being a CEO). The other useful source of information, parents and peers, provide conflicting information - be nice to others, but play to win. Treat women with respect, but go out and sow your wild oats. Obey the law, but "boys will be boys". Try to fit in, but be yourself. Don't say hateful things to minorities, but also don't bring one of them home to us.
There may be some psychological/neurological evidence that men, more than women, look externally when trying to find the source of their problems. It's not that they're unattractive or unfunny, it's that all the women are whores who just want to date jerks. It's not that they're unqualified for the job, it's that Blacks are being given the upperhand. So amidst their conflicted messages and their raging hormones, some of them go searching for an external "threat" rather than face the knot of confusion within.
I imagine many of these men feel alone, lost, in pain, angry, bitter, insecure. They don't realize that, from birth, society has held them to an implied contract that goes something like this: "You'll be on the right side of history and the best side of the law. You'll be rich and famous and adored. You'll be treated as the most important. The only condition is that you have to care about success more than anything else - more than family, more than friends, more than lovers, more than emotions, more than art, more than equality."
Some of them can't or don't know how to uphold that contract. And instead of recognizing the contract for what it is - a bad deal - they go looking for reasons for why they're failing to succeed. Feminists, gays, minorities, whatever. Anyone who seems to pushing back against the social grain, calling their contract into question. Where they should see allies, they see enemies.
Layered on top of this cultural issue is a biological reality: Some men have more testosterone and are more aggressive. They want more sex than they can get. They want to pick fights. Their insecurities feed these impulses.
I don't really know what to do with these young men. Talking to them via the Internet probably isn't the answer; it's too easy for them to retreat. Part of this is a cultural problem about white privilege that we need to resolve as a society; part of this is a parental problem where parents need to talk to their sons more and encourage them to be more open about their feelings; part of this is a media problem where the Internet lets *******s prey on the weak under the guise of "free speech."; part of this is a medical problem in how we relate to and treat mental health issues. The solution won't come from one place.
Much of what you talk about as privilege already existed in homogenously white cultures. You apply the term white privilege in a US context, but really its always existed in a form of class privilege, independently of the notion of white. It existed in white cultures. The right name, the right clothes, the right accent. It exists in many non-mixed non-white homogenous cultures.
So whats the problem? Well it can be a problem when you try to analyze it if you think the origin is only due to race, it isn't. Of course it is heavily overlaid race in the US and basically inextricable at this point. But the tattooed obese cursing sweatpant-wearing white group walking into a Connecticut diner is viewed with disdain by the owner, unlike the Asian nuclear family who just pulled up in their BMW.
Think the white guy Billy Jenkins from an Appalachian address has the one-up in resumes over John Nyguen from Westchester at a Wall St. firm or a white-shoe lawyers? Think again.
As to your question - ideology. In this case not hidden under the name of religion at least. These men don't think they will get a prize of everlasting life if they kill. But nevertheless, since in polite society the white man is morally suspect and the non-white man is morally privileged *(on account of having suffered), the (self-)marginalized young men (testosterone is important as you say) accrues mountains of imagined slights and powerlessness leading to a mental pathology where murder seems a rational choice.
What to do? Like for all terroristic activities, all appropriate government agencies should monitor (thanks Edward Snowden) ideological groups who promote hate (thanks ACLU which seems to think if a hateful ideology is part of a religion then its ok, can't touch it). Relying on family members and friends (tho sometimes people do report such posts that they've seen on Facebook, etc of intent to harm) is too patchy and unreliable (especially when these people tend to surround themselves with other screwed up people who confirm their biases).
In view of the increased polarization and perceived alienation throughout North American society, I have to question why single males, and single white males alone, are almost invariably characterized as "potential mass shooters", and cited, along with the supposed "easy accessibility of firearms", as one of the primary causes, if not the root cause of an escalating level of interpersonal violence and hostility.
Allow me the luxury of adding a few personal observations. I grew up in a community of 25,000 in upstate Pennsylvania, a place where sport hunting is a common, but not universal pursuit, and by coincidence, extreme high-tech rifles suited for Olympic-level target shooting, are custom-crafted nearby. Authors like Stephen Hunter, W.E. B. Griffin and the late Tom Clancy all sell well here, and Ted Nugent was a big draw at the annual Bloomsburg Fair (the state's largest) a few years ago..
You didn't directly address military suicides, which most of happen on our soil and my guess is that many involve firearms.
But back to radicalization.
I would be classified as "anti-gun" despite having fired rifles since camp (7 years old) and winning marksman badges in High School Military Academy. I have no need for them and 45 years have gone by with no situation which might call for them.
BUT, you won't find me saying that guns are a cause. Guns ARE a nice way for the average nut to kill more people when they decide to do so. They ARE responsible for the higher body counts in many of our cities.
And - it is possible that eventual online radicalization could bring such people a better opportunity than most methods of destruction.
But let's step back a minute. The Ft. Hood Shooter, the Police Killer, the Ft Lauderdale Shooter and many more have something in common! The Military....and, looking even closer, you often see Military members who were exposed to the recent wars.
Of course we could write a book about all of this. I'd suggest that we - en masse - created a lot of the climate where this happens more.
All of that aside - America is a violent country. Given 320 Million people (plus Canadians) there are always likely to be a tiny subset which are subject to ANY brainwashing. Also, let's be fair. It's not all brainwashing - many radicals the world over have a leg to stand on after Iraq, etc. - one man's insurgent may be another's Freedom Fighter.
However, my summary in terms of being able to do something about online radicalization? We can't. No easier than stopping p-orn or drug use or reading about anything else.
A certain % of the population (anywhere) are sociopaths, psychopaths and/or violent or criminal in others ways. Totally all three of those together probably gets you to 10%.
My take is that the current course of action - which involves mostly the social media and other companies (sometimes with FBI/CIA help) shutting down the means of communication - is probably the only thing we can do. Since the beginning of time young men have desired to become mercenaries...and it's not always for money. They want to create purpose in their lives...and, yes, a "brotherhood" is purpose. Just read war stories and it's all about "I never felt so close to my friends as I did when in war".
It's unfortunately not a matter of right and/or wrong. Much of it relates back to us stirring up the hornets nests which then makes much of what the radicals preach "true", at least in some sense.
It's too late now to put the Genie back in the bottle. We broke it this time (the Middle East) and are going to have to live with it for decades. The real only hope is that humans DO tend to tire of conflict. But that can take a long time and a lot of genocide.
It is a telling commentary on the right-wing nature of City Data's forums that this thread has basically been ignored. Post a lunatic thread about how "Trump is doing a great job because he's pissing people off" - as if that's a viable way to run a nation - and you'll get dozens of posts from yes-men nodding like sock puppets about how great it all is. But if you post facts about how radicalization is happening in this nation, nobody wants to hear it. Or, worse, they come up with screwball excuses to justify it. Not surprising since the people being radicalized are the types who vote for Trump and who think that "hurting people they don't like" is a good way to run a nation.
The reality is, yes, angry white men are being radicalized in this nation, spewing hatred against minorities based on some delusion mix of cherry-picked religious quotes and a groundless inferiority complex. Because, you know, if you can't use the n-word in public anymore, that's clearly "discrimination against whites" or some idiocy. You only need hear the insanity, fake-news, and "alternate facts" they believe to know that this is true. Sure, for now they aren't going out and shooting lots of people they don't like, but there is NO fundamental difference between their brainwashing and the same thing that goes on in "those thar Moooslim nations full of duh terrorists." Both groups are being taught to hate anyone who's different and gladly treat them as sub-human.
Thankfully, our society here is civilized enough - for now - that we aren't simply killing "the other." But there is no difference between our bigots and theirs - just what book they wave around to wrongly justify their actions.
Example 1: An angry, old white guy I know fits the profile perfectly. He's ex-military, yet never amounted to anything, and is dirt-poor. He's a hoarder, has no idea how to spend what little money he has, and often needs to bum gas money off his friends. His life has been nothing but a collection of poor choices and misfortune... but these days, it's more the former than the latter. He spends way too much time even in social gatherings rudely hanging out on alt-right social media, upvoting every bigoted post he can find.
He hates the poor (for "stealing his tax dollars") even though he IS poor and technically is stealing other people's tax dollars. Of course, when you dig into it, he hates non-white poor people... because "they have it so easy and get free money." He hates the Affordable Care Act, even though without it he'd have no way to afford any health coverage. He gladly voted for Trump because he "wants somebody to do SOMETHING about those thar Muslim / terrorists / gays / blacks / the poor" and so on. So, he's basically voted himself into total poverty because of his hatred.
Example 2: Middle-aged, white, right-wing fundamentalist I rarely associated with any more. He was just a Republican, but then he got hooked on fake-news and religious nuttiness and now literally believes utter insanity, such as Obama being the literal Anti-Christ, complete with magic powers to "make people communist." He suffers from no shortage of pre-existing health conditions and can only get health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act, but - of course - he hates it for various lunatic reasons. And, if Trump repeals it, I'll have zero sympathy for him.
And those are just two of the radicalized, self-destructive, brain-washed idiots I know who can no longer tell fact from fiction and who's political motivations are almost entirely hate at this point. This doesn't even count: the conspiracy theorists, the people who deny facts because they have to "prove other people wrong," and on and on it goes. Radicalization is real in this nation.
Last edited by Rambler123; 02-03-2017 at 10:00 PM..
There was some talk in the thread about the Quebec mosque shooting about how and why it happened. It's obvious Elliot Rodger, Dylan Roof and all of the others didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Around Trump's surprise win of the election I remember reading a few good think-pieces about how and why more and more white men seem to be joining or aligning themselves with hate-groups based around white male superiority.
First, you're assuming facts not in evidence. When you say "more and more white men seem to be joining or aligning themselves with hate-groups based around white male superiority", what are you talking about? I'm not aware of any such groups let alone a rapid increase in membership.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
