If violent extremists do have a choice, then we can also choose our response to them. And pretty clearly that response should be to ignore their demands and treat them as having abdicated any say in our political system. Otherwise, you validate violent extremism, which creates more violent extremism. Which is bad, right?
There were other choices here. They chose not to make them. It's no one's responsibility to decide other people's bad choices are noble or worthy.
Of course, but wouldn't it be nice to have a comprehensive answer to "why?" so we can be free of them completely? Or at least find out why it's impossible if it really is.
The choice should be creating environment in which they don't spawn.
If they want to be taken seriously, they should abandon their methods. Listening to them will not resolve their concerns and contains no teachings. It instead spreads violent extremism throughout society.
That's an assumption. Might be false. Especially given how rare violent political action is in modern societies and how common it used to be.
> Considering their demands
Nobody wants that. But we should consider causes that gave rise to the demands.
> Listening to them will not resolve their concerns and contains no teachings.
Nobody advocates for that. We should listen to them only in a way we listen to vocalisations of wolves to figure out how to keep them harmless.
So I’m gonna again say no this does not prove the assertion
Those who embrace it made their choice. It is no one’s responsibility to respect bad choices.
> Are you really claiming that extremist militias are actually a valid reaction to some kind of political problem? What a bizarre stance.
In ethics, just terrorism is a well debated concept. A fairly famous thinker on the subject was Satre, who was influenced, for example, by the Algerian struggle for independence from French colonial rule, which involved both guerrilla warfare and acts of terrorism.
> We can solve political problems without resorting to extremism and violence
In a general sense, this should be trivially true for extremism. But it can be a tricky concept, as the term is also used in a prescriptive way with a politically charged intention, much like "hate".
Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.
> inability to do so is not noble or caused by something external.
I don't see why moral superiority (noble) and external determination should be thrown together - or how either relates to the previous statements.
I would agree though, that one's own actions are never purely caused by external influences, as I'm personally feeling strongly against team determinism.
The previous commenter probably just wanted to highlight polarization as a driving force for radicalization, which isn't entirely untrue, but also, of course, complex. One needs to be able to call out the baddies, despite it being perceived as polarizing.
In what way is terrorism against an occupying external force, and violent extremists targeting the legitimate and democratic government of their own country, the same? Why are you conflating them?
> Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.
I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement.
I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither.
> or how either relates to the previous statements.
Because my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake.
I have cut out the insertion of your meta-narrative. Terrorism as a method is the use of deliberate violence in pursuit of political or ideological goals, and is a tool of choice for violent extremists.
> I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement.
No, you actually connected both concepts with an "and", making your statement ambivalent ... but it's not a hill I care to die on. From a purely ethical point of view, there is nothing upsetting about this issue. It was well chewed over decades ago.
> I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither. [...] my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake.
We must separate the moral question from the political question. We can discuss ethics with rigor and eventually come to a position of clarity. With politics, it's all procedural and fuzzy.
In your last part you assert several positions: 1. rejection of their methods (twice) 2. sympathy (and later: empathy) is politically wrong 3. rejection of their belief system (moral superiority, victimhood) 4. recognition is a mistake.
1. and 3. are probably trivial and I won't argue against them. We're both clearly not on their team, so we don't like their methods or their narrative.
I'd disagree with 2. and 4. I get a lot out of reading and thinking about all kinds of fringe groups. It clearly gratifies many readers intellectual curiosity. Those who shun intellectual curiosity are also bad - or at least misguided.
Note how my philosophy still allows you to address origins, roots, grievances, etc. while also preventing the formation of violent militias because people won't listen to them or take them seriously. Yours forces us to take violent extremists seriously, even when their underlying concerns might not be worthy of consideration. Which is what violent extremists want.
This is proven untrue by history: Nazi Germany, the Irish Revolution, and countless others have proven that brutal, oppressive regimes can only be stopped by violence. I'm not saying the present-day US government is anywhere near this bad, but your statement simply isn't true: violence was absolutely essential in stopping tyranny in many places in history.
I don’t think your comparison to the Irish Revolution is accurate as there is no country occupying the United States. These people have the same political liberties and possibilities as any other citizen.
What exactly does the US have to do with anything at all here?
I'm only responding to the claim that "political problems can be solved without resorting to violence". I never made a comparison to the US. The people of Ireland were definitely NOT able to solve their political problems without violence.
>Nazism was the result of violent extremism becoming politically mainstream
Yes, but that's beside the point. Germany's neighbors had no choice but to resort to extreme violence to handle the Nazi problem. It was either that and surrender and line up for slavery or death camps.
No police doesn't solve it, because there will be assholes in any group.
Unless you're the richest person in the world. Because if you aren't, someone is going to outbid you on the security forces, and then it's their decision, not "the market's" decision.
In that case, would your only recourse be to hire a private investigator to identify the culprit, and then personally show up at their house to exact your revenge? That doesn’t seem sustainable.
We now a standoff between your private army and someone else's. Seems like an extraordinary inefficient way to achieve justice. (And, one that will likely end up being quite deadly for all parties involved.)