What do you think about what is happening in the world?

[Mia]

This is a quotation from a Syrian born author,

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is NOT a clash of religions, and NOT a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs in the Middle Ages, and another mentality that belongs in the 21st century.It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on one hand, and the violation of these rights on the other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete." ~ Dr. Wafa Sultan, Syrian born Psychiatrist, author, and ex-Muslim.

Moderators, if this is too religious or political, please remove it. I like many people in the west, am both confused and saddened by the bombs and the execution style killings of people. Perhaps some one has thought about this, and can provide some solutions. What is your opinion on all that's transpired in last few years?

 

[clg114]

This is a quotation from a Syrian born author,

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is NOT a clash of religions, and NOT a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs in the Middle Ages, and another mentality that belongs in the 21st century.It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on one hand, and the violation of these rights on the other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete." ~ Dr. Wafa Sultan, Syrian born Psychiatrist, author, and ex-Muslim.

Moderators, if this is too religious or political, please remove it. I like many people in the west, am both confused and saddened by the bombs and the execution style killings of people. Perhaps some one has thought about this, and can provide some solutions. What is your opinion on all that's transpired in last few years?

I do not think that what we are seeing in the world today is a clash between Middle Ages mentality and 21st century mentality. These are ongoing, gradual changes that started before the Middle Ages and will continue for all time. I think that these changes are a natural progression in the way people think. However, the way that people think varies a lot depending what part of the world you are in. We, in the west, put a lot more value on life than in a lot of third world countries. In some places in the world life is cheap. People have no regard for another persons life and only a passing regard for their own life. Their agenda is a lot more important to them than life. This makes them and their part of the world very dangerous.

As far as what is going on in the US, I am not sure what is causing the mindset of the masses. Maybe it is less education, maybe it is because the way they are raised or maybe it is just lack of moral responsibility. It is very hard for me to understand why people are the way that they are because I just do not understand illogical behavior. I wish I had some solutions.

 

[wyverary]

Moderators, if this is too religious or political, please remove it.

I'm not inclined to, as this thread seems more philosophical in nature than political or religious; as long as it stays that way, I have no problem with it.

 

[Mia]

So much of this is about oil, power, land and radicalization. One of the things I keep in mind much of the time, is who is attacking who. They are about muslims attacking other muslims, the wars are among and against their own brothers and sisters of the same religion, it radicalizes them. Then there are the others in the EU and the Americas who become part of the jihadist's wars, whether by choice or capture.

 

[granolaturtle]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is not religious or political in nature? The quote itself was pretty darn inflammatory. :/

 

[Ste11aeres]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is not religious or political in nature? The quote itself was pretty darn inflammatory. :/

Sometimes it's a judgment call for us moderators about what to allow and what to forbid. So far, this thread seems okay, thought we'll keep an eye on it. It's not forbidden to talk about religion on AC (vicious attacks on religion or irreligiosity are completely prohibited, and religious debates are discouraged), and as for politics...while political discussions are
Every subject is political, in a way. Someone can start a thread about their sexual orientation. Guess what? With the whole debate about same sex relationships/marriage, in the USA, sexual orientation is a political matter. I talk a lot about dogs, especially my own dog who is an American Pitbull Terrier.
With breed specific legislation in many cities, (my dog would be automatically confiscated and forcibly euthanized in those cities), so talking about my dog is political.
Every subject is political, in a way. Because politics is kind of about everything.
So we moderators have to exercise judgement.
I think Wyverary's judgment is fine, in regards to this thread, but we moderators will keep a close eye on things here.

I heartily disagree with the implications of the quote about violence being something historical-or a remnant of the past-and morality, justice, compassion being something modern. The twentieth century was pretty modern, and that was a century of horrible genocides. And while that author might choose to apply the words "medieval" to atrocities that are going on now, the fact is, those things aren't happening in the Middle Ages, they are happening now, in the 21st century.

A weird mentality where you say: "21st century people are just and compassionate." and then someone says "but some people just now murdered other people". And then you say "that proves they weren't 21st century people". And the other person says: "given that it is the 21st century, and their act of murder happened last week in 2015, how can you say they're not 21st century people?" And you say: "Clearly their mentalities are not 21st century mentalities, because 21st century people are just and compassionate."
Anyone ever hear of the "No True Scotsman" argument?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

 

[Mia]

Thanks @Ste11areres for the True Scotsman suggestion. My perception of the writer's idea is that its not a clash between two civilizations, or a medieval era mentality, it's much more about an idealist search, one that traps certain types of disenfranchised people. Much like the process that a cult uses to recruit members.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Thanks @Ste11areres for the True Scotsman suggestion. My perception of the writer's idea is that its not a clash between two civilizations, or a medieval era mentality, it's much more about an idealist search, one that traps certain types of disenfranchised people. Much like the process that a cult uses to recruit members.

Yes, you're probably correct. Really, I knew that the correctness vs the incorrectness of the term "Middle Ages" doesn't detract from the real meaning of the points the author was trying to make.

It's just that that particular way of stating things is a pet peeve of mine.(Imagine if the collective peoples of the 21st centuries were like a guy called Bob, and the collective peoples of the Middle Ages are a guy called Jim. When Bob does something good, he says: "Look at how enlightened and good I am." When Bob does something bad, (including killing millions of innocent people) he says: "That was just like something Jim would do. That's not the type of person I am, that action was a Jim-type action." Take responsibility for your actions, Bob).

 

[Judge]

Poverty/Oppression --> Hopelessness--> Desperation--> Resentment--> Violence

IMO these aren't conditions confined to any one century- or any one people. However that it's most often the degree of violence that becomes a recognized benchmark for measuring social discontent rather than scrutinizing a degree of poverty.

Religion and ethnic strife? I just see them as symptoms...not root causes.

 

[Mia]

And yet other things have happened there:

Blindfolded Muslim man hugs mourners in Paris

https://ruptly.tv/vod/view/38134/france-blindfolded-muslim-man-hugs-mourners-in-paris

 

[Mia]

However that it's most often the degree of violence that becomes a recognized benchmark for measuring social discontent rather than scrutinizing a degree of poverty.

To a certain extent that is true Judge, yet there's more at work here in considering the type of violence and it's root cause. Gangs in major cities sometimes use execution style methods, as have the mafia and biker gangs among other more covert groups. The root cause seems to be a desire for power coupled with domination and an ability to manifest fear. Thus causing abject domination in it's aftermath by it's adherents, and terror of reprisal if members don't fulfill the dictates or mantra of the group. An atmosphere of fear that seems to have no solution.

 

[Judge]

The root cause seems to be a desire for power coupled with domination and an ability to manifest fear.

I see the perceived need for people to intimidate others as another symptom- not a root cause. It's still things like poverty and/or poor self esteem that often drive people with a need to join such groups- and intimidate others. To be a part of something because they feel inadequate as individuals where they might be something more as a group.

IMO intimidation even on a highly organized level is still psychologically tantamount to bullying. Not an inherent manifestation of power, but really a cry for help. Whether you're a member of a gang, a terrorist or even a head of state. When they intimidate others, they're really just projecting their own fears elsewhere enabled by their own delusions.

Jeremiah Johnson: "Why's he yelling at me?"
Del Queue: "Cuz he's scared of ya."

 

[Ste11aeres]

I see the perceived need for people to intimidate others as another symptom- not a root cause. It's still things like poverty and/or poor self image that drive people with a need to join such groups- and intimidate others. To be a part of something because they feel inadequate as individuals where they might be something more as a group.

IMO intimidation even on a highly organized level is still psychologically tantamount to bullying. Not an inherent manifestation of power, but really a cry for help. Whether you're a member of a gang, a terrorist or even a head of state. When they intimidate others, they're really just projecting their own fears elsewhere enabled by their own delusions.

Jeremiah Johnson: "Why's he yelling at me?"
Del Queue: "Cuz he's scared of ya."

Perhaps. Sometimes. I think there can be various reasons, and not all of them are from fear or poor self image. For some people, it is simply a matter of pride and testosterone.

 

[Judge]

Perhaps. Sometimes. I think there can be various reasons, and not all of them are from fear or poor self image. For some people, it is simply a matter of pride and testosterone.

Not all, but most. In inclined to believe those driven exclusively by pride and testosterone in society go "elsewhere". To more legitimate occupations and lifestyles whether morally or legally. Or not at all. I know I've met enough of them before in life. But they also didn't seem to show any obvious lack of self esteem either.

 

[Judge]

Many do as they get older, but not while they are young.

Depends on what they're doing. Occupations like law enforcement and the military don't take considerably "older" applicants. They do have their share of pride and testosterone driving them at the outset. However they also have a level of self-confidence going in which is likely enhanced with professional training throughout their career.

 

[Mia]

I see the perceived need for people to intimidate others as another symptom- not a root cause. It's still things like poverty and/or poor self esteem that often drive people with a need to join such groups- and intimidate others. To be a part of something because they feel inadequate as individuals where they might be something more as a group.

Yet many who join cults are not poor and their self-esteem is not low: These same kinds of tactics are used in many contries and instutions.

Three Principles of Re-Education

1) REPETITION - Going through the same subject over and over again until it is known by heart.

2) ACTIVITY PEDAGOGICS - The subjects are never left alone nor give any private time of their own, they are always in activity.

3) CRITICISM AND SELF-CRITICISM - The subjects are supposed to feel uncertain; under the constant threat of being humiliated and despised.

In the Korean War the "criticism and self-criticism" sessions held for the American prisoners of war by the Chinese clearly had deeper effects than the POWs could initially comprehend, and when they found out, it was too late. In the beginning many prisoners found this whole procedure just childish, and were inclined to take it merely as something of a joke, but without them being able to realize it, the situation of being subjected constantly to the criticism of one's comrades became humiliating.

That a grown-up person should publicly discuss one's habits or inclinations -- some of them of very private nature -- confess one's faults, receive strong criticism for insignificant misdemeanours, will not be indeed in the course of time anything to be considered childish or playful: it simply will be experienced as insulting. This continuing feeling of humiliation became crucial in the gradual psychological break-up of the prisoners' personalities. Furthermore, this ongoing process of "criticism and self-criticism" was bound to cause mistrust for one's own comrades: it was the tactics of "divide and conquer" as the ancient Romans would have called it. ("Criticism and self-criticism" were also widely applied during China's "Cultural Revolution" starting in 1966, as a method of "re-education".)

http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/brainwash/

"For the most part, normal, average people join cults--people like you and me. Research indicates that approximately two-thirds of cult members are psychologically healthy people that come from normal families. The remaining third are likely to have depressive symptoms, usually related to a personal loss--perhaps a death in the family, a failed romantic relationship, or career troubles. Only 5 to 6 percent of cult members demonstrate major psychological problems prior to joining a cult (Singer, 1995). Cults don't want, and don't recruit, people with psychological problems or physical handicaps--they represent a loss rather than a gain of cult-oriented productivity. Cults prefer intelligent, productive individuals who are able to contribute money and talent to "the cause," whatever it may be."

http://www.workingpsychology.com/cult.html

 

[Judge]

Yet many who join cults are not poor and their self-esteem is not low: These same kinds of tactics are used in many countries and institutions.

I wasn't discussing cults in general. In my perceived context of this thread my concerns lie primarily with an insurgency which operates on the scale of a totalitarian society. With their own infrastructure that physically occupies territory in Iraq and Syria. That's beyond what I'd call a "cult".

Exceptions to this can certainly exist, just not in overwhelming numbers. However social discontent on a broad scale is likelier to have economic origins first and foremost.

Historically a number of greater powers have entered the Middle East on several occasions and turned it upside down politically, militarily and economically. Leaving its inhabitants to pick up the pieces in whatever economic and political vacuum that remains.
A process that leaves those societies compared to ours with few people who realistically constitute a "middle class" with a comparable education. Something I believe to be more prevalent in this instance than a nebulous psychological interpretation of why people join cults.

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-defector-explains-why-people-continue-joining-group-2015-11

 

[Mia]

lie primarily with an insurgency which operates on the scale of a totalitarian society

Insurgency requires members, people willing to fight and die for a cause. My sense of the reasons why people become part of this in the first place, is related to cult-like recruitment practices, that cause such totalitarianism to exist.

Delving into the myriad purposes that people have for fighting for something they believe above all else and are willing to give their lives for. The idea of an afterlife or nirvana, valahalla or paradise seems to factor in for many belief systems.

 

[Judge]

Insurgency requires members, people willing to fight and die for a cause.

Read the article I posted. It's what happens when political and economic vacuums are created for whatever reason or circumstance.

 

[Mia]

Really that's my point Judge, again this climate of uncertainty is created by the occupying group, in the same way cults deny food and sleep and create a hostile environment. It becomes a with us or against us mentality, either you join or you leave. These kinds of machinations are created and not the same as a natural disaster. There is much psychological manipulation behind these kinds of insurgency, which are manufactured.