Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘nature’

Supplementary to yesterday’s rather dour post on the media implications of US foreign policy jostling: Reza Aslan’s How to Win a Cosmic War.

Globalization and especially the power of the Internet, Aslan explains, have enabled alienated Muslim youth in the Middle East and Europe to find a collective identity through religious symbols. Rather than go through the years of study necessary to join established religious institutions, jihadism is a kind of short cut. But having joined this movement, what makes some decide to join the ranks of mass murderers while others just cheer from the sidelines? Aslan doesn’t offer a convincing answer. –via Jamie Rubin

Yesterday I thought about raising the question of whether actual, suicidal violence isn’t the most extreme form of a turning inwards: an intolerance, growing into an inability, to listen to or even encounter alternative points of view. Put another way, take ‘extroverted’ haters, who troll ideologically-opposing discussion sites and who attempt, at some level at least, to engage with the ‘wrong-headed’. Even if only in terms of designing abuse to provoke a reaction. Are these, who encounter opposition at the ‘battle line’, less likely to commit acts of violence than people who get their ‘news’ strictly from the World’s End presses, the ideologue or the online pulpit, who burrow themselves into recursions of confirmation and vindication?

I think maybe. I think that debate, however broad you stretch the term, is always better than staying within a system which sees enemies as totally ‘other’, and which tries to construct all ‘others’ as uniformly ‘enemy’. I think that might be part of a wider definition of ‘asymmetric warfare’.

But who knows? Probably the middle-class 18-25 year olds in Wahabism’s key demo are well informed and sincerely disgusted by the depredations of the world around them. Certainly American Christian exretmism couldn’t be characterised as ignorant of the world, though one might argue they are either attuned or taught to see everything through certain specific blinders.

Put it in the terms of a con: is the clincher in the pitch, or is it in the mark himself?

[straying dangerously close to Darrow Defense territory here]

Maybe the difference is where ideological recruits aren’t taught to debate or challenge, since the evil is portrayed as being in blood so far stepped that argument becomes pointless.

HG Wells believed that education would sooner or later raise everyone to the same moral level. I’m not ready to rule that out just yet, at least for most of the people, most of the time. But I am certain that information is not education. The way you receive your information can force or encourage you to see it in a certain way, but the medium is not inherently good or bad. Much as I hate to admit it, growing up accustomed to free online information distribution isn’t the same as education; it’s a form of conditioning, one that’s likely to provoke resistance as well as enlightenment.

Back to the thesis again: the web isn’t an inherently radicalising medium, nor even an inherently polarising medium. It is, however, an effective fetishizing medium.

Enough of the moral stuff. Tomorrow: back to killer apps.

if you like something you shouldn’t put a wig on it

Read Full Post »