Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News8 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vernonk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In some ways yes, in some ways no. Basically, terrorist groups have become well-practised at exploiting it - just like they exploit everything else.
Most terrorism is carried out by radicalised young men. The Quilliam Foundation identifies four factors that causes people like this to engage in terrorist activities. This research is about the best we have available on modern terrorism - and the understanding of radicalisation that has come from it is used extensively to inform the government's Prevent policy against terrorism. In other words, it's about the best yardstick we currently have. In no particular order, the four factors are:
1) Adherence to an extremist religion or ideology that requires violence.
2) Exposure to people, groups or material who can effectively articulate that ideology and connect it to the person's life.
3) A crisis of identity. Sometimes a result of real or perceived racism, sometimes a result of family breakdown. Whatever it is, it's something that causes the person to think themselves as "apart" from their community.
4) A range of perceived grievances - whether real or imagined - which the person may convince themselves warrant violence as the only credible response.
If you take the research of QF seriously (and why wouldn't you?), then each person who ends up willing to carry out terrorist attacks will have to some extent or another each of these 4 factors. They won't be evenly important - for some people, point 1) will come before all else; for others, it'll be point 4). But each one is there to some extent or another.
How does political correctness affect any of these?
You could make a decent case that it affects 2) and 3).
In the case of 2), "recruiters" for radical organisations tend to be extremely canny and intelligent people - they are highly selective about the kinds of people they target, and they are studious about how to exploit the politics of Western liberalism to their own benefit. If you don't believe me, you only need glance at their literature. "The Management of Savagery" by Abu Bakr Naji is, among other things, effectively a manual for using Western sensitivities about race and minority groups to inflame tensions within society and make it look more racist than it is to their potential recruits.
3) is more indirect. You could make a case that PC mentalities on the part of civil servants has led to an extremely poorly-managed integration policy when it comes to recent immigrants (or in some cases, none whatsoever). I think this is more due to laziness and callousness on the part of the govt than PC per se, but there's probably both factors at play. Anyway, poor integration policies has in several parts of the country led to some communities of Muslims that are extremely disconnected from their surroundings - which is an ENORMOUS boon to factor 3) on the Quilliam Foundation's list. Of course, as I put earlier, that on its own is not enough to radicalise someone into potential terrorist activity - there need to be a few other factors present as well. But it doesn't help.
So yes, Political Correctness will be exploited by canny recruiters and has arguably had some negative policy consequences which have contributed to radicalisation - and radicalisation is the best predictor we have for terrorism.
Most terrorism is carried out by radicalised young men. The Quilliam Foundation identifies four factors that causes people like this to engage in terrorist activities. This research is about the best we have available on modern terrorism - and the understanding of radicalisation that has come from it is used extensively to inform the government's Prevent policy against terrorism. In other words, it's about the best yardstick we currently have. In no particular order, the four factors are:
1) Adherence to an extremist religion or ideology that requires violence.
2) Exposure to people, groups or material who can effectively articulate that ideology and connect it to the person's life.
3) A crisis of identity. Sometimes a result of real or perceived racism, sometimes a result of family breakdown. Whatever it is, it's something that causes the person to think themselves as "apart" from their community.
4) A range of perceived grievances - whether real or imagined - which the person may convince themselves warrant violence as the only credible response.
If you take the research of QF seriously (and why wouldn't you?), then each person who ends up willing to carry out terrorist attacks will have to some extent or another each of these 4 factors. They won't be evenly important - for some people, point 1) will come before all else; for others, it'll be point 4). But each one is there to some extent or another.
How does political correctness affect any of these?
You could make a decent case that it affects 2) and 3).
In the case of 2), "recruiters" for radical organisations tend to be extremely canny and intelligent people - they are highly selective about the kinds of people they target, and they are studious about how to exploit the politics of Western liberalism to their own benefit. If you don't believe me, you only need glance at their literature. "The Management of Savagery" by Abu Bakr Naji is, among other things, effectively a manual for using Western sensitivities about race and minority groups to inflame tensions within society and make it look more racist than it is to their potential recruits.
3) is more indirect. You could make a case that PC mentalities on the part of civil servants has led to an extremely poorly-managed integration policy when it comes to recent immigrants (or in some cases, none whatsoever). I think this is more due to laziness and callousness on the part of the govt than PC per se, but there's probably both factors at play. Anyway, poor integration policies has in several parts of the country led to some communities of Muslims that are extremely disconnected from their surroundings - which is an ENORMOUS boon to factor 3) on the Quilliam Foundation's list. Of course, as I put earlier, that on its own is not enough to radicalise someone into potential terrorist activity - there need to be a few other factors present as well. But it doesn't help.
So yes, Political Correctness will be exploited by canny recruiters and has arguably had some negative policy consequences which have contributed to radicalisation - and radicalisation is the best predictor we have for terrorism.
Jim/Mikey, you both seem strangely confused so let us add two words to the question.
“Is political correctness helping terrorism *to succeed*?”
Whilst people continue to skirt the issue, such as you two have done, my answer to that is ‘Yes’. Jim says // in the end, if people are determined to kill other people as often, and as horribly, as possible then they'll find the excuse for it no matter what we do or how we behave.//, and that is absolutely true – so why assuage them?
“Is political correctness helping terrorism *to succeed*?”
Whilst people continue to skirt the issue, such as you two have done, my answer to that is ‘Yes’. Jim says // in the end, if people are determined to kill other people as often, and as horribly, as possible then they'll find the excuse for it no matter what we do or how we behave.//, and that is absolutely true – so why assuage them?
I wasn't skirting the issue (at least, not deliberately). I was pointing out that the question seemed ill-defined to me. And in a sense I think you agree with that, since you've seen fit to add a couple of words.
Anyway, I still think the answer is "no, not really". Kromo's long answer is worth a read, although I think the key point is that "recruiters" would just exploit whatever they could. If Western society were unwelcoming, they'd use that as a rallying cry instead -- ergo, PC if it does "help" terrorism (to succeed, or just in general), then this isn't really a reflection on PC but on the ways in which people can twist it to suit their own ends.
I'm sure you disagree with me, but that's a difference of opinion rather than me skirting the question.
Anyway, I still think the answer is "no, not really". Kromo's long answer is worth a read, although I think the key point is that "recruiters" would just exploit whatever they could. If Western society were unwelcoming, they'd use that as a rallying cry instead -- ergo, PC if it does "help" terrorism (to succeed, or just in general), then this isn't really a reflection on PC but on the ways in which people can twist it to suit their own ends.
I'm sure you disagree with me, but that's a difference of opinion rather than me skirting the question.
Depending on your perspective Terrorism is war it's the forceful extention of a political aim.
Von Clausewitz said that "War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means."
Terrorists wage war to get what they want politically therefore any appeasement/political correctness whatever you want to call it it's all the same.
On the other hand saying watch where you are going to a blind person or stuff like that is simple bad manners!
Von Clausewitz said that "War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means."
Terrorists wage war to get what they want politically therefore any appeasement/political correctness whatever you want to call it it's all the same.
On the other hand saying watch where you are going to a blind person or stuff like that is simple bad manners!
-- answer removed --
I know this isn’t the question, but IMO its another way of looking at it.
If political correctness (and I am talking about the kind which might better be described as sensitivity and good manners) didn't exist, would there be less terrorism..or even would there be fewer successful terrorist acts?
Of course it would be a better question if the terms were defined.
If political correctness (and I am talking about the kind which might better be described as sensitivity and good manners) didn't exist, would there be less terrorism..or even would there be fewer successful terrorist acts?
Of course it would be a better question if the terms were defined.
Apologists are helping terrorism.
Take a look at a thread about a Muslim woman who may or may not have been attacked
Take a look a a thread were people most definitely died as a result of a terrorist act.
Then take a look at the posters on both threads (and their comments IF they bothered to comment)
Take a look at a thread about a Muslim woman who may or may not have been attacked
Take a look a a thread were people most definitely died as a result of a terrorist act.
Then take a look at the posters on both threads (and their comments IF they bothered to comment)
It's just a paradox to me that people think that terrorists would somehow thrive less in a not-so-tolerant society.
If PC is meant as in "the attempt to shut down any and all attempts to debate" then fine, it's not a healthy thing because it's because a fraudulent type of tolerance in which people still hate each other but don't admit to it. But I don't accept that this is what PC is -- and, in a nutshell, that is why the question is badly-framed.
You might say you understand it, Naomi. I don't doubt that you think you have. I disagree.
If PC is meant as in "the attempt to shut down any and all attempts to debate" then fine, it's not a healthy thing because it's because a fraudulent type of tolerance in which people still hate each other but don't admit to it. But I don't accept that this is what PC is -- and, in a nutshell, that is why the question is badly-framed.
You might say you understand it, Naomi. I don't doubt that you think you have. I disagree.
Latest Posts
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology41 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News53 mins ago
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News74 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.