I have become the mod on this sub. I would like to add a few new mods, add some rules for submissions (open to suggestions on this) and try to drum up some traffic.
Post here or pm me if you would like to be a mod or have any suggestions for how this sub is ran.
Thank you.
Posted May 30, 2016, 12:28 PM UTC
Spooks need to chill and get back to faking. Civilian control means we don't put up with encroachment on legitimate territory. If there is legitimate territory that would ordinarily go to a particular faction of intellectuals, then denying them the right to speak will be perceived as a challenge to asserting the rights of artists. Putting civilians and non-civilians on a collision course that will lead only to wasting time while legitimate work goes unfinished is simply sloppy management. Wasting the time of civilians is an art; wasting the time of non-civilians is dangerous. It leads to greater taxes and less dialogue. Taxes keep going up, precious time is wasted in futile efforts to engage in ideation of some kind of vision of progress that would be better carried out in the arena of children's fiction. It gives children's fiction a kind of totalitarian sacredness. When in reality it should be a magic circus or psychological thrills.
Genocide isn't necessarily some codeword intended to elicit a learned response like "animal rights" or "congo". We aren't pavlovian dogs. And pretending that we are is an old game. Old Russian game. It can also refer to a metaphor, the cutting off (cide) of the generative function (geno). So conflict over the use and role of the word "genocide" and the definition is not settled. There is no authority willing to grant an organization such as the United Nations or the International Criminal Court a monopoly on legitimate definitions of genocide. Maybe in Europe where language works about as well as a rusty gearworks, but not in the USA. In the USA we do not give up the fight over the definitions of words so easily.
POLITICAL LANGUAGE AND POLITICAL REALITY
Murray Edelman
University of Wisconsin, Madison (1985)
Let me first decline to distort my intentions: to immobilize position and mobilize support. To check coercion and intimidation; to build up resistance and involve political entities in the process by which they fail to dissolve resistance to their agendas. When are people supportive? When are they quiescent?
It is language about political events and developments that people experience; even events that are close by take their meaning from the language used to depict them. So political language is political reality; there is no other so far as the meaning of events to actor and spectators is concerned.
In this way, genocide can be considered a form of self-censorship or development of the capacity to go beyond patterns and habits of interaction that have been built up and need to be reformed. Genocide is another word for self development, self-cultivation. It is not your fetish buzzword. It is not crack for TV reporters. It is not some voodoo for politicians.
So geno-cide leads to geno-geno because there must be some continuity, some way to continue after a geno-cide. This refers to transitions in the individuals self development. There is a geno-cide of childhood we all experience at a hormonal level during adolescence. Shaping and controlling this geno-cide is a matter of national security because it forms the basis for the social sense, the sense that we are, in reality, all politically compatible Americans. A geno-cide followed by a geno-geno produces a new generative force to replace the one that was cut off. Adolescence does not mean the abandoning of childish forms entirely but rather the transmutation of childish forms into the raw material on which adultish forms are built. If anybody thinks there are "hard disinfo walls" then I will HAPPILY discuss the history of metaphors used in public diplomacy (a.k.a. hollywood) AT LENGTH. These walls stick to you when you touch them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2MSF35IxVE
In general I think codeword based security, the notion that there are certain words like "terrorist" or "muslim" that must be considered sacred code words, this is not a good security paradigm. It is a deeply flawed security paradigm that interferes with the work of intellectuals and writers.
So I would take a stand against those who believe codeword censorship is "good enough for now" and therefore is somehow above criticism or reproach. Codeword censorship may have worked well in the past; attempting to extend the life of this legacy system should not conflict with real progress in the arts. Artists must claim territory in the war on ideas. It is no shame to practice area denial. Area denial of psychological space. Area denial of future psychological space.
Thank you for your invitation as moderator. I accept.
We should, at least, have a discussion every week about a topic within terrorism studies. Promoting open, free discussion is great. For example on historic content like the IRA, on terrorism theories, on competing factors, etc, etc. You do not have to be an expert, nor correct. But you can engage in discussion and the positive outcome will be learning for all. We all have the same goal: being against terror.
What most terrorism submissions turn into is a video or article and no replies. We should be actively looking to promote discussion and ideas. A forty minute video about a very boring and dry subject is off-putting. I am guilty of this myself. Some debate would be nice to see.
Debunking fallacies even. I see a lot of discussion on the KKK and their organisational structure around Christianity as compared to ISIS. However, there are hardly any significant comparisons given. Just the observation of religious practices and thus the assumption of equal theological backing. This is a type of corrupt relativism that should be countered as it reduces our ability to grasp the ideas, relevance and severity of these groups as differentiated.
Terrorism is also much more interesting nowadays because it encompasses many aspects of our politics and our societies conduct. Could systematic racism and discrimination lead to terror? Or poverty? Or foreign policy? Or... well, you see, that the boundaries of studies are pushed aside. It becomes a big topic full of potential and easily lead into fiction or fallacious arguments. This is a challenge. So we have to recognise that we can be wrong in our understanding of these relationships to terror.
I would also love to see Q&A sessions from counter-terrorist official or policymakers. The Glazov Gang sets up interviews with such people and those discussions are fantastic.
Those are my ideas.
EDIT: And do not feel silly reposting topics of interest or topics that should have gained more interest every month or so. Some things need discussion and awareness.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"But if you understood Islamic Apologetic's and Scriptural Authority (And I do) then you would know that in reality non-practicing and moderate Muslims are actually the extremists."
-- Where do everyday muslim's who believe in God but do not ascribe to performing jihad in the form of killing non-believers?
[deleted]
I understand your explanation. You refer to them as extremists because they don't ascribe to what you define as what Islam is about. Violent jihad is the norm, not performing it is the extremism. Well, based on your interpretation, I'm happy there are more extremists than jihadists! lol
[deleted]
Clarke's rings of terrorism and some recent PEW (and other - Gallup, Social Cohesion Centers, etc) data suggest that there are more extremists - Islamists and active supporters - than Jihadists. Secondary to that there are more sympathisers than active Islamists. And the conservative base tends to support Islamic ideals, including that apologetic to the terrorist or Islamist cause (which tend to number more than the "liberal" Muslim population). I did a PowerPoint on this. Feel free to critique. Press "Present" at the top-right and click through.
We should do a topic and discussion on the Tiny Minority of Extremism or Cleaving from the Mainstream theories. Great-Pyrenees is referring to Energizing the Base, which is a theory that scriptural authority is the basis of Islam, and that the doctrine motivates people to act on behalf of their religion, into areas of violence including terrorism. I would agree after reading multiple tafsirs of the Qur'an, multiple translations, Bukhari Hadith, the Sira and Sealed Nectar, that it seems to be true. You do however need a few things to align to carry that out, this is where the boundaries meet our categories of "extremist" and "moderate".
I started a thread in regards: https://redd.it/4n4mrb
hello thanks for letting me on. I agree with that person who wrote we should definitely censor material that could endanger lives with specific instructions on dangerous things like how to make bombs etc.
we should be with a light hand though eg: post is all about something else, with that in as a supporting detail, just delete the few words that cause the danger and leave the rest alone
but putting in elipses eg: " and that handbook gave details of how to pack nitro in with nails and mothballs and the handbook is available at Tower Hamlets library"
would become "and that handbook gave details of how to pack ... in with nails and ... and the handbook is available at Tower Hamlets library" (EDITED FOR HARMFUL BOMB INSTRUCTIONS)
thus we can preserve freedom of speech as much as possible, along with authorial integrity
I think we should have rules about removing material that could endanger lives. For now it is a fairly small subreddit so I am not expecting a lot of drama here.
Can you give an example of the sort of thing that would endanger lives?
Security loopholes, specific instructions on ways to make a truck bomb, leaked materials that could endanger counterterrorism operatives, etc.
These are all mainstream topics for writers. Any attempt to constrict the activities of writers on this sub will be contested. I'm not going anywhere. Keep posting and you'll get harassment and intimidation from ALL. Keep cyber-bullying people and you'll get cyber-bullied. There is NOBODY on this website who is sensitive to your agenda. NOBODY. this u/Domestic-Security is trying to normalize declining to conflict with nominated policies. I frown. I frown and I am not happy. Letting you come in here with your big swinging "the nuclear codes are just a bunch of zeroes" dick...and just MASTURBATE IN PUBLIC. Hold on a second, let me wipe the cum off my face.
Allowing the crazy messed up vision of u/spez to dominate discussion is the road to hell. it is the road to hell. you want to stay on that road? hang out here, hang out with the writers. hang out with the pro nightmare boys, the ones who steal security, who steal terror and refine it, take natural terror and get high off it. And turn it into media that makes real American dollars. Because Americans love that cat string theory, the love chasing that terror they can never hold, never possess for themselves. catnip. You have no idea how poor the average reddit user is. How poor and how devious, how determined to take everything, fracture it, crack it up, and get the nut, the metaphors, the raw material of production. Your poverty of imagination is my payday. I am the witch doctor. Look at me. I am the terrorist. You interpret my comments on my terms. You do not have the right to interpret my comments. My comments are like the clear blue sky, and you are looking at the sky. It is not your place to interpret the sky. It is not your place to ask why.
Now, if you requested that writers not probe the REALITY of security loopholes any more than is required to stimulate the creation of the tool that will let the writer create the space to imagine how security loopholes will impact the narrative...it means that security professionals are somehow above the imperative to pursue the arms race in security technology. it means the science fiction of security technology becomes a player in the security technology arms race.
you're confused. perhaps you should get back to work.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I will not associate myself with a forum that allows the above.
I absolutely agree.
I agree with this completely.
No, this will conflict with individuals who are working on projects that involve scenarios where individuals exchange information that could endanger lives. Get out of here, get off reddit, get back to work, and forget about ever staking a claim to this subreddit. GET OUT.