[FoRK] Who's infiltrating whom?
aaron at bavariati.org
Thu Jul 14 12:13:48 PDT 2011
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:49:19AM -0700, Stephen Williams wrote:
> On 7/14/11 10:06 AM, Aaron Burt wrote:
> >As opposed to the other kinds of religious radicalism.
> All religious radicalism, and pretty much religion in general, is
> regressive, wasteful, and less effective / efficient / correct than
> a modern pan-rational technocratic humanism philosophy of life.
> However, some brands of religious radicalism are relatively
> harmless, only rendering their adherents, who tend not to accept
> outsiders let alone convert them voraciously, more or less inert.
> So, these can be ranked on an insidiousness scale.
Good distinction. The "leave us alone" types like Ultra-orthodox Jews,
Amish, Branch Davidians or the Taliban are pretty harmless when left alone
to shape their immediate enviroment to their needs.
> >That's a link to a video. Can you summarize what you're trying to
> >communicate by posting it? Video's a great propaganda medium, but not that
> >good at cogent and rational argument that bears discussion.
Sorry if I came off as a bit snotty there...
> Just observing that some apparently rational people are extremely
> worried about some extremely irrational people and what they want to
> accomplish. And that they believe that it has happened successfully to
> some extent.
Hm. That's kinda vague. I couldn't watch the video.
> Which provided a target for me to push against by wondering if "our"
> successfully modern culture would help cause this sickness to burn out or
I think it will, slowly. They have rules. We have TVs and nekkid chicks.
> >The comments to the video seem to indicate that it's the usual sort of
> >"raghead peril" thing, but I hope I'm dead wrong.
> You hope that it is not a "raghead peril" message? That title
> indicates that the speaker thinks that the fear is non-existent or
> at least overblown.
There has been a lot of that sort of thing for the past few centuries.
It makes for good politics and sells newspapers. Call me skeptical.
> >>The prison conversion thing is irritating. I'd contribute to
> >>teaching positive self-improvement / humanism, which is what is
> >>really missing for a lot of criminals.
Also missing: A gang that has your back, a cultural identity that feels
powerful, a bright day tomorrow, something that demands (and rewards)
discipline and work, and something that scares the guards.
> >There's a lot more that missing, and most of it is much harder to deliver
> >than (and also prerequisite to) a course in Enlightenment Values 101.
> Of course, but you have to start somewhere and leaving it to certain
> groups is a mistake. What would be your ranking of important
> concepts to inculcate. What would your reeducation look like?
* Some basic health care, endocrine/nutritional assessment
* Treat any obvious psychiatric problems (e.g. bipolar, schizophrenia)
* Drug treatment
* Sociopathy/BPD testing (no idea if there are effective treatments)
* PTSD assessment/treatment
* Some sort of Asperger's/whatever assessment
* Impulse control
* Basic behaviour (basically, a synthetic set of manners)
* A graduated set of accomplishments to build self-worth and group identity
* Socialization and societal identification (based on group identity)
* Enlightenment 101
* Societal skills
* Work skills (where are the jobs, though?)
So, not that much different from yours. Mine sounds patronizing, though :)
It's all quite similar to previous generations' ideas of how "reform" style
criminology should work. We do have some new (and more precise)
terminology, along with fMRI scans and neurchemistry, but I don't know if
our knowledge and tech is at the critical mass to go start fixing brains.
(Or how much we should do so.)
More information about the FoRK