Re:Algorithms and computers won’t stop terrorism
by dragonwriter on Tuesday February 24, 2015 @01:34PM
(#9102559)
> nor do they live under "brutal dictatorships," as far as authoritarian governments go.
You are essentially saying that, among brutal dictatorships, they aren't particularly brutal dictatorships. Which may be true, but not all that significant.
> In terms of per-capita income, it hangs around countries like Peru or Ukraine.
Which are also substantial sources of terrorists, though largely internal rather than international.
> When I lived in Bangladesh, it was devastatingly poor, but terrorism wasn't an issue. In 25 years, per capita GDP has quadrupled, and now it's only poor, but terrorism has become a much more significant problem.
Which actually fits perfectly well with the point I made in the post you are responding to, that one would expect that violent solutions to problems for which the political system is not perceived to provide adequate avenues for solutions would, like political engagement on issues where the system is perceived to provide adequate avenues for solutions, be expected to increase as people reach levels where they are able to spend more effort dealing with things outside of immediate survival concerns.
> > I'd go so far as to say it's ethnocentric for Westerners to chalk terrorism up to poverty/lack of education.
And I'd go so far as to say its a strawman for you to take the suggestion that terrorism was a "social and economic issue" and instead argue against the idea that it is an issue of "poverty/lack of education", and similarly to take a suggestion about terrorism and respond to it with comparisons related to international terrorism.
Its like you've got an argument you are so keen to argue against that you can't be bothered to pay attention to what anyone else in the discussion is actually saying, you just keep repeating a canned counterargument whether or not the argument it counters is even being presented.
You are essentially saying that, among brutal dictatorships, they aren't particularly brutal dictatorships. Which may be true, but not all that significant.
> In terms of per-capita income, it hangs around countries like Peru or Ukraine.
Which are also substantial sources of terrorists, though largely internal rather than international.
> When I lived in Bangladesh, it was devastatingly poor, but terrorism wasn't an issue. In 25 years, per capita GDP has quadrupled, and now it's only poor, but terrorism has become a much more significant problem.
Which actually fits perfectly well with the point I made in the post you are responding to, that one would expect that violent solutions to problems for which the political system is not perceived to provide adequate avenues for solutions would, like political engagement on issues where the system is perceived to provide adequate avenues for solutions, be expected to increase as people reach levels where they are able to spend more effort dealing with things outside of immediate survival concerns.
> > I'd go so far as to say it's ethnocentric for Westerners to chalk terrorism up to poverty/lack of education.
And I'd go so far as to say its a strawman for you to take the suggestion that terrorism was a "social and economic issue" and instead argue against the idea that it is an issue of "poverty/lack of education", and similarly to take a suggestion about terrorism and respond to it with comparisons related to international terrorism.
Its like you've got an argument you are so keen to argue against that you can't be bothered to pay attention to what anyone else in the discussion is actually saying, you just keep repeating a canned counterargument whether or not the argument it counters is even being presented.