#Radicalization

[charmingradiobelle]

I think this TikTok ban is going to be the thing to radicalize me bc wdym the US’s top priority for the last five years has been banning a foreign social media app that doesn’t steal any more of your data than Meta, but not gun control or women’s rights to their bodies or the economy crisis or global warming or homelessness or world hunger or literally any fucking thing that actually matters?

[yossibutnossi]

Okay so when people say "don't radicalize children to hate Israel" and the response you give is "how can they not be radicalized when Israel is killing their parents?" you are actually contributing worse than nothing, you are contributing the very thing that perpetuates the cyclical nature of the conflict. If you don't radicalize children, then they will be open to education and perspective and see Israelis as people—and yes maybe they will still hate Israel, but they will also hate Hamas, who pushed the war as well. You thinking it is okay to be radicalized under specific circumstances is how suicide bombings and child soldiers and hostages happen: I say this to Israelis who were radicalized as well by the war, and I have criticized Israelis (including those close to me) for also thinking indiscriminate violence is okay.

[the-catboy-minyan]

it's "don't let yourself be radicalized" until you tell them to not support terrorist organisation or wish death onto people they see as evil.

if you think death threats are good when the person "deserves it", you're radicalized.

if you think supporting an organisation that have committed multiple crimes and is known for being terrorists, you're radicalized.

if you dehumanize the other side and believe they're evil/bloodthirsty/animals/brainwashed, you're radicalized.

if you think blind violence against regular people and small businesses is good when it's for the "right" cause, you're radicalized.

if you think children and minors are monsters for being born into a world that taught them to support the opposite side, you're radicalized.

even the most vile person on the planet is still human, if a movement tells you some people are less human because of their race, religion, gender, sexuality, or political beliefs:

YOU ARE BEING RADICALIZED.

[elumish]

On Radicalization

I'm seeing a lot of people now talking about radicalization (for obvious reasons) and I want to put my two cents into it.

I'm not a radicalization expert by any means, but I have my MA in terrorism studies, and I'm currently pursuing a PhD in security studies, so radicalization is a thing that I have talked/thought about a fair amount.

I think one of the most important things to understand when you think about radicalization is that "radical" and "extremist" are both relative. Generally, when we're talking about radicalization, we're talking about a sharp political shift to a position outside of what we would consider the norm. What's radical in a liberal city in the United States in 2024 is vastly different from both what would have been radical in that city 150 years earlier and what is radical in some other countries right now.

For much of the last 2+ decades (or at least ~2001-2019), most of what was talked about with radicalization was in the context of islamist terrorism/violent extremism. People around the world were trying to figure out why people (especially in Western countries) were joining al Qaeda or ISIS or why people in Afghanistan were joining the Taliban, etc. What was it that drove one person to do that and another person not to--and, what was it that drove one person with those ideological beliefs to commit violence and one person not to.

Right now, in the US, what a lot of people are talking about is why people (namely young white men) are shifting dramatically to the right, particularly socially, and ending up in the political far right. In particular, why are they now advocating for (or at least voting for people who advocate for) taking away rights that are ~50 years old, as well as being more openly white/Christian supremacist than was socially acceptable 25 years ago, and why are some of them committing far right violence?

I think some of the reality that we have to face is that people have been advocating against abortion (and to a lesser degree birth control) access for those entire 50 years, and people have been white/Christian supremacists this entire time, and we just had a brief period of time when it was a little less okay to say out loud. But anyone old enough to remember the Obama campaigns remembers that the opposition to them was virulently racist and Christian supremacist.

But radicalization is happening, so let's talk about some of the ways that it happens in general. None of these are universally true, and what might radicalize one person might not radicalize another.

Social isolation. Social isolation is an extremely common factor in radicalization. Communities generally do two things: they act as a moderating force, and they give people ties that discourage violence. When studying islamist radicalization, from what I remember, conversion was a factor in likelihood of radicalization--not because there is something inherently radicalizing in the act of converting to a religion, but because converts often found resources online or with communities that specifically targeted new people, ones that were less ideologically moderate.

People who convert are also I think in some cases the people who are more likely to be ideologically driven anyway, because it is more work to convert and so you would only do so if you have a stronger ideological belief in it. You see this with some Catholic converts (e.g., Vance)--they are often more conservative and don't necessarily reflect mainstream Catholic teachings because they didn't grow up in a Catholic community as much as intentionally looking for the things that would make them The Most CatholicTM (ironically and hilariously one of those seems to be disagreeing with the Pope, which is approximately the least Catholic thing you can do).

if you have a community, you're generally also less likely to try to hurt people in that community because they're people you care about. Not a universal truth, obviously, but in aggregate. Being in a community also means that there are people who can tell you that what you're saying is extreme and walk you back from it. If you're isolated, nobody will tell you that.

But overall being isolated makes you more likely to feel like nobody likes or cares about you, which can make you angry and disaffected and looking for someone to blame, and it also makes you far more vulnerable to people who are looking to recruit. If you think everyone hates you and then someone tells you that everyone does hate you except for them, you're probably going to listen to them.

Relative depravation. Relative depravation is the idea that the radicalizing factor isn't having nothing, it's having something and seeing people who have more so you feel like you have nothing. I remember this came up when people were studying who in Afghanistan joined the Taliban, and it was often people who were more middle class rather than people living in poverty. The people living in poverty didn't have time to be radicalized because they needed to put food on the table, but the middle class people could see how good other people had it and how bad they had it and it made them mad. (I am vastly oversimplifying a study I remember from 10 years ago--it's a lot more complicated than this.)

But in the US, we're seeing this with men (who have, on an objective basis, lost political power in the US), and with white people (who have, on that same objective basis, lost political power in the US), and with people from geographic regions that used to have much stronger economies and better opportunities but don't anymore (e.g., coal areas, manufacturing areas). They can look at other people (e.g., women, POC) and say "I lost power and you gained power because I lost power, that's not fair and it's hurting me" or "it used to be better but now it's bad, that's not fair and it's hurting me" and then they get mad about it. And some subset of people who get mad about it decide to hurt people over it, or at the very least they vote to try to get it to not be like that anymore. They want to go back, because to them, back was better.

Radicalized education. One of the reasons why white women are so valuable to the white supremacist movement is not just that they can have white children, but that they can teach those white children. Some of this starts at home, or in the schools, or in the churches. And it's not necessarily radicalization if it starts that way (because people aren't moving politically so much as just being), but there are tens of thousands if not millions of children right now who are learning misogynist, queerphobic, and white supremacist ideas in all forms of their education. Those children who learn the benevolent slaveholder narrative or the states rights idea or that Jews killed Jesus or whatever grow up to be adults, and some of them vote, and some of them vote Republican because the ideas Republicans are spouting are the ideas that they were taught.

Suffering under real or perceived oppression. One of the goals of terrorism, in some cases, is to spark an overblown government reaction, which will then radicalize the populace into rising up against them. This is because, sometimes, for some people, that works--some people suffering under oppression or what they perceive is oppression will become increasingly anti-government (or anti-whoever is oppressing them) and that will sometimes turn violent.

The thing to remember here is that oppression is also in the eye of the beholder, to some degree. By the standards of some right-wing Evangelicals, for example, they are oppressed by the secular federal government, which keeps them from practicing their religion in the way that they see fit.

Justice by any means. This isn't exactly a way that people are radicalized, but one thing I see in people I would consider radicalized on basically all ideological fronts is this idea that justice (or winning) should come by any means. You see this in people who burn abortion clinics or kill abortion providers to "save babies" and people who kill cops as a solution to police brutality and people who stone gay people to death. The idea that your ends justify your means is, to me, a core to true radicalism.

The reality is this: if there was one way to stop radicalization, countries would have done it decades ago. Sometimes it's about drawing people into a community, and sometimes it's about getting them out of the community that is radicalizing them. Sometimes it's about being kind or compassionate to a single human being, and sometimes it's about showing them that they are operating against their own self-interest.

And sometimes it's just about damage control and about keeping someone who is already radicalized and looking to do violence from doing violence.

[silvermoon424]

It's genuinely fucking crazy how much GamerGate and its consequences have ruined internet/fandom culture and people's ability to enjoy things without falling for culture war bullshit (if you didn't know, there's a very good argument to be made that GG paved the way for all of the reactionary, far-right culture war bullshit that's everywhere online these days).

Like all you have to do is look at how characters like Casca, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, etc were treated back in the day. Casca is widely regarded as a strong, capable, well-written character (at least during the Golden Age arc; Berserk fans have rightfully complained about how badly she was sidelined in the aftermath of the Eclipse). I'm sure there were always bigots who hated that Casca is a woman of color and a powerful soldier, but I don't think there was Discourse or anything.

If Berserk came out after 2016, I guarantee there would be hundreds of slop outrage videos and Reddit threads about how Casca's character is "forced diversity" and "woke." People would be outraged that, not only is Casca a non-white character in a medieval European setting, she's also a strong female warrior who inspires loyalty in her (male) troops.

Strong female (or queer, or non-white, etc) characters from an older era like Casca have been grandfathered in as "ACTUAL good representation" by chuds, but you will never be able to convince me that they wouldn't get waves of hate and backlash by culture warmongers if they were created today.

[nando161mando]

[archive-pl]

No matter how you feel about Elon's hand gesture, the fact that Netanyahu and the ADL came so quickly to his defence is pretty telling of whose hands are in whose pockets

[creature-wizard]

Hey folks, if you're trying to figure out how to talk to friends and family members who have slid into dangerous ideology, you can check out my #deradicalization tag. (And here's a link for the old style of Tumblr blog, so you can share it with people who aren't on Tumblr if you need to!)

[benjaminallhope-fulltimemind]

This is the intended goal and even if it isn't the Trump administration views it as a happy positive, Donald Trump loves the uneducated because he and the other people around him use tactics and moves similar to other authoritarian regimes. They'll try to destroy and distort history to fit their narrative and ideals of a white Christian society. Remember reading and learning history is a luxury in a totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

[doc-killjoy]

Am i the only one who thinks what Luigi did was fucked up? Like i totally stand for his message, but since when was causing other people harm good? The ceo he shot wasnt in charge of denying or accepting claims, doesnt even fully own the company since its a public company, and has two infant children. Luigi wasn’t even insured with Unitedhealthcare and shot him from behind like a coward. Since when was that cool?? And just because he has a catchphrase and he’s ‘attractive’ (hes not, he looks like a monkey) everyone is rooting for him. Since when did murder ever make way for good change??

[the-catboy-minyan]

if you can't acknowledge any wrongdoings your political side had done and have to claim them to be lies to keep supporting it, you're radicalized.

idk that's the post take from that what you will

[when-the-rest-of-heaven-was-blue]

What Radicalized you? Being a Theater Kid.

Newsies told us that we can come together and make a change, even if it takes a while.

Hadestown taught us that love can do a lot, but love put in the wrong places hurts people.

Wicked told us that we have to accept ourselves and stand up for what we believe is right.

Theater has always been about telling stories and making stories accessible to people. It's time to listen and take to the streets once and for all.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Colin Wright

Published: Dec 23, 2024

A new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has revealed an alarming surge in anti-civil activity online following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The NCRI study, titled “Killing with Applause: Emergent Permission Structures for Murder in the Digital Age,” highlights the profound societal implications of this event, showcasing the disturbing normalization of violence against corporate figures and the role of social media in amplifying such narratives.

While the specifics of Thompson’s murder are shocking, the NCRI warns that the broader cultural shift it appears to be facilitating may be even more worrisome. The data reveals an evolving “permission structure” online—a system in which social media platforms amplify narratives, and susceptible individuals provide justification—resulting in the normalization of violence on a scale previously confined to small extremist communities.

The murder, which occurred outside a Manhattan hotel during an investors’ conference, has sparked a wave of online glorification, memes, and merchandise celebrating the shooter, Luigi Mangione. The NCRI’s findings expose an unsettling trend: mainstream social media platforms are becoming breeding grounds for rhetoric that not only justifies violence but also facilitates its transition from the digital realm to the real world.

Public Opinion Reflects Shifting Norms

The NCRI’s research reveals a major societal shift, highlighting how public opinion has veered dangerously toward accepting violence as a legitimate response to perceived systemic injustices. Nearly half of Americans surveyed (44 percent) believe that Thompson’s murder was at least somewhat justified, reflecting a growing openness to violent means of addressing grievances. This finding is particularly alarming as it indicates that support for such extreme measures is no longer confined to isolated groups but is increasingly mainstream.

The data shows that social media plays a critical role in shaping these attitudes. Among heavy social media users—those who spend more than 5.4 hours per day on these platforms—the justification rate surges to 64 percent, starkly contrasting with just 23 percent among low-use individuals (0-1.3 hours per day).

Even more concerning is the generational divide: a staggering 78.8 percent of respondents aged 18-27 expressed at least partial justification for the murder, signaling a profound shift among younger demographics toward endorsing “targeted violence.”

The younger generation’s overwhelming approval for violent actions suggests a troubling cultural normalization of aggression as a tool for addressing grievances.

Platforms of Concern: Bluesky and Beyond

One of the most striking revelations in the NCRI study is the role of mainstream platforms like Bluesky in fostering permissive attitudes toward violence. Bluesky, widely lauded by political progressives as a kinder and friendlier alternative to X/Twitter, now exhibits the highest justification rates for the UHC CEO’s murder (78 percent), surpassing even extremist platforms like Gab and 4chan.

Bluesky’s user base skews younger and more tech-savvy, demographics that the NCRI study identifies as particularly susceptible to violent rhetoric. The combination of algorithmic amplification of extreme views and a vulnerable audience creates an environment ripe for the proliferation of violent narratives. This grim reality was recently illustrated when Bluesky users called for the murder of journalist Jesse Singal, en masse, due to his fact-based reporting on pediatric “gender medicine.” Users even posted what they believed to be his address and photos of his apartment door online.

Across social media platforms, including X, Reddit, and TikTok, there has been an alarming increase in content justifying violence. Viral hashtags like #EatTheRich and “Free Luigi” dominate many online discussions, and moderation efforts often lag behind the pace of content creation and dissemination, allowing violent rhetoric to flourish.

From Memes to Real-World Impacts

The transition of violent rhetoric from online spaces to real-world actions is perhaps one of the most troubling revelations of the NCRI study. Viral memes, fancam edits, and merchandise such as “Free Luigi” t-shirts have commodified his image. Events like the “UHC Shooter Lookalike Contest,” held in Washington Square Park, reveals how online rhetoric is influencing real-world behaviors. Participants, many of whom were dressed to mimic Mangione, gathered to celebrate and parody the assassination, demonstrating an alarming erosion of societal norms.

On social media, fancam edits and viral videos glorify Mangione’s actions, framing him as an anti-establishment icon. According to the report:

These videos frequently feature romantic or hyperbolic captions, highlight niche cultural affinities, or focus on his physical appearance, further amplifying his image and fueling narratives that glamorize his actions. This glorification fuels permission structures that could inspire others to perceive violence as a legitimate form of activism.

The hashtag #EatTheRich has surged by over 500 percent week-over-week, accompanying calls for violence against corporate figures and circulating “CEO Wanted” posters and executive “hit lists.” These posters, which feature “mocked-up mugshots of healthcare executives,” promote vigilante justice and represent “a deliberate attempt to provoke fear and destabilize corporate leadership.”

According to the NCRI report, “The murder of Brian Thompson appears to have catalyzed a dangerous feedback loop, where glorification, humor, conspiracy, and targeted harassment create an environment ripe for further violence.”

This blending of online rhetoric and offline action reflects what the NCRI describes as an “emergent permission structure,” which they describe as “a framework that justifies previously unacceptable beliefs or actions, with a clear division of labor: Social media platforms provide the amplification, while psychologically susceptible individuals provide the justification…” Taken in concert, these elements form a system that normalizes and even glamorizes acts of violence.

The Lionization of Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione’s transformation from an obscure figure to a symbol of anti-establishment resistance has been meteoric. Within days of his arrest, his social media following exploded from 5,000 to over 400,000. The slogan “Free Luigi” was posted 47,000 times in 48 hours, generating nearly 800,000 engagements across X and Reddit.

The commodification of Mangione’s image extends beyond social media. T-shirts, mugs, and other merchandise featuring his likeness are being sold on e-commerce platforms, trivializing his actions while profiting from the controversy. New cryptocurrency “memecoins” such as $LUIGI have also emerged, turning a deadly act into a speculative financial opportunity.

Psychological Drivers

The NCRI study identifies three key predictors of support for the murder: authoritarian tendencies, heavy social media use, and diminished personal agency. These factors interact in a synergistic way, with social media amplifying authoritarian predispositions and fostering the normalization of violence.

The combination of authoritarianism, an external locus of control, and social media’s amplifying effects appears to be a perfect storm for radicalization. These factors interact in a way that makes violence seem rational and even heroic to those who might otherwise feel marginalized or voiceless.

The interaction between these psychological drivers is particularly pronounced among younger demographics, who are both heavy social media users and more likely to experience anxiety or disillusionment with traditional systems. The NCRI study reveals that among users aged 18-27, those with high authoritarian tendencies and heavy social media use were the most likely to justify violence.

A Call to Action

The NCRI study concludes with a warning:

As digital platforms become arenas for ideological conflict, the consequences extend beyond individual incidents of violence to threaten broader public safety and societal cohesion. This transformation underscores the urgent need for strategies that address the root causes of digital radicalization and mitigate its impacts.

The challenges we face require a comprehensive and collaborative response. No single entity can address the complexities of digital radicalization alone. Policymakers, educators, platforms, and community leaders must work in unison to restore the moral boundaries against violent extremism.

The study concludes:

The spread and scope of justification for murder have significantly eroded what was once the monopoly of fringe communities in supporting violence and glorifying shooters online. This shift underscores the urgency of initiatives aimed at reinforcing the bonds of civic trust and restoring civility. Such efforts are essential not only in countering the tide of extremism but also in fostering a resilient society where dialogue and mutual respect prevail.

==

EDIT: Wow, this managed to attract the murderous psychopaths. I hope you'll be just as understanding when someone kills someone you care about and justifies it in the name of nebulous "systemic" somethingisms.

If there was ever any doubt about Colin's premise, it has been proven by the insanity of those cheering it on in the reblogs.

The death penalty is unfair, unjust, and evil, unless you walk up to a rich guy you don’t like on the sidewalk and shoot him in the back. The only form of the death penalty that’s okay is the form that doesn’t include a judge, jury, or court, and where the executed person has not been charged with, convicted, or even accused of any specific crime.

You don't get to call it "justice" when it's not just bypasses but is in direct violation of the law.

"Arbitrarily killing people I don't like is good akshully," is not the moral high-ground you think it is.

How many times do you think you would have been shot dead if it became acceptable for someone to simply arbitrarily execute you because they don't like you, what you do for a living, what you do with your free time, what you eat, what you stand for, or any other random disapproval?

🤔

[creature-wizard]

A short lecture that sums the pseudoscience to far right pipeline, and what people can do to make sure people avoid falling into it.

[cacodaemonia]

Every time I look up the Wikipedia page for a white dude whose art/music/movies/whatever I enjoyed in the 90s and 2000s, I brace myself for the 'personal life' section near the end where there's like a 65% chance it will tell me that he's become a flat-earther who was deeply entrenched in pizza gate and QAnon and now sells supplements that he claims contain caesium-133 which offers protection from 5G mind control or something