Like their handpicked example of a user discussing "'destroý' Islam". Note, they added the quotes around destroy. But the actual content is reasonably thoughtful discussion of appointed supreme court judges and only claims "to end radical islam".
Of course the side effect of that belief is that people spend a lot of time trying to prove they're underdogs, e.g. look at kids on Tumblr listing all the ways they're oppressed because they have self diagnosed ADHD/aspergers, or trying really hard to claim ancestry of an oppressed group.
Let's see where you end up.
Over the last few decades India has seen significant violence against Muslims[2] so to label this sort of agitation as a "different political ideology" is, to put it mildly, bizarre.
Given the rifts that social media has managed to cause in multi-racial/ethnic/religious societies with any form of harmony going out of the window as extremism spreads uncontrolled through networks this kind of lack of response is a disaster. If you want a functioning multiracial society you should look towards Singapore rather than transplanting the typical Western discourse about 'silencing' on foreign countries.
And as to the example, if I were to suggest we "destroy Christianity" in the US by means of using the supreme court you would be unconcerned as long as I qualify that we're only going to eradicate "radical Christianity"?
[1]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/24/india-hindu-event-...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_In...
I drew the line at bad behaviour, which usually came in response to unpopular opinions. In other words, I left conservative comments and deleted angry personal attacks in response to them.
Some people did not get it. We had a biweekly "where are the mods" rant. They accused mods of siding with "the Nazis". By that they meant anyone who said anything a conservative person might agree with. Guilt by association.
This is how I learned the term concern trolling, which I understand as someone listening to your arguments in order to debate them. In other words, a debate. Some people were not having it.
We get hiveminds because that's what people ask for.
https://nitter.net/IamRageSparkle/status/1280892535024619522
https://teddit.net/r/TalesFromYourServer/comments/hsiisw/kic...
Especially amongst India. Their population is huge, you would need a much larger reach to influence culture.
Insofar as Indians are using Reddit, they aren't in /r/india.
Its toxic and full of hate speach against Christians and Buddhists.
Primarily? No, not even close.
Additionally, anything that engages an individual’s emotions is likely to be attractive at that stage of life, thanks to teenagers on average having emotional centers that are overdeveloped relative to the rest of their brains.
A lot of this extends into a person’s early 20s as well, depending on how quickly they mature, their life experiences, etc. Personally speaking, in retrospect I didn’t have my head screwed on even remotely right until at least age 26 or so.
Normally, it would be a minority who were in the position of the extent of time we're spending online, in discussions. More people in the space, more opportunity for pervasive negative messages, and racist/extremist messages to do their insidious work.
Why to they find it engaging and persuasive? because its recruiting, and so they get responses which are positive feedback. And, it provides an "unimpeachable" blame for the problem state young minds find themselves in: its those other people. Not you: you're one of us.
You may be in groups (or hold opinions) that others out there consider extremist, but to you feel very natural in the circles you associate with.
When you get to the bottom of these things you find different axiomatic beliefs. Some of these axiomatic beliefs are not based in truth but that is not relevant to the people who hold them.
There’s also a kind of tidal motion insofar as some beliefs move from the fringes to the mainstream (e.g. lgbt rights) and other beliefs move from the mainstream to the fringes. There’s always going to be some people who disagree with that motion, indeed many elderly people hold “extreme” beliefs (overt racism, etc) they are just not politically active usually.
MLMs. My experience is that MLMs victimized people with high levels of trust and connection.
It often stars with a relative or church member. Or a workmate. The sort of people that are hard to say no to.
They use high pressure sales tactics, combine with exploiting social capital.
Diploma mill. People who don’t have experience with post secondary education, and high trust for authority.
I’m not aware of any network affects. It’s not like your sister in law is pressuring you to get a Ph. D from Baleful University.
I have seen legitimate schools marketed this way: “if you don’t get your kids into Yuppyville Elementary, they wont have a chance at Harvard.”
I’ve seen cults … too many.
Most mainstream religious organizations have people at the margins. People who are mentally ill. Have drug issues. Etc.
It’s hard to incorporate them into the mainstream of church life. But most churches feel they are obligated to reach out to people like that.
Para-church organizations are becoming more popular. Like knights of Columbus (they’re old). If someone wants to start up a para church org, there’s not much anyone can do to stop them. They piggy back on mainstream denominations.
Combining people with issues with unmanaged para-church orgs can be toxic, and lead to cults quickly.
I know most people on HN probably have a negative view of religion, and don’t make much of a distinction between “good religion” and “bad cult.”
But a good example is anti-vaccination ideas. Almost no major religious body rejects COVID vaccines. It’s the para church orgs doing that.
It’s the same environment that creates predatory groups like “I the leader, and like Abraham must have multiple wives … and I chose all of you as my wives.”
Charlemange (supposedly) had people killed for eating meat on holy days. We would be outraged by even a 5 dollar fine.
Openly seeing gay/transgender people would be considered extreme by normal society just 30 years ago.
The above is obviously not at all my own opinion just trying to explain the rational. It used to be that you could "make a difference" at a local level. But local "sense of community" has been replaced by online communities.
I have a close friend who briefly flirted with (actual) extreme right wing beliefs, and has, thankfully, settled on a less warlike disposition. The question he asked, and which was never given a straight answer, was (in paraphrase), “why are others allowed to say, and even wish and will evil things upon my identity, but I am forbidden from even mild criticism of other identities, under pain of real material loss?” It is a real question, describing a real phenomenon, and since no one “respectable” could give him a straight answer, or even acknowledge the legitimacy of the question, he turned to people who did, even as they answered wrongly.
I think we often mistake the symptom for the disease.
People will latch on to whatever 'tribe' they feel they belong to and create a scapegoat for whatever they think is the problem. Think communists vs. capitalists, ethnic group A vs ethnic group B, religion A vs religion B, vaxxed vs anti, etc...
Revolutions happen after an economic shock, not when things are going well.
Young people tend to be edgy in general and they lack the experience to recognize the slippery slope potential from edginess towards dystopia. Most of the time, the edginess stays on the Internet, though, and only a tiny percentage overflows to the streets. The human civilization is trending away from the "active rioter" towards the "keyboard warrior" mode of operation. Riots used to be much worse, even in the 1980s, than they are now. Possibly the Internet acts as a surrogate channel for all that hate?
What inequality does is, IMHO, help recruit older and more experienced people to a radical movement that would otherwise fizzle out without massive support. The Yellow Vests in France were a good example. Once the lower middle class lost the ability to support their lifestyle, they lashed out in a way more destructive way that random students could.
And it's just as much a problem of visibility and perception as it is one of reality.
[Copying an HN comment]
Part 1 - https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/1.html - Tek Fog: An App With BJP Footprints for Cyber Troops to Automate Hate, Manipulate Trends
Part 2 - https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/2.html - Tek Fog: Morphing URLs to Make Real News Fake, 'Hijacking' WhatsApp to Drive BJP Propaganda -
Part 3 - https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/3.html - Tek Fog in Action: Targeting Women Journalists, Pushing Communal Narrative on COVID, Delhi Violence -
Discussion with the journalists - https://old.reddit.com/r/india/comments/s4jfw7/hey_reddit_in... - Hey, Reddit India. We are the team behind the Tek Fog investigation, which uncovered the BJP-affiliated app for social media manipulation. ASK US ANYTHING
The journalists on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI7NLMLOMLw
I'm not very familiar with it, but I understand a big component is "Hindu nationalism," which seeks to turn India into an exclusively Hindu nation. That's resulted resulted in attacks and official harassment against minority Muslims and Christians.
A couple weeks ago the NY Times had an article on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/world/asia/india-christia...
India can never go back to vedic days, simply because there is no incentive for all Hindus. All Hindus are not the same in Hinduism. Vedic book advocates only a particular caste should have monopoly over education and only another to the right of having weapons, etc. This worked well prior to british colonilzation because people were not educated and could not see the big picture. That changed after the british rule and every one was given education which woke enough people to see the bigger picture of caste system.
The right wing advocates know that just with Hinduism they can not unite. They need another religion to hate and unite over that hate. This is where ISLAM comes in. Indian Muslims like the rest of the world can not take a joke on koran or Allah. This is very convenient for the right wing to spread hate and unite people over it. In contrast there is lot of atheist movement especially in South India where they can trash talk Hindu gods and their scriptures on public media at least for now. South India is more progressive and educated compared to North states.
The risk of creating a hive mind seemed greater than the risk of being overrun by Nazis, since they got downvoted to oblivion anyway.
I'm sure there are, but that likely-true fact doesn't shed any light on anything. For instance, Trumpers say similar things, simply because they're hostile to anything that portrays Trump in a negative light. They attack the media in order to hide the truth.
Given how attacks against relatively unbiased media are now part of the standard propaganda playbook, I don't put much stock in them unless they're very convincing. "People say" doesn't pass that threshold.
It seems to be of much debate. Rahul Gandhi made some controversial comments about Hindutva and BJP last year, I believe.
Considering the French protests were started by leftists literally complaining about inequality, and that inequality was much higher then than today, I think my explanation holds up.
The best evidence for causality would be to demonstrate some kind of "dose and response effect", which isn't easy. The dreaded word "culture" tends to creep in, because some countries seem to have a lot more riot-y history than others. (France vs. UK vs. Spain).
HN is more tech focused, so I get its not what folks are here to discuss (generally).