power
uh-oh, the game in trouble
love when people make excuses for terrorists instead of calling them out for what they are
despite facing many deeper injustices there are never right wing terrorism issues with black or latinx communities
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]
- Thread starter vonFiedler
- Start date
- Status
despite facing many deeper injustices there are never right wing terrorism issues with black or latinx communities
let me guess, they never join cults or gangs either, I suggest actually reading the thread before replying to me, idk just a thought
why would I care enough to go through my books for citations when I'm called CIA (or using "their characterisations") in bad faith for simply saying it, or have suggestions being made that I'm lying about my own experiences? I bloody well know people in militias too, and they're disproportionately business owners and retired cops which just makes the argument harder for me to take seriously.
power
uh-oh, the game in trouble
equating right wing terrorism to simple cults or gangs shows a horrific lack of understanding on the subject. I suggest actually reading up on established academic literature on the topic before replying to me, idk just a thought
feel free to post some here, i am not 'equating' them I'm pointing out that they emerge from the same base socio-economic conditions. this thread is devolved into rhetorical and semantic trolling at this point tho so not sure why i would continue to discuss these things w obvious bad faith posters.
power
uh-oh, the game in trouble
Not a bad suggestion; not exactly what Myzo should probably read but a reasonable starting point. It seems like they just have a really strong prior that socioeconomic conditions cause right wing terrorism (which definitely doesn't hold up under any reasonable interpretation of the data, but whatever).
I'm not really sure how people develop such strong priors anyway, the world is pretty adverse and you should fade on external information.
Another good point to reference is this classic Krueger article; even in some of the most poverty-stricken regions of the world, the anti-correlation between socioeconomic status and right wing terrorism still holds (and fwiw continues to hold today).
I haven't personally looked at recent post 2018 data since I haven't touched this in a few years, but I would be surprised (and find it highly unlikely) if a result that held for 50 years was overturned by a mere 2 years of data.
https://newrepublic.com/article/91841/does-poverty-cause-terrorism
if you really want, i can dig up academic papers, but youd have to wait a few days, im a bit busy atm but would be happy to help if you're interested.
It doesn't deal with terrorism specifically but it's important in contextualising specialised paramilitary operations such as that organised by the Michigan militias as a phenomenon that is almost exclusively relegated to higher class homicides. Murder conspiracies are the territory of criminal enterprise and paramilitaries, and are the most complex form of premeditated murder.
https://stockton.edu/diplomacylab/documents/ve-worlddev.pdf
I invite you to read the conclusion which perfectly explains how economic inequality is the grounds for the growth in terrorist ideology: it enables a rich class to brainwash the proletariat by stepping into areas such as education and social welfare that the state has left behind, religious schools and organizations are common tools to do so. In power's study from 1978 the authors write the question must be settled by cross country analysis, which is the substance of the study I have linked.
as ive said repeatedly the emergence of extremist groups involves a confluence of rich ppl with an ideology and poor people to indoctrinate, i.e inequality.
I invite you to read the conclusion which perfectly explains how economic inequality is the grounds for the growth in terrorist ideology: it enables a rich class to brainwash the proletariat by stepping into areas such as education and social welfare that the state has left behind, religious schools and organizations are common tools to do so. In power's study from 1978 the authors write the question must be settled by cross country analysis, which is the substance of the study I have linked.
In this analysis we find mixed support for the idea that socioeconomic circumstances in themselves might push individual’s towards supporting violent extremism. The level of education, unemployment status and food affordability on their own do not have significant impacts on the support for VE. This is not dissimilar to the results found in previous studies. Fair and Shepherd (2006) also find no significant impact of socio-economic variables like food affordability on support for VE. Krueger and Maleckova (2002) in fact find that those who support VE and more specifically those who are directly involved in extremist acts do not necessarily come from the lower socio-economic backgrounds and are often from the ranks of the well-to-do. Krueger and Laitin (2008) also find that at the macro level there is no link between GDP and the generation of violent actors. These authors therefore argue that violence is not rooted in economic factors but in political repression and frustration. Indeed, we also find that those who indicate that the economic situation in the country is good or very good are more likely to indicate support for VE compared to those indicate that the situation is very bad once again suggesting that VE is rooted in non-economic, possibly political factors.
However, in this study we also explore the impact of the individual socio-economic status relative to the overall country level economic performance. Interacting individual level information with the overall country level economic performance, we are able to compare individuals with low economic status in relatively higher growth countries versus individuals with low economic status in lower economic growth countries. When we include this macro level interaction we do consistently see that those who are unemployed are more likely to report support for VE. More specifically, it is the interaction of being unemployed with higher growth rates that shows increased likelihood of support for VE. This indicates that inequality rather than just the socio-economic status might be the key to understanding the economic underpinnings of VE. This is not an uncommon finding. Previous macro level studies have shown that inequality measures like the ginicoefficient (Blomberg & Hess, 2008; Enders & Hoover, 2012) have a significant impact on incidence of terrorism in cross-country studies even when GDP itself does not have a consistently significant impact. Here for the first time we are able to show support for this inequality hypothesis at the micro level using a large crosscountry dataset from 2007 to 14. Inequality in terms of being left out of employment opportunities at times of overall economic growth seems to make people more susceptible to supporting VE. We also see that those with lower levels of education tend to have a higher likelihood of supporting VE in higher growth countries. However, this result is qualified by the higher non-response rate among those with higher levels of education. Nonetheless these findings represent a crucial way to reconcile the differing and sometimes inconclusive findings in the previous literature. While some country specific studies find evidence linking socioeconomic status to VE, others have found no such link in different groups of countries. The latter groups of studies have tended to strongly reject the economic basis of VE and suggest that the support for VE is rooted primarily in political oppression. Our findings suggest that political oppression might be reflected in relative deprivations of certain groups. So while overall economic circumstances of the country or an individual might not necessarily motivate VE, a sense of being marginalized socio-economically in comparison to more dominant or privileged groups might be the key to understanding support for VE.
From a policy perspective this also points to the insufficiency of focusing primarily on economic or income growth as one of the strategies to counter VE. Growth in income without a corresponding reduction in inequality might in fact be counter productive. Moreover, relative deprivation can be more multidimensional in nature such as the lack of productive employment or educational opportunities and not merely related to lack of income. This multidimensionality of relative deprivation and its links to VE can be explored further in future research. In this analysis we are limited by the small number of socio-economic status variables available in the dataset. Additionally, though this study represents a wider range of countries than some previous studies, we were still limited to primarily middle to lower income countries. Given the findings relating to relative deprivation it would also be useful for future research to focus on available data in higher income countries to test the impact of marginalization on support for VE.
However, in this study we also explore the impact of the individual socio-economic status relative to the overall country level economic performance. Interacting individual level information with the overall country level economic performance, we are able to compare individuals with low economic status in relatively higher growth countries versus individuals with low economic status in lower economic growth countries. When we include this macro level interaction we do consistently see that those who are unemployed are more likely to report support for VE. More specifically, it is the interaction of being unemployed with higher growth rates that shows increased likelihood of support for VE. This indicates that inequality rather than just the socio-economic status might be the key to understanding the economic underpinnings of VE. This is not an uncommon finding. Previous macro level studies have shown that inequality measures like the ginicoefficient (Blomberg & Hess, 2008; Enders & Hoover, 2012) have a significant impact on incidence of terrorism in cross-country studies even when GDP itself does not have a consistently significant impact. Here for the first time we are able to show support for this inequality hypothesis at the micro level using a large crosscountry dataset from 2007 to 14. Inequality in terms of being left out of employment opportunities at times of overall economic growth seems to make people more susceptible to supporting VE. We also see that those with lower levels of education tend to have a higher likelihood of supporting VE in higher growth countries. However, this result is qualified by the higher non-response rate among those with higher levels of education. Nonetheless these findings represent a crucial way to reconcile the differing and sometimes inconclusive findings in the previous literature. While some country specific studies find evidence linking socioeconomic status to VE, others have found no such link in different groups of countries. The latter groups of studies have tended to strongly reject the economic basis of VE and suggest that the support for VE is rooted primarily in political oppression. Our findings suggest that political oppression might be reflected in relative deprivations of certain groups. So while overall economic circumstances of the country or an individual might not necessarily motivate VE, a sense of being marginalized socio-economically in comparison to more dominant or privileged groups might be the key to understanding support for VE.
From a policy perspective this also points to the insufficiency of focusing primarily on economic or income growth as one of the strategies to counter VE. Growth in income without a corresponding reduction in inequality might in fact be counter productive. Moreover, relative deprivation can be more multidimensional in nature such as the lack of productive employment or educational opportunities and not merely related to lack of income. This multidimensionality of relative deprivation and its links to VE can be explored further in future research. In this analysis we are limited by the small number of socio-economic status variables available in the dataset. Additionally, though this study represents a wider range of countries than some previous studies, we were still limited to primarily middle to lower income countries. Given the findings relating to relative deprivation it would also be useful for future research to focus on available data in higher income countries to test the impact of marginalization on support for VE.
as ive said repeatedly the emergence of extremist groups involves a confluence of rich ppl with an ideology and poor people to indoctrinate, i.e inequality.
I keep trying to write this post but I can't get past the first word... I'm fucking dumbstruck...
P sure Myzo is trying to explain the conditions that lead to terrorism and not excusing it.
yeah what a mischaracterization of everything myzo is trying to say. nobody is lauding these terrorists as heroes or something, and we're not "making excuses" by perhaps citing the reasons why they have been driven to such action. i suppose all scholarship into affairs into islamic extremist terrorist movements is also null and void because that too is engaging in apologia. you're so caught up in "good vs bad" guys that you forget those idealist distinctions are rooted in the material world. nobody is claiming poverty is the only cause of terrorism, just a heavy contributor to radicalization.
quoting my prediction from August and updating with my very-nearly-final predix:
Unchanged, except for swapping Iowa to Biden and Ohio to Trump.
I originally thought having a senate race would help Trump hold onto states, such as Iowa, while states without senate races, such as Ohio, would be more strictly focused as a referendum on Trump, which I assumed would make such states harder to win. The thesis was weak partisans might not turnout for just Trump alone, but maybe they would if they also had a senator they felt they could support to vote for and then they'd plug their nose and vote Trump once already voting. This would give him a slight bump, and in states that are often close like Iowa and Ohio, these small factors can change the outcome.
At this point however, the Senate is seen by independents/weak partisans as the primary roadblock to passing coronavirus relief, as well as the fact that a majority of voters believe they should not have rushed to confirm a supreme court justice, and as such these states with senate races are actually likely to see increased turnout among people who may not have otherwise voted (we're already seeing strong evidence that this is likely to be the highest turnout election in decades), as well as increased likelihood of swing voters actually swinging to Ds in order to get shit done. In certain states the local politics around controlling covid in their own state in the absence of federal action has also created some state specific factors we might not have otherwise seen in a regular election year. And again, for states that were already likely to be close, this can make all the difference.
For Iowa, essentially, because Gov. Reynolds and Sen. Ernst are unpopular (especially as pertains to covid), and Ds are running pretty credible candidates in all the house districts as well as for senate, I think statewide politics here are actually buoying Biden v Trump in Iowa more so than he is buoying the downballot candidates, and I think this will be juuuust enough to put it into Biden's column by under 2 points, despite the fact that the state voted for Trump by 9.5 points in 2016. It's tight, but I do think Biden's national and state polling support that he is slightly favored here. I do think this will be the state with the narrowest margin, though, so not at all confident in predicting Iowa either way. When looking to see if this thesis might have been correct after the fact - see if Greenfield-Ernst comes out with a more favorable margin for Ds than Biden-Trump does. I expect that will be so.
Compared to Iowa, there's no such luck for Biden in Ohio, where he has to make up nearly as large of a deficit from 2016 (8 points). However, here Gov. DeWine remains popular and is seen as managing COVID-19 well and there is no senator to take vengeance on this year. Ohio's polling has been very strange recently, but at the end of the day I am inclined to believe Trump likely wins the state by 3-5 points, since Ohio has frankly been trending redder for a number of years now. Notably - if this is the case and Ohio goes for Trump while the country goes for Biden, then it will be the first time since 1960 and only the third time since 1896 that Ohio does not vote for the winner. But that becomes increasingly likely as Ohio becomes less purple.
Due to these same kinds of factors around statewide politics, I am also tempted to put GA and/or TX under Biden's column, more so than I was in August. I no longer think a narrow loss is Biden's ceiling in either state - I do now think he has a very credible chance to win both/either, but I do still think the most likely outcome is a narrow loss, and so I am keeping them as predix under Trump's column. I am however continuing to track early voting in TX and GA, which has been impressive, and may be persuaded to change my predix for them in these last few days. For all other states, I feel pretty locked in.
This is my best guess as of today. I think PA will break for Trump because of semantics around the vote counting, and I’m not terribly confident that FL GA or TX will flip, even if they will be pretty close.
God I would not wish this perspective on anyone haha. You must be stressed af.
After 2016 I’m keeping my expectations low. Rather be presently surprised with 300+ EC votes for Biden. Still looks within MOE in a lot of places.
I think Pennsylvania will go Biden, there's still a horrid amount of Trump support in my area of rural Pennsylvania, but I have actually seen some Biden signs, compared to 2016 when Hillary signs were nowhere to be found. I think Biden probably flipped just enough voters in my area to make the difference
My full prediction, for posterities' sake:
My full prediction, for posterities' sake:
Was stressed in April. Now more like "resigned." Think if some extremely positive things were not going on in my personal life in March/April, would have been in a very dark place. Now I've just kind of accepted that the world's just going to the dark times and there's not really much to do about it.
the further north you go wherever you are in the world, the better it will be over all, thats my theory.
I live in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Can confirm.
Fun fact: Martin Aspen is an anagram for "Partisan Men"
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/securi...dwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/securi...dwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387
Optimistic prediction
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
my map is just all 50 states electing arnold schwarzenegger via write in
I mainly just read these threads, and last time I predicted something it was that biden would get trounced in the primary, so take this with a heaping of salt, but here's my prediction. I'm leaning toward a biden win, but I definitely don't think it is as clear cut as people make it out be. main states too look out for IMO is pennsylvania, michigan, and virginia. I know little about virginia, so I'm tentatively going with the polls. pennsylvania I'm saying leans trump imo, equal parts mail in ballot interference, as well as the difference of voter enthusiasm between the candidates. For my home state, michigan, I'm leaning biden but it is more of a toss up IMO. polls comfortably say biden but I live in a generally swing county in a generally swing state, and I've see tons of pro-trump sentiment with stuff like signs and the multitudes of pickup trucks with two trump flags flying on either side, and my town goes democrat most of the time. Granted, Ik biden supporters are generally less loud with their support, but I'm unsure that the number biden supporters that do show up wont outmatch the enthusiastic turnout of the trump voters.
- Status