Feel free to publish this or re-use it. im just a anon
I found personally the issue of shooters and how its put into the public perception interesting, mainly, I have been heavily interested into radicalism and trying to understand how it pushes people into these extremes, one that popped out for me was the fact it's a web, not a direct pipeline as a certain YouTuber said.
I'll add my own discussion to the video I watched, mainly the fact how do these people argue on these solutions and prevent themselves from holding themselves on the actual question.
- not understanding vital ideas of theory to support their position realistically, mainly on the question of the state, how to cohesively order it, how to organize in their country, and the contradictions addressed by the thinkers of their ideology.
I'll give an example, libertarian ideology and anarchy, people can run into a wall for these issues and the question is because it doesn't match the ones groups IRL are going to challenge.
Do people challenge the state all the time? Yes.
how much will they challenge the state to actually get the things you fully agree about? Not as much, nobody wants to dissolve liberal facilities neither will they want to organize and educate if it means risking an absolute certainty to job and raising their community, this amount of risk isn't thought through by radicals.
Anarchy and its principles has had it's time to respond beyond the historical examples to match up ideologically with statist ideas, however the society that maintains such a society in a neo-liberal world order means existing within a state.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.