Yes, I spend a great deal of time thinking about that. In general, the best antidotes to extremism is getting a girlfriend (most extremists are male and heterosexual), having a kid (more so a daughter), settling down and ageing out. Socioeconomic conditions are a major driver of extremism, which is one reason it tends to flourish in adversity, when there is a large supply of pessimists available for recruitment.
There are of course many other approaches to deradicalization. Personal contact and bridge-building is ideal, but it's slow, expensive, and scales poorly for much the same reasons as why it's not practical to solve all social problems by telling everyone to go to therapy.
>planning how to eliminate those they dislike, and normalizing that behavior
This sounds like de-platforming to me.
When I say 'eliminating' people I specifically mean killing them, and no I don't think that's the same thing as de-platforming people.
What you are doing here is called "vilifying." Where you identify that someone is disagreeable to you and attribute everything they do to bad faith.
It is not. I haven't identified anyone in particular as being disagreeable or practicing entryism, but rather pointed out the existence of such a rhetorical tactic that can be used in bad faith. You seem to be confusing my suggestion that the person I was responding to is a victim of such a tactic with their being a user of it.
> Yes, I spend a great deal of time thinking about that. In general, the best antidotes to extremism is getting a girlfriend (most extremists are male and heterosexual), having a kid (more so a daughter), settling down and ageing out. Socioeconomic conditions are a major driver of extremism, which is one reason it tends to flourish in adversity, when there is a large supply of pessimists available for recruitment.
How are you defining extremism?
> When I say 'eliminating' people I specifically mean killing them, and no I don't think that's the same thing as de-platforming people.
This is a motte-and-bailey argument[1]. You're arguing on a topic about bigots talking on the internet. I'm not arguing that we should allow murder or calling for murder, and I'm not aware of anyone who is arguing that, so you're just presenting your opinion as "I'm against murder" which is not controversial. But in the larger argument you're supporting the deplatforming of a pretty large group of people, and very few of those people are actually calling for murder.
If you're anti-letting-people-call-for-murder, great, we're in agreement on that. But that has literally nothing to do with the overall discussion.
> It is not. I haven't identified anyone in particular as being disagreeable or practicing entryism, but rather pointed out the existence of such a rhetorical tactic that can be used in bad faith. You seem to be confusing my suggestion that the person I was responding to is a victim of such a tactic with their being a user of it.
Do you also study how to reform extremists? Or are you just studying how to identify and silence them?
>planning how to eliminate those they dislike, and normalizing that behavior
This sounds like de-platforming to me.
>That's a tactic known as 'entryism'
What you are doing here is called "vilifying." Where you identify that someone is disagreeable to you and attribute everything they do to bad faith.