Reply to: 49 dead in terrorist attack in New Zealand

[NotAllThere]

All you need to do is check one of Tommy Robinson vids on YouTube. Plenty of terrorist Nazi supporters that love the DM. Plenty of people in the uk support his abhorrent views and it was the terrorist from NZ that listened to Tommy and acted out on his words. Plus repugnant comments on what happened on that day from these same people with these execrable views

How frightfully dreadful for you!

Ah, the richness of the English language.

[Zigenare]

All you need to do is check one of Tommy Robinson vids on YouTube. Plenty of terrorist Nazi supporters that love the DM. Plenty of people in the uk support his horrid views and it was the terrorist from NZ that listened to Tommy and acted out on his words. Plus horrid comments on what happened on that day from these same people with these horrid views

How frightfully horrid for you!

[TwoWolves]

All you need to do is check one of Tommy Robinson vids on YouTube. Plenty of terrorist Nazi supporters that love the DM. Plenty of people in the uk support his horrid views and it was the terrorist from NZ that listened to Tommy and acted out on his words. Plus horrid comments on what happened on that day from these same people with these horrid views

Small detail which you missed - he was from Australia. I'm not a fan but you are an idiot too by the sound of it.

[cosmic]

That presupposes that the person already holds strong views about something.

Radicalisation is more insidious than that. At it’s worst, it takes a “blank canvas” and slowly indoctrinates views that the person might not otherwise hold, until eventually they believe that those are their views. At that point the indoctrination becomes more and more extreme, until the person feels that they are under attack and have to act.

There’s a difference between holding strong views on something, having a genuine grievance about something, and radicalisation.

All you need to do is check one of Tommy Robinson vids on YouTube. Plenty of terrorist Nazi supporters that love the DM. Plenty of people in the uk support his horrid views and it was the terrorist from NZ that listened to Tommy and acted out on his words. Plus horrid comments on what happened on that day from these same people with these horrid views

[GJABS]

That presupposes that the person already holds strong views about something.

Radicalisation is more insidious than that. At it’s worst, it takes a “blank canvas” and slowly indoctrinates views that the person might not otherwise hold, until eventually they believe that those are their views. At that point the indoctrination becomes more and more extreme, until the person feels that they are under attack and have to act.

There’s a difference between holding strong views on something, having a genuine grievance about something, and radicalisation.

That's true. But it doesn't explain motivation (or the lack of it). In order to get someone to commit a terrorist act, they have to be highly motivated, and for motivation you generally need a lot of emotion such as fear, greed, or anger, or a history of those emotions. These can't be manufactured, they can only be harnessed if already present for some reason.

[meridian]

"radicalisation" does not create terrorists, it merely redirects the anger that is already present in the person towards the aims. i.e. if they hadn't been radicalised they would likely have got up to some other mischief.
On the whole I feel that if people have greivences about things it is better to let them get those out of their system rather than bottle them up.

That presupposes that the person already holds strong views about something.

Radicalisation is more insidious than that. At it’s worst, it takes a “blank canvas” and slowly indoctrinates views that the person might not otherwise hold, until eventually they believe that those are their views. At that point the indoctrination becomes more and more extreme, until the person feels that they are under attack and have to act.

There’s a difference between holding strong views on something, having a genuine grievance about something, and radicalisation.

[GJABS]

On the other hand, if you don't give them a way of disseminating their views, you lower the chance of those on the margins becoming radicalised.

"radicalisation" does not create terrorists, it merely redirects the anger that is already present in the person towards the aims. i.e. if they hadn't been radicalised they would likely have got up to some other mischief.
On the whole I feel that if people have greivences about things it is better to let them get those out of their system rather than bottle them up.

[siphr]

Consistent down voting of comments expressing sympathy or concern for those involved. Not just one or two, but hundreds.

I do not know what sort of a contractor you are but if you are in the IT sector, you should know that there is a market of fake votes, reviews, friends etc. on the internet. Not to say that these definitely are fake (how would I know) but can be - sure.

[Old Greg]

I find saying that a "good proportion" of DM readership have white supremist sympathies based on downvotes that can "tricked" is disgusting. That was why I mentioned about downvoting being easy to trick.

That fact you question my decency because I refused to judge a "good proportion" of DM readership as white supremacist sympathiser based on downvotes that are easily tricked is very sad Nat. Very sad.

I agree. The DM is arguably a place where a large number of people with white supremacist sympathies hang out, but they are small in number compared to the mainstream gammon and celebrity gossip readership. Having said that, the Mail might be wise to look at how it moderates or disables voting features on articles about actual people being actually murdered.

[TheGreenBastard]

Do you have any evidence of this?

Onus is on the one who made the assertion; I'll provide one for my own assertion when the time's right.

[Old Greg]

Do you have any evidence of this?

Every experiment with that approach quickly ended in societal collapse.

Do you have any evidence of this?

[woohoo]

So can upvotes. So what? Unless you've got some solid evidence for this happening, this part of your comment deserves derision and opprobrium.

On balance, I think you need to really consider carefully what it is you are wanting to say. I find it a bit odd that I have to say this to you, because I thought overall you were a reasonably decent person.

I find saying that a "good proportion" of DM readership have white supremist sympathies based on downvotes that can "tricked" is disgusting. That was why I mentioned about downvoting being easy to trick.

That fact you question my decency because I refused to judge a "good proportion" of DM readership as white supremacist sympathiser based on downvotes that are easily tricked is very sad Nat. Very sad.

[TheGreenBastard]

On the other hand, if you don't give them a way of disseminating their views, you lower the chance of those on the margins becoming radicalised.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Every experiment with that approach quickly ended in societal collapse.

[NotAllThere]

So there are a small number of downvotes, not large.

Not true. I looked at the first hundred or so. I estimate that the downvotes are around 40% to 60%, on posts expressing sympathy, or even liking New Zealand. The Mail Online has a wide readership among tulipheads in the US and other parts of the world, so it really isn't surprising.

The DM, while saying the views of the commentators don't necessarily reflect the views of the DM, nonetheless are given a platform to some pretty despicable individuals - all in the name of acquiring traffic so they can sell adverts.

Downvotes can be duplicated.

So can upvotes. So what? Unless you've got some solid evidence for this happening, this part of your comment deserves derision and opprobrium.

On balance, I think you need to really consider carefully what it is you are wanting to say. I find it a bit odd that I have to say this to you, because I thought overall you were a reasonably decent person.

[DaveB]

Not really, it's pretty easy to down vote as many times as you want, just clear your cookies out. Plus again, assuming it was 50 sickos downvoting it's still a tiny minority compared with the readership figures. So I don't think it represents a "good proportion" of the DM readership.

If that was the case then the number of down votes wold be fairly consistent across all the posts made, but they are not. The older the post, the more up votes it has and the more down votes. The first post on there for example has 4505 up votes and 1606 down votes. So unless your hypothetical 50 sickos are making a point of going back and repeatedly down voting the oldest posts, clearing their cookies every time they do so, 1600+ times and keeping up with down voting the other 1100 newer ones then that is not whats happening.

And if it is what was happening why hasn't the Mail taken action to stop it, since it makes it look like up to 25% of it's readership the very least feel no sympathy for the victims to the extent that they are willing to down vote posts that do express sympathy.