Agreed with Viliam here. No strategy is going to be morally flawless. We need to figure out what strategy will optimize for the best balance of utilons.
I suggest we talk in numbers here, as opposed to generalities. Give your estimates for what will happen with your theory, and see what other people think.
Those are minimum conditions to avoid being immediately criticized here. I probably forgot something, such as the strategy should only be a short inferential distance away from the average reader, etc.
Well, now we have at least two options: (1) kill the radical imams, and (2) do nothing and keep the status quo. Anyone is free to suggest more options.
Each option has some disadvantages. You hinted at the problems with 1, which are that if the strategy works, it is likely to go down a slippery slope. First we assassinate Osama bin Laden, then we assassinate our local jihad preacher Abdullah, then we assassinate everyone who criticizes Hillary on Facebook, and then we start building concentration camps for all wrongthinkers. A few times in history a similar thing actually happened, so it is a useful outside view to have.
But there are also problems with 2, and thousands of people are already dying as a consequence of militant islam, to say the obvious.
If you suggest that the option 2 is better than the option 1, I am interested in hearing your arguments. If you have a better option 3, I am also interested in hearing arguments for it.
Imagine something is wrong with your leg. You come to a doctor and tell him about the weird pains in your leg, and how it cramps up occasionally, etc. The doctor thinks for a moment and says: Well, now we have at least two options, (1) cut off your leg, and (2) do nothing. Would you feed that was a reasonable approach to the situation?
I hope you don’t think that the problem of dealing with a subversive movement is new. Ruling elites had to figure out what to do about them since time immemorial with regular successes and regular failures. There is no universal answer, never mind a simplistic one. Treating them with kid gloves has been tried (ask the Germans how well did that work with respect to the brown shirts), treating them harshly has been tried (ask the Romans how well did feeding Christians to the lions work). It’s complicated.
I am not going to develop a strategy for fighting islamists here, but I strongly suspect that a successful strategy would have the following attributes:
Not expressible in a single sentence. Or a single paragraph.
Has many parts, in particular both carrots and sticks
Changes with time, specifically in response to feedback
Somewhat localized—the US solutions are unlikely to be exactly like the European solutions.
Is patient and doesn’t expect to fix everything in a month
Why do you expect trivially simple solutions to complex problems?
I expect that in order to solve any complex problem, there must be an actionable first step. Otherwise, the problem is likely to get unsolved. (Unless some solution appears randomly in the future.)
In this situation, as the first step I would probably try to establish an organization aimed at reducing islamic terrorism. Maybe just a department within some existing secret service.
Maybe it already happened.
Saying “it’s difficult” may be perfectly true, but doesn’t bring us any closer to solving the problem.
I expect that in order to solve any complex problem, there must be an actionable first step.
Sure. Usually it should be “understand what’s happening”.
Saying “it’s difficult” may be perfectly true, but doesn’t bring us any closer to solving the problem.
Who is “us”? I am not going to solve that problem. Neither are you. The appropriate national security agencies aren’t terrible interested in your or mine (or the whole LW’s) opinions.
One of the reasons why politics is discouraged on LW is that in almost all cases you just talk about it, but do not actually do (and cannot do) anything.
I’d be careful of the first two—there are trade-offs to making them into martyrs. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, but we need to consider carefully the trade-offs and evaluate the pros and cons of doing each.
Totally on board with discrediting them and making fun of them publicly.
Between these two—what we can call the “hard” pole and the “soft” pole—I’d suggest a “middle” course of putting up barriers to their ability to make an impact. For example, if a radical imam is identified, we can have super-steep fines for each instance of radicalizing speech. Or we can revoke permits for them to have a mosque. Or we can have attacks on the blogs of radical muslims. This has the benefit of making it much less likely for them to be perceived as martyrs, and if they complain they can be easily portrayed as whiners and sore losers.
Put them in prison. Assassinate them. Discredit them. Make fun of them publicly. All of the above.
First they came for the radical imams and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t an imam...
Feel free to suggest a better strategy. (Note: It must work reliably, and it must be morally flawless.)
Agreed with Viliam here. No strategy is going to be morally flawless. We need to figure out what strategy will optimize for the best balance of utilons.
I suggest we talk in numbers here, as opposed to generalities. Give your estimates for what will happen with your theory, and see what other people think.
Interesting conditions you set.
Those are minimum conditions to avoid being immediately criticized here. I probably forgot something, such as the strategy should only be a short inferential distance away from the average reader, etc.
Ah. No, I don’t think they would help you much with avoiding criticism :-/
But I’m not sure what you expected when your suggestion for dealing with people who speak words you don’t like is “Just kill them”.
Well, now we have at least two options: (1) kill the radical imams, and (2) do nothing and keep the status quo. Anyone is free to suggest more options.
Each option has some disadvantages. You hinted at the problems with 1, which are that if the strategy works, it is likely to go down a slippery slope. First we assassinate Osama bin Laden, then we assassinate our local jihad preacher Abdullah, then we assassinate everyone who criticizes Hillary on Facebook, and then we start building concentration camps for all wrongthinkers. A few times in history a similar thing actually happened, so it is a useful outside view to have.
But there are also problems with 2, and thousands of people are already dying as a consequence of militant islam, to say the obvious.
If you suggest that the option 2 is better than the option 1, I am interested in hearing your arguments. If you have a better option 3, I am also interested in hearing arguments for it.
Imagine something is wrong with your leg. You come to a doctor and tell him about the weird pains in your leg, and how it cramps up occasionally, etc. The doctor thinks for a moment and says: Well, now we have at least two options, (1) cut off your leg, and (2) do nothing. Would you feed that was a reasonable approach to the situation?
I hope you don’t think that the problem of dealing with a subversive movement is new. Ruling elites had to figure out what to do about them since time immemorial with regular successes and regular failures. There is no universal answer, never mind a simplistic one. Treating them with kid gloves has been tried (ask the Germans how well did that work with respect to the brown shirts), treating them harshly has been tried (ask the Romans how well did feeding Christians to the lions work). It’s complicated.
I am not going to develop a strategy for fighting islamists here, but I strongly suspect that a successful strategy would have the following attributes:
Not expressible in a single sentence. Or a single paragraph.
Has many parts, in particular both carrots and sticks
Changes with time, specifically in response to feedback
Somewhat localized—the US solutions are unlikely to be exactly like the European solutions.
Is patient and doesn’t expect to fix everything in a month
Why do you expect trivially simple solutions to complex problems?
I expect that in order to solve any complex problem, there must be an actionable first step. Otherwise, the problem is likely to get unsolved. (Unless some solution appears randomly in the future.)
In this situation, as the first step I would probably try to establish an organization aimed at reducing islamic terrorism. Maybe just a department within some existing secret service.
Maybe it already happened.
Saying “it’s difficult” may be perfectly true, but doesn’t bring us any closer to solving the problem.
Sure. Usually it should be “understand what’s happening”.
Who is “us”? I am not going to solve that problem. Neither are you. The appropriate national security agencies aren’t terrible interested in your or mine (or the whole LW’s) opinions.
One of the reasons why politics is discouraged on LW is that in almost all cases you just talk about it, but do not actually do (and cannot do) anything.
I’d be careful of the first two—there are trade-offs to making them into martyrs. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, but we need to consider carefully the trade-offs and evaluate the pros and cons of doing each.
Totally on board with discrediting them and making fun of them publicly.
Between these two—what we can call the “hard” pole and the “soft” pole—I’d suggest a “middle” course of putting up barriers to their ability to make an impact. For example, if a radical imam is identified, we can have super-steep fines for each instance of radicalizing speech. Or we can revoke permits for them to have a mosque. Or we can have attacks on the blogs of radical muslims. This has the benefit of making it much less likely for them to be perceived as martyrs, and if they complain they can be easily portrayed as whiners and sore losers.