[kartan]

There was a time that it was difficult for me to understand how it was possible that governments in the middle east were supporting domestic terrorism. It was difficult to imagine how normal people were supporting the killing of fellow citizens.

Now, that I see this same trend unravel in the USA it becomes easier to understand. I have seen for the past decades the shifting of what "conservative" means. Extremists were always there, that I knew. But, it has been scary to see how moving what normality is toward the extreme has happened. News, in USA case Fox News, have validated the extremist's views creating an equivalence between "both sides".

In Europe there are similar movements, but, it has not been televised so much. Except, maybe, for the rise of extremism in the United Kingdom.

As interesting it is from the political perspective, it is dishearting the amount of suffering that it is causing. The political discourse is not used to agree in a way forward for society but as a battleground. And, again, news outlets share its part of fault. Diminishing investment in education probably is even more to blame.

The response is not to be angry, but to be calm and help society to value well-intended discussions over sensationalist posts and news headers.

I hope that it is not too late, the last time that xenophobia was not stoped it cost over 80 million lives, this time it will be way worse.

[kstenerud]

The reason why extremism is having more trouble taking root in Europe is because there's less inequality there. Where inequality is highest, terrorism is highest.

[preommr]

This probably won't be an unpopular view, but I really think its culture and specifically things like news media.

Watching FOX and even CNN exacerbates me in a way that watching things like the BBC don't. The standards for journalism and discourse are incredibly different.

And its a feedback loop because I don't just blame the media, I blame the people that feed the media and increase the race for ratings and fear mongering.

[belltaco]

I don't see how it's related to inequality. I don't think any of these shooters were poor or went through poverty. For this incident the press showed pictures of a big single family home in suburban Dallas.

[_iyig]

By what measure has extremism failed to take root in Europe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Stockholm_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Strasbourg_attack

If you meant nativist extremism, I suspect multi-party democracies allow something of a safety valve. AfD and Brexit Party voters can still feel like they’re being heard while identifying as less extreme than NDP or BNP. In the American two-party system, one side is always painting the other as their most extreme example with no credible third parties for contrast, and indeed extremists do sometimes rise to prominence from within either party.

[euroPoor]

Yeah, I'm going to need proof on that. Political extremism is, like, a European invention. How about this

https://taz.de/taz-Recherche-auf-Englisch/!5558072/

or this

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/world/europe/italy-neo-na...

?

[yyyk]

Yes and no. It really depends.

Many ME terrorists are actually relatively wealthy (Bin Laden being the most famous example), and historically revolutions occur more from a rising middle class rather than from the lowest classes. Inequality can play a role - but many times other factors are far more important.

[lixtra]

I doubt it’s that one dimensional. One could point out that making things equal results in (edit) even more terror (as most former communists countries prove). Of course that reasoning would ignore the Scandinavian “exception“.

[phs318u]

To add to the possible causes/reasons that people have already replied with, I'd suggest that in countries with mandatory voting, there is a natural tension that keeps parties from straying too far from the centre (i.e. where most of the citizenry sit). In countries with optional voting regimes, those that feel disenfranchised or cynical or apathetic don't vote, while those with extremist views are probably less inclined to let such things get in the way of their vote, resulting in over-representation in the pool of actual voters (vs potential voters). This has led parties to chase the edges more so than pleasing the centre.

In Australia, we have mandatory voting, and while the media is still active and slowly moving the electoral needle, overall, attempts to introduce extremist positions have largely faltered (with a few exceptions). I don't expect this position will last forever though.

[elyobo]

As someone that lives in Australia but comes from a similar country with optional voting (NZ), Australia's mandatory voting regime seems very much like choosing a government by chance - if voters don't know enough to vote without it being compulsory, they don't suddenly know any more by making them vote, and forcing a bunch of low information voters to go and vote anyway doesn't seem like it's going to get a good outcome. NZ's turnout is not all that much below AU without compulsory voting (admittedly, we did have John Key for what felt like forever, so it's not like we've got great form either).

While I'm moaning about the electoral system, the lack of a representative system (winner takes all in each electorate, leading to an enormous focus on battleground electorates while the safe seats are largely ignored) is also hugely problematic.

[vcoelho]

This is not the case for Brazil. The edges were chased since pre-election and the more sensible candidates performed way lower than extremists.

[peteretep]

> Except, maybe, for the rise of extremism in the United Kingdom

I'd challenge that -- what do you have in mind? I suspect we have far fewer politicians describable as far-right in the UK, where in France for example, RN has some actual power and voting numbers.

[koonsolo]

For Europe, most of the civilian killings are indeed done by extremists. But we are not allowed to aknowledge or talk about that part, so the extremists of the "other side" start to grow.

[clairity]

you sound more distraught than hopeful, so let me add some perspective. what's amazing is that relative to opportunity, terrorism (and mass shootings as a subset) is extremely rare. many, many things will kill you (or a loved one) before terrorism will (accidental shooting, drowning, overdose, heart attack, car accident, etc.). while we all do have a violent side, we are a remarkably empathetic and social species who largely follow cultural and moral rules for the good of the whole.

on your last point, it wasn't terrorism or just zenophobia that caused genocide, but state actors (and their leadership) lusting for power, notoriety, and wealth. that's rare too, since it took a perfect storm of many bad circumstances and decisions (from what i understand).

that's not to say don't be vigilant or push for change (since rare doesn't mean impossible). just don't feel hopeless or a sense of despair that things are somehow so much worse now.

[Nursie]

I'm in the UK, not sure I see much extremism here really. We have the brexit party I suppose, but that's not so much extremist as just weirdly conservative.

[lumberjack]

Ecofascism is what it is called and it is an inside joke. It is not a serious political position. It is meant precisely to confuse people like you.

[roenxi]

> the last time that xenophobia was not stoped it cost over 80 million lives

I assume you are referring to WWII - it is a strong assertion to claim that was a xenophobic war. The Nazis were xenophobic, but one suspects their driving motivations for actually doing something about it were economic. They were expanding because they famously thought they needed more space and resources, and the German economy prior to the war was famously horrible and probably the major contributing factor to the Nazi movement gaining any traction at all.

In fact, I'll assert based on a hunch that aggressive wars powered by xenophobia are vanishingly rare. "[color] people are bad" is a good propaganda slogan for the troops, but nobody is going to stump up the funds to actually deploy them if there isn't some sort of economic justification.

[NeedMoreTea]

Lebensraum was long, long before the Nazis. It was the goal of Imperial Germany in WW1, and became policy again under the Nazis. Probably dates back to the 19th century. The economics were irrelevant to the policy.

Economics had nothing to do with pursuing the idea of racial purity and a superior race either. Untermensch goes back to the twenties and intertwines with the US eugenics that the Nazis cribbed from heavily.

Originally from a translation of a 1922 KKK book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch

US eugenics influence on Nazi ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...

[mosselman]

Can you describe what you mean a bit more in concrete terms? For a second there I thought someone had posted the manifesto here, imagining it is a vague story as well.

What concrete examples do you have of misrepresentation of the situation in the media for example? I believe you when you say that something is wrong, but giving concrete examples will help drive your message home.