The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
Folks, the study in question recruited both left and right wing participants.
Likely in the interest of not making an article that is a complete political nightmare, the researchers did not do stark comparisons between the prevalence of left wingers and right wingers to hold these chaotic beliefs.
They limited themselves to conclude:
1. violent activists, both left wing and right wing, do not share hostile rumors to defend an elite target.
2. They share these rumors to attack targets or amuse themselves, both within and opposed to their partisan identity, regardless which side they're on. In other words, they are prone to sharing hostile rumors, regardless of who the target is. Their strategy appears to be chaos or mobilization rather than finding the truth of the rumor or helping their party.
3. People are less likely to believe bad rumors from groups they support
4. People are more likely to believe bad rumors about groups they oppose
There is probably more information in SI Appendix B2, but as this is a preprint, I can't find it anywhere.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
Probably pre-civilization, too.
+1
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
They could also start a revolution.
That’s just starting a war against your own side though
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
They could also start a revolution.
That’s just starting a war against your own side though
Is this where we are? By that I mean, we’ve already seen deadly attacks by men who fit this profile. What happens if they start to get more organized? Is our society prepared for that possibility?
3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
+1
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
According to Pew, in 2015 there were 4.3 million American men aged 16-29 who were not in education, employment, or training (NEETs). On one of the most liberal possible ways of counting mass shootings, there were 372 in 2015 (this methodology counts any instance in which four people are shot and does not exclude gang violence or shootings incidental to other crime). If we take this generous estimate and then assume, surely falsely, that literally every single one of these shootings was carried out by a NEET, that gives a conversion rate of .008%. That is, in a given year, for every hundred thousand young male NEETs, 99,992 would not go on to carry out a mass shooting and 8 would. As noted, this is under very generous assumptions; a more realistic number is surely much lower.
Now, even a very unlikely phenomenon can be important from a public health perspective. Very little lettuce, as a percent of all lettuce served, is contaminated with E. Coli, but it's still a big deal when it is, and so we take it seriously. (Although it's worth noting, with respect to the scale of the problem and what the most pressing forms of gun violence are, that 98.5% of shooting deaths are not connected to mass shootings).
Regardless, I don't think that any sensible analysis of "what makes a mass shooter," "the psychology of a mass shooter," or "the social profile of a mass shooter" (male NEETs) can proceed in absence of an explicit awareness of the fact that this is very, very low frequency event. It's less "bored and aimless young men go to war" and more "possibly as many as 8 bored and aimless young men go to war, whereas 99,992 bored and aimless young men hang around doing regular stuff."
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
They could also start a revolution.
That’s just starting a war against your own side though
Is this where we are? By that I mean, we’ve already seen deadly attacks by men who fit this profile. What happens if they start to get more organized? Is our society prepared for that possibility?
Civilians aren't capable of organizing an army to oppose the US government without alerting said government day one. It only works if a nationwide institution is complicit, like the police. At which point it's more of a coup than a revolution.
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
According to Pew, in 2015 there were 4.3 million American men aged 16-29 who were not in education, employment, or training (NEETs). On one of the most liberal possible ways of counting mass shootings, there were 372 in 2015 (this methodology counts any instance in which four people are shot and does not exclude gang violence or shootings incidental to other crime). If we take this generous estimate and then assume, surely falsely, that literally every single one of these shootings was carried out by a NEET, that gives a conversion rate of .008%. That is, in a given year, for every hundred thousand young male NEETs, 99,992 would not go on to carry out a mass shooting and 8 would. As noted, this is under very generous assumptions; a more realistic number is surely much lower.
Now, even a very unlikely phenomenon can be important from a public health perspective. Very little lettuce, as a percent of all lettuce served, is contaminated with E. Coli, but it's still a big deal when it is, and so we take it seriously. (Although it's worth noting, with respect to the scale of the problem and what the most pressing forms of gun violence are, that 98.5% of shooting deaths are not connected to mass shootings).
Regardless, I don't think that any sensible analysis of "what makes a mass shooter," "the psychology of a mass shooter," or "the social profile of a mass shooter" (male NEETs) can proceed in absence of an explicit awareness of the fact that this is very, very low frequency event. It's less "bored and aimless young men go to war" and more "possibly as many as 8 bored and aimless young men go to war, whereas 99,992 bored and aimless young men hang around doing regular stuff."
This isn't a mass shooter thread, nor is conflict limited to shooting, nor is this a US-specific thing.
In the contemporary Western world, we have a lot more outlets for bored people with limited futures, such as video games, sporting events, streaming entertainment, drugs, and so much porn. When these aren't quite enough, we have trolling as a first step, which can often be somewhat harmless. Even the homeless can often turn to libraries and public events.
However, these are not always enough.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The theme between older people and young white men (particularly the NEETs, who anyone familiar with the "alt-right" types online will realize are well-represented in their ranks) seems to be a combination of excessive free time and social marginaliztion.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
According to Pew, in 2015 there were 4.3 million American men aged 16-29 who were not in education, employment, or training (NEETs). On one of the most liberal possible ways of counting mass shootings, there were 372 in 2015 (this methodology counts any instance in which four people are shot and does not exclude gang violence or shootings incidental to other crime). If we take this generous estimate and then assume, surely falsely, that literally every single one of these shootings was carried out by a NEET, that gives a conversion rate of .008%. That is, in a given year, for every hundred thousand young male NEETs, 99,992 would not go on to carry out a mass shooting and 8 would. As noted, this is under very generous assumptions; a more realistic number is surely much lower.
Now, even a very unlikely phenomenon can be important from a public health perspective. Very little lettuce, as a percent of all lettuce served, is contaminated with E. Coli, but it's still a big deal when it is, and so we take it seriously. (Although it's worth noting, with respect to the scale of the problem and what the most pressing forms of gun violence are, that 98.5% of shooting deaths are not connected to mass shootings).
Regardless, I don't think that any sensible analysis of "what makes a mass shooter," "the psychology of a mass shooter," or "the social profile of a mass shooter" (male NEETs) can proceed in absence of an explicit awareness of the fact that this is very, very low frequency event. It's less "bored and aimless young men go to war" and more "possibly as many as 8 bored and aimless young men go to war, whereas 99,992 bored and aimless young men hang around doing regular stuff."
This isn't a mass shooter thread, nor is conflict limited to shooting, nor is this a US-specific thing.
In the contemporary Western world, we have a lot more outlets for bored people with limited futures, such as video games, sporting events, streaming entertainment, drugs, and so much porn. When these aren't quite enough, we have trolling as a first step, which can often be somewhat harmless. Even the homeless can often turn to libraries and public events.
However, these are not always enough.
Sorry, that's what I assumed Dark_Side was talking about earlier in the quote tree with his mentioning the "recent wave of mass shooters" and "'burn it all down' types making the jump into domestic terrorism," and so it was also what I assumed you were talking about when you responded by talking about bored young men "go[ing] to war."
But you're right that the analysis of young male NEETs doesn't begin and end with how often they shoot people.
RE NEETs becoming terrorists: this is not true across the board. And often, especially in the leadership, you will see educated members.
This is especially true in Salafist organizations.
Dr. Vera Mironova has done some pretty extensive field work in the area and has been able to talk to Salafist fighters in person and has a lot of interesting work in the field. http://vmironova.net/
There is often a conflation of insurgency and terrorism, but they are not necessarily the same thing (insurgents can engage in terrorism, as can states, both directly and indirectly, because terrorism is a strategy of engagement) and the actors motivations and sources of radicalization can be vastly different. The "poor, restless military age male" absent some directed or self radicalization along ideological lines is not likely to run off to join a group engaging in terrorism to further that ideology. But they may be prime recruit material for a local action (e.g. here is 20USD, throw this Soviet RGD at the next American convoy) because they are a "NEET".
So, we've established that this problem exists. We've acknowledged that there appears to be a rise in feelings of, let's call it "political nihilism", in western society that appears to be contributing to mostly young men turning to "chaos incitement" to give themselves a sense of purpose and a form of entertainment at the expense of society itself. Worse yet, it has become a fertile breeding and recruiting ground for extremist groups such as the Alt-Right.
So now what?
As I said in the OP, I'm sure we all personally know (or may even be!) people like this. What do we do about it? I'm not willing to concede to the argument that "there's nothing to do" that these people must "come out of it on their own".
No. It has been shown that people's attitudes can be influenced by certain groups, and it feels like we keep ceding ground to extremism with no one able to come up with solutions to counter these movements, and that frustrates the hell out of me. It feels like every time I ask "how can I help?" I get a resounding ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We are not powerless to change this, but we need to seriously give thought as to what our responsibilities as members of society are. Maybe some of us need to get off our asses and actually run for some kind of office? (I include myself in this, btw, I struggle daily with my inability/unwillingness to get motivated to do more). If not politics, then what about things like establishing official social/support groups within ou communities? I literally know nothing about becoming a community organizer. I'm a horrible salesman and am mortified at the thought at having to go knock on doors and ask people to join my club, but it's gotten to the point now where I feel I owe it to my family and to my society to do more than just bitch on a message board while working at my job that I only barely care about.
Like Beta Ray Bill said: I want to make good, and I feel I have it in me, I just don't know how to start.
Posts
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I remember during the immediate post 9-11 days a lot of talk about a big factor in terrorism recruitment success is a large group of young, uneducated men with no future and shitloads of free time. It's sort of scary how much that sentiment rings true when you start looking at the recent wave of mass shooters. It really seems like these "burn it all down" types are making the jump into domestic terrorism more and more. Especially because a good many of them seem like they were just bored.
Likely in the interest of not making an article that is a complete political nightmare, the researchers did not do stark comparisons between the prevalence of left wingers and right wingers to hold these chaotic beliefs.
They limited themselves to conclude:
1. violent activists, both left wing and right wing, do not share hostile rumors to defend an elite target.
2. They share these rumors to attack targets or amuse themselves, both within and opposed to their partisan identity, regardless which side they're on. In other words, they are prone to sharing hostile rumors, regardless of who the target is. Their strategy appears to be chaos or mobilization rather than finding the truth of the rumor or helping their party.
3. People are less likely to believe bad rumors from groups they support
4. People are more likely to believe bad rumors about groups they oppose
There is probably more information in SI Appendix B2, but as this is a preprint, I can't find it anywhere.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"Bored and aimless young men go to war" is one civilization's oldest and most common stories.
Probably pre-civilization, too.
They could also start a revolution.
That’s just starting a war against your own side though
Is this where we are? By that I mean, we’ve already seen deadly attacks by men who fit this profile. What happens if they start to get more organized? Is our society prepared for that possibility?
According to Pew, in 2015 there were 4.3 million American men aged 16-29 who were not in education, employment, or training (NEETs). On one of the most liberal possible ways of counting mass shootings, there were 372 in 2015 (this methodology counts any instance in which four people are shot and does not exclude gang violence or shootings incidental to other crime). If we take this generous estimate and then assume, surely falsely, that literally every single one of these shootings was carried out by a NEET, that gives a conversion rate of .008%. That is, in a given year, for every hundred thousand young male NEETs, 99,992 would not go on to carry out a mass shooting and 8 would. As noted, this is under very generous assumptions; a more realistic number is surely much lower.
Now, even a very unlikely phenomenon can be important from a public health perspective. Very little lettuce, as a percent of all lettuce served, is contaminated with E. Coli, but it's still a big deal when it is, and so we take it seriously. (Although it's worth noting, with respect to the scale of the problem and what the most pressing forms of gun violence are, that 98.5% of shooting deaths are not connected to mass shootings).
Regardless, I don't think that any sensible analysis of "what makes a mass shooter," "the psychology of a mass shooter," or "the social profile of a mass shooter" (male NEETs) can proceed in absence of an explicit awareness of the fact that this is very, very low frequency event. It's less "bored and aimless young men go to war" and more "possibly as many as 8 bored and aimless young men go to war, whereas 99,992 bored and aimless young men hang around doing regular stuff."
Civilians aren't capable of organizing an army to oppose the US government without alerting said government day one. It only works if a nationwide institution is complicit, like the police. At which point it's more of a coup than a revolution.
This isn't a mass shooter thread, nor is conflict limited to shooting, nor is this a US-specific thing.
In the contemporary Western world, we have a lot more outlets for bored people with limited futures, such as video games, sporting events, streaming entertainment, drugs, and so much porn. When these aren't quite enough, we have trolling as a first step, which can often be somewhat harmless. Even the homeless can often turn to libraries and public events.
However, these are not always enough.
Sorry, that's what I assumed Dark_Side was talking about earlier in the quote tree with his mentioning the "recent wave of mass shooters" and "'burn it all down' types making the jump into domestic terrorism," and so it was also what I assumed you were talking about when you responded by talking about bored young men "go[ing] to war."
But you're right that the analysis of young male NEETs doesn't begin and end with how often they shoot people.
Abusive cults and terrorist groups are also common symptoms.
This is especially true in Salafist organizations.
Dr. Vera Mironova has done some pretty extensive field work in the area and has been able to talk to Salafist fighters in person and has a lot of interesting work in the field.
http://vmironova.net/
There is often a conflation of insurgency and terrorism, but they are not necessarily the same thing (insurgents can engage in terrorism, as can states, both directly and indirectly, because terrorism is a strategy of engagement) and the actors motivations and sources of radicalization can be vastly different. The "poor, restless military age male" absent some directed or self radicalization along ideological lines is not likely to run off to join a group engaging in terrorism to further that ideology. But they may be prime recruit material for a local action (e.g. here is 20USD, throw this Soviet RGD at the next American convoy) because they are a "NEET".
So now what?
As I said in the OP, I'm sure we all personally know (or may even be!) people like this. What do we do about it? I'm not willing to concede to the argument that "there's nothing to do" that these people must "come out of it on their own".
No. It has been shown that people's attitudes can be influenced by certain groups, and it feels like we keep ceding ground to extremism with no one able to come up with solutions to counter these movements, and that frustrates the hell out of me. It feels like every time I ask "how can I help?" I get a resounding ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We are not powerless to change this, but we need to seriously give thought as to what our responsibilities as members of society are. Maybe some of us need to get off our asses and actually run for some kind of office? (I include myself in this, btw, I struggle daily with my inability/unwillingness to get motivated to do more). If not politics, then what about things like establishing official social/support groups within ou communities? I literally know nothing about becoming a community organizer. I'm a horrible salesman and am mortified at the thought at having to go knock on doors and ask people to join my club, but it's gotten to the point now where I feel I owe it to my family and to my society to do more than just bitch on a message board while working at my job that I only barely care about.
Like Beta Ray Bill said: I want to make good, and I feel I have it in me, I just don't know how to start.