These are notes on the experimental process.
- Click here for an easy-to-read experience report Polis Experience Report: Should we investigate the causes of terrorism?
@nishio: You can now vote for and against each side of the debate on the investigation of the causes of terrorism. Voting will show you where your opinion lies in the distribution of everyoneâs opinion. Vote for all and you can post your new opinion. https://t.co/7fBa9uz54Z
Seed Opinion (32)
- Do not, under any circumstances, approve of terrorism.
- The person who was terrorized is responsible for the attack.
- We should also consider the circumstances of the perpetrator.
- We should solve the problems that drove the perpetrators.
- Letâs thoroughly investigate the cause and motive.
- I sympathize with the perpetrators.
- Some things are more unforgivable than terrorism.
- Trying to determine the causes of terrorism is an affirmation of terrorism.
- Determining the causes and motivations and eliminating them is the only way to effectively reduce terrorism.
- If an unwanted social phenomenon is occurring, it is natural to explore its causes and set issues
- It is dangerous to strengthen state power to crack down on terrorism without confronting its causes and motives.
- If light sentences for terrorists are the cause of the increase in terrorism, then we can set the agenda to make the sentences heavier.
- Without exploring the causes and motives, we cannot see the issues that need to be improved. We should first explore, set issues and work on them solemnly.
- New Zealand Prime Minister: âI will never speak the name of the gunman again.â
- There is no such thing as a world where no one complains.
- If we affirm that we can improve society through terrorism, democracy will be defeated by violence.
- We must not investigate the motives of terrorists.
- The discontent in the world should be improved by democracy and indirectly reduce the causes of terrorism
- Since former Prime Minister Abe is dead, it was a mistake to address the issue of the religious second generation.
- Even if the problem improves, we cannot be happy if the trigger is terrorism.
- If we had worked to solve the problem before the attack occurred, there might not have been any casualties.
- Weâve already failed when weâre using terrorism as an opportunity to solve our problems.
- If there is a problem, it should be fixed, even if belatedly!
- Not working to solve the problem because the trigger is terrorism could lead to a second or third incident.
- There are hundreds or thousands of social problems that can cause terrorism. This will never go away.
- The risk of future terrorism increased by successful terrorism is much greater than the risk of future terrorism that can be lowered by solving the former Unification Church problem.
- We solve problems with democracy, we do not let terrorism solve problems. It is important to continue to do this.
- Sympathy for the terroristâs background and environment is compatible with hatred of the crime.
- If empathy for the background and environment of the terrorist and hatred of the crime were compatible, terrorism would not happen in the first place!
- The expectation that people can be rational is what allows them to return to society if they serve a basic, fixed-term sentence for a crime.
- Regardless of whether you forgive the culprits or not, a member of parliament represents all the people, and if you donât listen to their voices, it goes against your raison dâetre as a member of parliament.
- The majority of terrorist attacks occurred because the perpetrators were people who were willing to use violence to get their opinions across.
Tweet referenced in creating seed opinion
.
@surumelock: donât affirm terrorism
-
-
Iâve probably said it many times before, but if you approve of terrorism against people you donât like, you or someone you care about may become the target of that terrorism, and even if you regret it then, itâs already too late.
aono I think the way to effectively reduce terrorism is to determine the causes and motivations and eliminate them. Isnât it?
-
aono (continued) If an unwanted social phenomenon is occurring, I think it is only natural to explore the causes and set the agenda. If we canât do that, we wonât be able to stop even the declining birthrate, and we wonât be able to raise GDP per capita. In other words, it is not possible.
-
aono (continued) It is even more dangerous than terrorism when members of the Diet cry âterrorism cannot be toleratedâ and run toward simply strengthening state power to crack down on it, without facing its causes and motives. It is more dangerous than terrorism. It is like Putin. Letâs calm down and solve this problem wisely. It is a low-risk, high-return approach.
-
aono continued) If light sentences for terrorists are the cause of the increase in terrorism, then we can set the agenda to make the sentences heavier. That, too, cannot be seen without exploring the causes and motives. Humanity is a calm and thinking creature. Letâs explore first. Then set the task and work on it solemnly.
-
aono (continued) The increase in terrorism, the declining birthrate, economic stagnation, the increase in poor families, and the increase in child suicides are all social phenomena. And social phenomena are connected. Let us calmly explore, set issues, and carefully resolve them. Do not let fear take over your mind.
@kyagi2023: Regardless of whether you forgive the culprits or not, you represent all the people of Japan, and not listening to their voices is against the raison dâetre of being a member of the Diet, in my opinion. I, as one of the voters, think that it is absolutely unforgivable to refuse to listen to the voices of the Diet members, regardless of whether or not you forgive them, because they represent all the people.
methane No, itâs not. There is no such thing as a world where no one is complacent. If we affirm that we can improve society through terrorism, democracy will be defeated by violence. Without investigating the motives of terrorists, we should indirectly reduce the causes of terrorism by improving the dissatisfaction in the world through normal democracy.
-
kazuho Are you saying that it was a mistake to address the issue of the second generation religious because former Prime Minister Abe is dead? I donât think so.
-
methane As a second generation religious victimized party, I am glad to see the improvement, but I am not pleased with terrorism as a trigger.
-
I am not saying donât improve, I am saying donât use terrorism as a trigger. There will be any number of second generation victims.
-
kazuho If we had tackled the problem before the terrorist attacks occurred, there might not have been any casualties. In that sense, we have already failed when we are working on it in the wake of the terrorist attacks. If there is a problem, it should be fixed, even if it is late.
-
On the other hand, on the other hand, not tackling it on the grounds that it is terrorism may call for a second or third incident?
-
methane There are hundreds and thousands of social problems that can cause terrorism. This will not go away forever.
-
The risk of future terrorism increased by successful terrorism is much greater than the risk of future terrorism that can be lowered by the resolution of the former Unification Church issue.
-
methane We solve problems with democracy, we donât let terrorism solve problems. I think it is important to continue this.
-
kazuho I think itâs compatible to hate the crime and feel empathy for the background and environment, but maybe some people donât!
-
methane If everyone could do that, there wouldnât be terrorism in the first place.
-
kazuho I think the reason you can serve a basic, fixed term sentence for a crime and then rejoin society is because thereâs an expectation that people can be rational.
add seed opinion
.
@ozorakoki: 24 years old, mixed feelings as we are the same age. Terrorism is not acceptable for any reason. I have no sympathy for him at all. However, clarifying the background that led to the crime and considering a social approach if necessary should not necessarily give legitimacy to the act of terrorism. Preventing the chain of imitation is paramount. https://t.co/uUBRShCG7I
@hosono_54: i have worked and will do my best to help young people who lack opportunities. Kosei Ozora has done remarkable work, but I donât agree with this part. I do not give a second thought to the claims and background of the person at the time of the attack. There is no social approach that can be derived from that.
@simpeiii: It is obvious that terrorism and violence should not be tolerated for any reason. But analysis of its social background and reasons is essential. I thought it was obvious, but I donât think he thinks that this process itself is condoning terrorism. If so, it is the ultimate cessation of thought. We must consider and fix the social background and reasons that give rise to this kind of thought stopping.
@ZXcw5ec4IGEDvVC: @simpeiii Knowing why you did it and the discussion of whether itâs ok or not to do such a thing are two completely different dimensions.
@levinassien: If you only look at the act and not the motive at all, then you donât need a âtrialâ in the first place. There is no room for the concept of âsentencing.â Sharing the groupâs empirical knowledge of âwhy people commit crimesâ is as necessary for community safety as properly punishing criminals.
@aono: @syunsuke_takei Thanks for your reply, Dr. Takei. I donât understand the logic that searching for causes is synonymous with justification. For example, do you think that searching for the reason why a violent teacher committed violence is synonymous with justifying violence?
-
@syunsuke_takei: @aono Exactly. If there are any extenuating circumstances, it is for the court to decide in the sentence. Nothing more. You are completely wrong.
@kazuho: I think itâs a misconception that âthere is no such thing as a search for the causeâ. The New Zealand government report says, âIt is the governmentâs responsibility to report on why he became radical in his beliefs, why he chose New Zealand as the setting for his crimes, and why he was not caught in the net of investigative agencies.â It says.
Uncovering the background that led to the crime and considering a social approach, if necessary, does not necessarily give legitimacy to the terrorist act. Preventing the chain of imitation is paramount. When a person commits a terrorist attack, there is not a single regard for that personâs claims or background. There is no social approach that can be derived from this. It is obvious that terrorism and violence should not be tolerated for any reason. However, analysis of the social background and reasons is essential. To think that âanalyzing the social context and reasons for terrorism and violenceâ amounts to âcondoning terrorismâ is thoughtless. Knowing why you did it is a completely different dimension from the discussion of whether it is right or wrong to do such a thing. If we only look at the act and not the motive, then there is no need for a âtrialâ in the first place. There would be no room for the concept of âsentencing. Sharing the groupâs empirical knowledge of âwhy people commit crimesâ is as necessary for community safety as properly punishing criminals. For example, exploring why a violent teacher was violent is tantamount to justifying violence. The NZ Prime Minister said, âWe New Zealanders will not give him anything. Not even his name.â However, it is not right to use this as a reason not to investigate the cause because the government report says, âIt is the governmentâs responsibility to report why he became radical in his beliefs, why he chose New Zealand as the scene of his crimes, and why he was not caught in the net of the investigative agencies.
methane https://pol.is/7pypjyefxw/ I think the perspective is on whether or not to explore motives/causes, but I think the issue is whether to report and spread the motives/statements in a sensational or casual way.
âSociety has changed as a result of terrorism,â because that would be an incentive for the next terrorist attack to be conveyed to many who are dissatisfied with the situation,
methane Even if you donât condone or justify terrorism in the process, if the impression is spread that terrorism was the catalyst, the result is no good.
It should be handled solemnly and unobtrusively to the extent that âas part of the activities to improve society, the background of terrorism was also exploredâ and âeven if there was no terrorism, the situation was improvedâ.
methane Background coverage of terrorism should not be sensationalized or more frequent than coverage of peaceful demonstrations. You can spread the opinions of the protesters as they are, but you canât spread the statements of the terrorist perpetrators as they are.
The more sensational the attack itself, the more time and caution should be used in reporting on the motive.
nishio I also put this opinion in https://pol.is/7pypjyefxw/
I have no desire to understand the logic of someone who would commit a terrorist attack. How can you possibly understand another person in the first place? Common interests should be found through dialogue. We can be there for those who terrorize. Understanding causes and motives means âleaning in.â We can understand the motives of those who commit terrorism. We can understand why terrorism occurs. Need to check if the perpetrators of terrorism are influenced by foreign intelligence agencies.
@kkaigai: so it really sucked to see politics move on the âUnification Church issueâ in the wake of Abeâs assassination. Even if it was made known that the problem existed, there should have been at least a âno touch for 10 years as a penalty for terrorismâ.
The results of the Pol.is poll on the âInvestigation of the Causes of Terrorismâ are in: 87 opinions were submitted, and 460 people voted with a total of 16,697 votes. Two groups were created based on the trend of the votes, and the ratio of votes in favor/against for each group can be seen.
It is interesting to note the opinions commonly supported by both groups. Knowing why someone did such a thing is one thing, but debating whether such a thing is right or wrong is quite anotherâ was supported by 91% of the respondents. 86% disagree with the statement, âFor example, exploring why a violent teacher did what he or she did is tantamount to justifying violence.
I like the 90% agreement that âIf there were issues that were first recognized by the majority due to terrorism, we should consider whether such issues could not have been siphoned off through channels other than terrorism, and the mechanism should be considered.â suggests a next action.
This is where the 86% opposition âExploring why, for example, a violent teacher was violent is tantamount to justifying violence.â comes from.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/Polis:ăăăźćć 究æă«ă€ăăŠăźè°è« using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. Iâm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.