I'm an extremist, get me out of here

If people were basically rational, we could change their minds by giving well-cited counter-evidence to their beliefs. The problem is that large numbers of people aren't basically rational, so this approach can, in some circumstances (discussed at length here) backfire. While you probably do need to make the rational counter-arguments somewhere, to stop more rational people being persuaded, most people who actually join violent hate groups don't do so because of the strength of the evidence.

Step 0 of getting them out is to acknowledge that they're being irrational. Don't try and persuade them (primarily) with the evidence, because that's not the main reason they do what they do. Instead, persuade them. Figure out the real reasons they joined up - even if they're irrational and make no sense - and deal with them on their own terms.

It may seem surprising, but Exit does not begin the rehabilitation process by targeting the ideology. Michael Kimmel argues that contrary to his initial presumptions, ideology is not an important factor for many of the young people who join extremist far-right organisations. He struggled to get participants to be able to even explain the ideology of the organisations they were part of, with participants instead talking about the importance of being “part of something, part of a group” 

Yes, it may seem absolutely absurd that people want to join a group dedicated to hurting other people because it gives them a sense of belonging - but that's the point. No-one joins a group advocating mindless violence because they put their mind to it.

Kimmel acknowledges that there are critics of this approach, with many arguing that focusing on non-ideological reasons for people to get engaged lets people off the hook for past or even current extremist views and behaviour. But if our goal is to get people out of violent organisations, he argues, we must be practical in our approach, engaging with a member’s own experiences in order to further motivation to get them out.  

The word "appeasement" comes to mind. However, "being nice to Nazis" is not at all the same as "giving Nazis whatever they want". Instead, figure out what it is that they actually need and give them that. As I've said before many times, that's what the job of a good politician should be - not just to listen to people's surface demands, but also to figure out the deeper causes. Sometimes, in extreme cases, what people need is punishment in order to rehabilitate them. But often, however vile the things people are advocating, they won't be reached by telling them how vile they are. As much as possible, attack the ideas - never give them what they think they want - not the people themselves.

In his book Racist and Right-Wing Violence in Scandinavia, Tore Bjørgo argues that there are a range of "push" and "pull" factors that can lead to people exiting extremist organisations. Push factors often include a loss of faith in the organisation’s ideology, disillusionment with the organisation’s strategy, leadership, membership or action or simply burnout, while pull factors can include intimate relationships, employment, or imprisonment.  

Örell, referring to his own experiences, describes... an “unexpected act of kindness”. These are acts of kindness from people who people previously saw as the enemy, acts which in turn can help people find motivation to rethink their beliefs and actions.

Oliver Roy argues that modern jihadists, particularly those who have engaged in terror attacks in Europe, are initially less motivated by the ideology of radical Islam than by a sense of nihilism: a malaise formed from social isolation, fantasy and rebellion. Young European Muslims who are drawn to IS, he argues, are attracted to the organisation’s violent means more so than dreams of a caliphate. When dealing with recent terrorist attacks we are not therefore facing a radicalisation of Islam, but instead the Islamisation of radicalism.

Another key theme of the article is that you have to offer people a way out. While the liberal left (quite rightly) seems to have no problem welcoming news reports of the good deeds of anonymous reformed murderers and other criminals, things turned distinctly different in the recent Liam Neeson case. I don't normally comment on individual celebrity exploits, but this one exemplified a major problem.

To my mind, someone saying they contemplated doing a horrible thing, realised it was an awful idea and subsequently repented, is someone who deserves praise, not shame. As I've said elsewhere, I suspect that one contributing factor to the backfire effect is that adherents of an ideology believe they will continue to be shunned no matter what, that attacks on their twisted ideals are actually attacks on them. Continuing to attack someone after they've repented is the surest way to seal off any escape route. Do you actually want to change their mind, or did you just want to hurt them ? Why would anyone want to join a group that very apparently wants to do them harm ?

Had Neeson committed an actual crime, he would have been punished. If he had subsequently paid his debt to society and repented his actions, he should have been brought back into the fold. But he never did that, he just admitted to having extremely disturbing thoughts. He didn't promote racial violence, he pointed out his own inner darkness for what it was. So he was reprimanded for having thoughts he acknowledged were wrong and had no control over. That is stupid. Shaming people after they've repented - especially if they never actually did anything - is just utterly absurd.

Acknowledging one's own darker impulses, but that they can ultimately be overcome, is in my view a far better approach than pretending that all extremists are just inherently bad people who cannot be redeemed. If you truly believe that no-one is born racist, then you should also admit that racists can - albeit with difficulty - be un-made. Having a permanent, intractable enemy may have the usual appeal of dealing with something boldly and without compromise, but it is not, surely, the point. That is not to say that there are not cases where very drastic actions need to be taken, but actively seeking to maintain enemies by refusing to acknowledge repentance is absolutely pointless.

How do you prevent extremism?

Over the past few years there have been increasing fears about the growth of far right, neo-Nazi and fascist organisations. Events such as those in Charlottesville in the United States 2017, in Chemnitz in Germany in 2018 and the recent terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, have led many to ask the question: what can we do to stop the spread of these extremist ideologies?