I am trying to explain to liberals over on a certain other site that calling everything "terrorism" is dangerous and a gift to authoritarians and it isn't going well
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
What would you define as terrorism, out of curiosity? A professor in a previous class of mine defined it as "violence against civilians for a political purpose or intent", which feels like a good definition?
I postulate (and am open to correction) that after 9/11, the right fetishized "terrorism," saw it everywhere, and used it to attack civil rights, balloon local police funding, etc.
The left learned that only "terror" could get policy and budget support, so in a "whatabout" move, they did likewise.
I'd start with "terrorizing, especially civilians, to further political aims". One could phrase it differently but the key part IMHO is that the terror needs to be in service of a cause.
While Tom's point is fair, the counterpoint is that this country has an endlessly long history of white nationalist terrorism, and an entire political party is organized to prevent discussion of that violence as being white nationalist terrorism.
Or more recently, January 6 was a "protest" or a "riot". It was a violent assault on a political venue with the express purpose of overturning an election, there have been fewer more clear-cut examples of terrorism in world history.
People are literally - and I am using the word in its accurate denotation - saying that anything that terrifies people is terrorism, and no matter how many times I say "AUMF" and "Patriot Act," they say that being scared is enough.
If I’ve learned one thing from having worked in IT for a few years for a healthcare technology company that has a healthy population of PhD’s and Masters floating around it’s this:
Even smart people can be exceptionally dumb on a number of topics.
There is a certain ilk on the left that must denounce things in the strongest, possible terms. To fail to do so, makes you “complicit,” another word that part of the left doesn’t really understand either.
There is more likely to be a connection to domestic violence than a political motivation and we take domestic violence less seriously than we do domestic terrorism in the US.
The dude self-reported hearing voices and was hospitalized for a couple of weeks between that and talking about wanting to shoot up a National Guard base this summer.
So I wouldn't assume political motivation until we know more.
Comments
Am I wrong?
I agree that over-use is a problem; fighting erosion of the language is a particular cause of mine. But the word *does* have legitimate uses.
The left learned that only "terror" could get policy and budget support, so in a "whatabout" move, they did likewise.
It will *never* go away until the word is utterly meaningless, which to be fair doesn't seem like that long.
I agree, there has to be some sort of intent requirement. It’s not enough to cause fear, the goal has to be mass fear.
Felt rather different about it once I got my drivers license though!
Actually I think that is correct.
Even smart people can be exceptionally dumb on a number of topics.
So I wouldn't assume political motivation until we know more.
"The police in this country are racist and have too much power!"
... something bad happens ...
"We must give the police more power!"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯