So there's a serial bomber in Austin (appears to be targeting minorities)

[Kat Kid]

true meaning of terrorism

New pitch for the Hallmark Channel

nice.

K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.

We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.

Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.

I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.

Has your definition of racism changed since you were ten years old? If it has, that's probably a good thing!

It's definitely a good thing. And getting upset with this being called terrorism seems like a dumb hill to die on.

And the Austin police had a pretty ridiculous statement about him. (Thread is worth a read too):

https://twitter.com/Sifill_LDF/status/976614325258465280?s=19

The original post was before the bomber was blown up and anything was known about his motives.

I believe in precision of language. When we lack precision of language, we lack meaning.  That is a hill I'm happy to die on.

You think there are absolute definitions of concepts like terrorism and racism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[michigancat]

true meaning of terrorism

New pitch for the Hallmark Channel

nice.

K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.

We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.

Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.

I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.

Has your definition of racism changed since you were ten years old? If it has, that's probably a good thing!

It's definitely a good thing. And getting upset with this being called terrorism seems like a dumb hill to die on.

And the Austin police had a pretty ridiculous statement about him. (Thread is worth a read too):

https://twitter.com/Sifill_LDF/status/976614325258465280?s=19

The original post was before the bomber was blown up and anything was known about his motives.

I believe in precision of language. When we lack precision of language, we lack meaning.  That is a hill I'm happy to die on.

When you made that post you knew the guy was mailing bombs that seemed to target minorities.

And KK is correct, things like "racism" or "terrorism" are not binary. Language is imprecise and fluid and always has been.

[SkinnyBenny]

not terrorism says the white house.

While this is certainly inducing "terror" or fear, isn't terrorism necessarily defined by an ideological motivation? If we don't know a motive, we can't call it terrorism.

That is correct. But liberals have a propensity to label lots of things "terrorism" - especially if it involves a white guy - because it dilutes the true meaning of terrorism. The minute some white dude does something nutso, the first question the media asks is "oooohh, will the WH call this "terrorism?!" It's extremely juvenile.

This could very well be terrorism, but we don't know that until we know more about his motivations. And the reason any of this matters, and is not just a matter of semantics, is that we rightly employ different resources to combat terrorism and all terrorism should not simply be viewed as a law enforcement matter.

Now, while we're on the subject of making idiotic facebook-esque arguments: I think it's very clear that we need to immediately identify what the suspect used to make his bombs and immediately ban those materials, or at least raise the age to 21 to purchase them.

In June of 2015, this guy stormed into an all-black church and started spraying bullets at random black people, killing 9, because he wanted to ignite a race war.




In November of 2015, this guy stormed a Planned Parenthood in Colorado and started spraying bullets at everyone who worked there, killing 3 and wounding 9 others, calling himself a "warrior for the babies."




Curious if these guys fit K-S-U-Dubz's definition of terrorist. :bartscottcan'twait:

[sys]

When you made that post you knew the guy was mailing bombs that seemed to target minorities.

And KK is correct, things like "racism" or "terrorism" are not binary. Language is imprecise and fluid and always has been.

pretty sure "seemed to target minorities" went out with bombs 4, 5 & 6 (or maybe it was 3, 4 & 5).


language is fluid but every widely agreed upon definition of terrorism includes a political, religious or ideological motive.  if you want to argue for a broader definition it's incumbent upon you to actually make an argument.

[DQ12]

Of course those guys fit the definition of "terrorism," Ski-be. 

I've had this argument before, and i've decided that the semantics aren't all that important to me.  "Terrorism" has such a stigma because of how muslims were (unfairly) viewed post 9-11.  Now, in response, SJWs want to call everyone who commits mass violence a terrorist. 

Whatever. If people want to call this guy a terrorist, let them.  He's not (assuming he had no motive), but it's definitely not my hill to die on.  Maybe in the future we'll just start saying "political terrorist" to replace what "terrorist" used to mean.  The world will keep spinning.

Anyway, in my view "senseless violence" as distinguished from "terrorism" is worse.  I can at least conceptualize the idea behind terrorism.  I cannot imagine how someone could just want to go out and commit violence for no real reason. 

[chum1]

Apparently, many of us think terror is more fundamental to the concept of terrorism than political motive. What kind of person is all gung-ho about taking issue with this? Option 1: a huge rough ridin' racist. Option 2: a huge rough ridin' pedant. Other options?

[chum1]

Besides, seems like the concept of social ideology could cover just about any actual motive that an individual like this would have.

https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/976651010813906944

[sys]

we already have words for non-political violence.   those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.

[chum1]

we already have words for non-political violence.   those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.

Apparently, people feel that the existing words are inadequate in certain cases. (Or not! There doesn't NEED to be a reason.)

[SkinnyBenny]

we already have words for non-political violence.   those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.

I guess the only thing that really matters about the label is to help level out the double standard that exists where tan mass murderers are automatically seen as terrorists and white mass murderers are automatically granted a pass until we "wait to jump to a conclusion until we've determined what their motive was." (And then they just get written off as mentally ill, which is a cop-out.)

[chum1]

I mean, we all agree that Ted Kaczynski was a terrorist, right? Because of his manifesto? There's just no way that this new guy is substantively different. Or the Las Vegas shooter.

[michigancat]

I guess I mostly don't understand the motive in fighting the "terrorism" label for this guy. He absolutely terrorized a city with bombs, (and in looking all the hand-delivered packages went to minorities, the later ones went to fedex).

Is the worry that the next guy who terrorizes a city with package bombs will be unfairly labeled a terrorist? Why fight this fight?

[sys]

we already have words for non-political violence.   those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.

I guess the only thing that really matters about the label is to help level out the double standard that exists where tan mass murderers are automatically seen as terrorists and white mass murderers are automatically granted a pass until we "wait to jump to a conclusion until we've determined what their motive was." (And then they just get written off as mentally ill, which is a cop-out.)

the remedy to that problem is to insist on accuracy and precision in all cases.

[SkinnyBenny]

we already have words for non-political violence.   those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.

I guess the only thing that really matters about the label is to help level out the double standard that exists where tan mass murderers are automatically seen as terrorists and white mass murderers are automatically granted a pass until we "wait to jump to a conclusion until we've determined what their motive was." (And then they just get written off as mentally ill, which is a cop-out.)

the remedy to that problem is to insist on accuracy and precision in all cases.

I mean, that's what we're doing.

[Spracne]

Ahh, the intolerable wrestle with words and their meaning. Post 9/11, the narrower concept of radical Islamic terrorism has subsumed the broader concept of terrorism in the popular American consciousness. Who gives a chit, really?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[sys]

I mean, that's what we're doing.

that's like, the opposite of what you're doing.

[michigancat]

eliminating the word terrorism altogether might fix the problem.

[SkinnyBenny]

I mean, that's what we're doing.

that's like, the opposite of what you're doing.

interesting, if true.

[CHONGS]

The desire for the precision (or non precision) of terms is a function of political expediency.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Of course those guys fit the definition of "terrorism," Ski-be. 

I've had this argument before, and i've decided that the semantics aren't all that important to me.  "Terrorism" has such a stigma because of how muslims were (unfairly) viewed post 9-11.  Now, in response, SJWs want to call everyone who commits mass violence a terrorist. 

Whatever. If people want to call this guy a terrorist, let them.  He's not (assuming he had no motive), but it's definitely not my hill to die on.  Maybe in the future we'll just start saying "political terrorist" to replace what "terrorist" used to mean.  The world will keep spinning.

Anyway, in my view "senseless violence" as distinguished from "terrorism" is worse.  I can at least conceptualize the idea behind terrorism.  I cannot imagine how someone could just want to go out and commit violence for no real reason.

I am positive this guy had a motive. We will probably never know what it was, but there had to be something to motivate him to keep building bombs and dropping them off.

[Phil Titola]

It's only humorous due to certain sets of people wanting to yell terrorism when someone "looking foreign" commits a crime even though they have no idea if they have political motives behind their actions.....and those same people make a political talking point about other people not using very specific wording....it's weird.

[michigancat]

Info on differences between domestic and international terrorism and the type of weapon used when it comes to charging people with terrorism:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ab2da83e4b0decad04689fc

[mocat]

Ahh, the intolerable wrestle with words and their meaning. Post 9/11, the narrower concept of radical Islamic terrorism has subsumed the broader concept of terrorism in the popular American consciousness. Who gives a chit, really?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

The term "terrorism" is the only thing radical islamic terrorism has hijacked since 911

[Cire]

The terrorism thing doesn't really bother me.

[Dugout DickStone]

I am going to call that little racist a terrorist and there isn't a thing a single one of you nitwits can do to stop me