One thing the left loves to do is expand the definitions of words to meaninglessness. That includes terrorism, but sometimes language needs to evolve to embrace greater, broader realities. Maybe the dicitionary def needs some, erm, redefinition. Maybe we need an adjunct word for it, or differentiate between political/religious terrorism …
One thing the left loves to do is expand the definitions of words to meaninglessness. That includes terrorism, but sometimes language needs to evolve to embrace greater, broader realities. Maybe the dicitionary def needs some, erm, redefinition. Maybe we need an adjunct word for it, or differentiate between political/religious terrorism and, say, the need to cause terror for a variety of reasons, while keeping it within the realm of not allowing every liberal bugaboo to be included ("Everything is white supremacy and racism, and both are violence." - not a real quote, just my summation of how white supremacy and racism are meaningless now.) I consider mass shootings to be a form of terrorism but I acknowledge it doesn't fit the Merriam-Webster definition. Protests are peaceful, rioting, destruction, and injury/killing of others is not, the latter of which is a form of terrorism. Maybe we need different words entirely, while acknowledging that at the core of terrorism is a desire to control others through fear.
I agree with Steve, the Rittenhouse case is so far away from terrorism primarily because of his intentions, that the word just does not fit. Now to your comment:
I agree the left does have a tendency to expand a words usage beyond recognition.
I also agree that words shift, and need to shift over time.
In the case of the word terrorism. I have never liked that word much, since it is wielded as if it were objective. but is usually is not. It depends on which side you are on to decide is a person is a terrorist or a freedom fighter.
for example many do not describe Israel's demolition of homes that are involved in rocket launches as terrorist acts. Still no one deny's the owner of the home often did not launch the rocket, but are civilians. Israel is trying to break the political will supporting these actions, by attacking the population at large (as well as the actors when they can).
Others WOULD call this a terrorist act, and would say the Palestinans are simply acting in self defense. Thus I think the word is not an honest one. It tries to put an air of objectivity on what is truly just an opinion about who the "good guys" are.
Maybe a word like aggressor is an honest substitute for Terrorist. (of course most speakers are not striving for honesty.)
I have tried to consistently use 'terrorism' to refer to the use of terror tactics against civilians as a means of seeking political power. Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism (they may be conventional or guerilla warfare), but attacks on teachers are. Random violence by criminals is not terrorism. Suicide bombing of civilians is.
Where it gets admittedly more complex is when one tries to define "state terrorism". It clearly exists - whether the Junta in Argentina diappearing opponents, or the Nazi's shooting Norwegian townspeople near where partisans had ambushed their soldiers. But the boundaries are fuzzier.
And Israel is a case in point. They seem to me to waver back and forth over the line between state terrorism and military offensives against assymetric warfare. If their goal was really to wipe out civilians, they could increase their casualty count by 100 fold very easily; it's clear to me that they do want to minimize civilian casualties, while their opponents want to maximize it on both sides (ie; killing Israeli civilians as well as launching missiles from civilian buildings to provoke a counter attack which would stir up more resentment). But Israel may be more willing to accept civilians casualties as a side effect than I am willing to accept. Morally, it's a quagmire.
I still apply terrorism only to those who try to gain power through terrorizing civilians. There are other words for other bad things which are not terrorism. I resist redefining it in order to inaccurately borrow the negative connotation.
passion your texts all makes much sense. here is the strongest counter argument against the focus on civilians. There are powerful groups... and less powerful groups. those with less power have no choice but to attack civilians if they hope to attack the opposition... this is not support for their terrorism. but powerful groups use that word to vilify the opposition while justifying their own actions. also not cool. I just don't like that word. The key is violence. beyond that it becomes quite political if it is more-bad or less-bad violence. just my thought....
Good points, and the editorial 'we' will probably never agree on what constitutes terrorism because it depends on your POV. Everyone likes the word 'terrorism' because it's so loaded with emotionalism. However, it's not fair anymore, I think, and I guess you agree, to stick to the strict dictionary definition. 'Racism' is another one that has broadened to include and recognize new forms of colour discrimination we didn't acknowledge or even realize before, but it's not the same as a lynching. So calling someone who said 'coloured people' a racist is way different from calling a lynching racist. When I was growing up we used to talk about 'prejudice'; it was attitudes and beliefs, and we applied 'racist' to actions. We have lost that nuance in public discourse; Matt Damon left Twitter after being 'canceled' by Alyssa Milano and Minnie Driver who took umbrage at his delineation between a butt grab and a rape.
At this point in history, I'm ready to start calling right-wing aggression like the Capitol attack 'terrorism'. It's ideologically driven by frequently armed mostly males, with striking similarities to ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups that came to our foreminds after 9/11. I called certain Christian fundamentalist groups 'terrorists' much earlier when they began behaving rather a lot like the traditional 'terrorist' groups of the '60s and '70s: They blew up buildings and assassinated abortion doctors. No different than the IRA blowing up a government building or assassinating two Ghandis and Menachem Begin.
But I'm open to new ideas for how to articulate various types of bad actors and aggressors. Terrorism has 'evolved' since the 1970s as has political protest; maybe we need new language, but with boundaries. Because you know the left will destroy its real meaning in fifteen minutes.
Bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors definitely fits the definition of terrorism (but the incidents are small in number).
The capitol event had several components, just as in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder there were several components to the reaction - some were peacefully protesting, some were rioting and vandalizing, some were looting, etc. The mass protests were often mostly peaceful, but after dark it was often mostly rioting and looting (often by different people). I do not smear the whole crowd by the actions of a few. And I feel similarly about the Capitol riot - the 700 or so who entered the Congress deserve to be appropriately prosecuted (some for more serious charges), but there were thousands there who did not. I think I could go along with a description that there were some terrorist type folks within the crowd, but I would not characterize the whole event as terrorism, any more than called all the protesters on the left "rioters".
As for the left destroying meaning...
I have been consciously avoiding the standalone usage of 'racist' and 'racism' in public dialogue for a year or more now. DiAngelo (following CRT) redefines racism as something all whites do and which nobody else can do. Kendi defines anything which is not anti-racist (by his definition) as being racist. The dictionary often defines it as holding views that one race is superior to others. In common usage it's often used for animosity or disdain based on race. People talk past each other.
However, even DiAngelo agrees that people of all races can and do have racial prejudice, hatred or discrimination. Those compound terms are still understood in close to the same way by all sides.
So when I'm writing or talking and I'm about to call something racism, I ask myself whether I intend to refer to racial bias, racial discrimination, racial stereotyping, racial hatred, or racial prejudice (etc) - and then write or speak one or more of those more specific forms. This pause to reflect on a more nuanced word (and a less adulterated/hijacked one) is actually good for my own thinking as well. I recommend this practice, since the unqualified terms have been so corrupted that they often hinder communication rather than aiding it.
Maybe you should have read a little further to see if my comment was worth completing or not. You didn't give yourself enough information to make that determination.
Anyone who talks first about how "the left" abuses language is simply below the temporal salt. I am more than halfway through my life and I just have no more time for that crap.
One thing the left loves to do is expand the definitions of words to meaninglessness. That includes terrorism, but sometimes language needs to evolve to embrace greater, broader realities. Maybe the dicitionary def needs some, erm, redefinition. Maybe we need an adjunct word for it, or differentiate between political/religious terrorism and, say, the need to cause terror for a variety of reasons, while keeping it within the realm of not allowing every liberal bugaboo to be included ("Everything is white supremacy and racism, and both are violence." - not a real quote, just my summation of how white supremacy and racism are meaningless now.) I consider mass shootings to be a form of terrorism but I acknowledge it doesn't fit the Merriam-Webster definition. Protests are peaceful, rioting, destruction, and injury/killing of others is not, the latter of which is a form of terrorism. Maybe we need different words entirely, while acknowledging that at the core of terrorism is a desire to control others through fear.
I agree with Steve, the Rittenhouse case is so far away from terrorism primarily because of his intentions, that the word just does not fit. Now to your comment:
I agree the left does have a tendency to expand a words usage beyond recognition.
I also agree that words shift, and need to shift over time.
In the case of the word terrorism. I have never liked that word much, since it is wielded as if it were objective. but is usually is not. It depends on which side you are on to decide is a person is a terrorist or a freedom fighter.
for example many do not describe Israel's demolition of homes that are involved in rocket launches as terrorist acts. Still no one deny's the owner of the home often did not launch the rocket, but are civilians. Israel is trying to break the political will supporting these actions, by attacking the population at large (as well as the actors when they can).
Others WOULD call this a terrorist act, and would say the Palestinans are simply acting in self defense. Thus I think the word is not an honest one. It tries to put an air of objectivity on what is truly just an opinion about who the "good guys" are.
Maybe a word like aggressor is an honest substitute for Terrorist. (of course most speakers are not striving for honesty.)
I have tried to consistently use 'terrorism' to refer to the use of terror tactics against civilians as a means of seeking political power. Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism (they may be conventional or guerilla warfare), but attacks on teachers are. Random violence by criminals is not terrorism. Suicide bombing of civilians is.
Where it gets admittedly more complex is when one tries to define "state terrorism". It clearly exists - whether the Junta in Argentina diappearing opponents, or the Nazi's shooting Norwegian townspeople near where partisans had ambushed their soldiers. But the boundaries are fuzzier.
And Israel is a case in point. They seem to me to waver back and forth over the line between state terrorism and military offensives against assymetric warfare. If their goal was really to wipe out civilians, they could increase their casualty count by 100 fold very easily; it's clear to me that they do want to minimize civilian casualties, while their opponents want to maximize it on both sides (ie; killing Israeli civilians as well as launching missiles from civilian buildings to provoke a counter attack which would stir up more resentment). But Israel may be more willing to accept civilians casualties as a side effect than I am willing to accept. Morally, it's a quagmire.
I still apply terrorism only to those who try to gain power through terrorizing civilians. There are other words for other bad things which are not terrorism. I resist redefining it in order to inaccurately borrow the negative connotation.
passion your texts all makes much sense. here is the strongest counter argument against the focus on civilians. There are powerful groups... and less powerful groups. those with less power have no choice but to attack civilians if they hope to attack the opposition... this is not support for their terrorism. but powerful groups use that word to vilify the opposition while justifying their own actions. also not cool. I just don't like that word. The key is violence. beyond that it becomes quite political if it is more-bad or less-bad violence. just my thought....
Good points, and the editorial 'we' will probably never agree on what constitutes terrorism because it depends on your POV. Everyone likes the word 'terrorism' because it's so loaded with emotionalism. However, it's not fair anymore, I think, and I guess you agree, to stick to the strict dictionary definition. 'Racism' is another one that has broadened to include and recognize new forms of colour discrimination we didn't acknowledge or even realize before, but it's not the same as a lynching. So calling someone who said 'coloured people' a racist is way different from calling a lynching racist. When I was growing up we used to talk about 'prejudice'; it was attitudes and beliefs, and we applied 'racist' to actions. We have lost that nuance in public discourse; Matt Damon left Twitter after being 'canceled' by Alyssa Milano and Minnie Driver who took umbrage at his delineation between a butt grab and a rape.
At this point in history, I'm ready to start calling right-wing aggression like the Capitol attack 'terrorism'. It's ideologically driven by frequently armed mostly males, with striking similarities to ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups that came to our foreminds after 9/11. I called certain Christian fundamentalist groups 'terrorists' much earlier when they began behaving rather a lot like the traditional 'terrorist' groups of the '60s and '70s: They blew up buildings and assassinated abortion doctors. No different than the IRA blowing up a government building or assassinating two Ghandis and Menachem Begin.
But I'm open to new ideas for how to articulate various types of bad actors and aggressors. Terrorism has 'evolved' since the 1970s as has political protest; maybe we need new language, but with boundaries. Because you know the left will destroy its real meaning in fifteen minutes.
Bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors definitely fits the definition of terrorism (but the incidents are small in number).
The capitol event had several components, just as in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder there were several components to the reaction - some were peacefully protesting, some were rioting and vandalizing, some were looting, etc. The mass protests were often mostly peaceful, but after dark it was often mostly rioting and looting (often by different people). I do not smear the whole crowd by the actions of a few. And I feel similarly about the Capitol riot - the 700 or so who entered the Congress deserve to be appropriately prosecuted (some for more serious charges), but there were thousands there who did not. I think I could go along with a description that there were some terrorist type folks within the crowd, but I would not characterize the whole event as terrorism, any more than called all the protesters on the left "rioters".
As for the left destroying meaning...
I have been consciously avoiding the standalone usage of 'racist' and 'racism' in public dialogue for a year or more now. DiAngelo (following CRT) redefines racism as something all whites do and which nobody else can do. Kendi defines anything which is not anti-racist (by his definition) as being racist. The dictionary often defines it as holding views that one race is superior to others. In common usage it's often used for animosity or disdain based on race. People talk past each other.
However, even DiAngelo agrees that people of all races can and do have racial prejudice, hatred or discrimination. Those compound terms are still understood in close to the same way by all sides.
So when I'm writing or talking and I'm about to call something racism, I ask myself whether I intend to refer to racial bias, racial discrimination, racial stereotyping, racial hatred, or racial prejudice (etc) - and then write or speak one or more of those more specific forms. This pause to reflect on a more nuanced word (and a less adulterated/hijacked one) is actually good for my own thinking as well. I recommend this practice, since the unqualified terms have been so corrupted that they often hinder communication rather than aiding it.
I like that. Force the left back into saying the words they mean rather than, like Alice, making them mean whatever they want them to mean.
"the left"
I stopped reading there
Maybe you should have read a little further to see if my comment was worth completing or not. You didn't give yourself enough information to make that determination.
Anyone who talks first about how "the left" abuses language is simply below the temporal salt. I am more than halfway through my life and I just have no more time for that crap.