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 tha…
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.
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.