The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
Dak
mentat
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
The word Terror had been used far longer and its origins were not linked to politics. So yes, let me repeat myself for you "chess players"(lmao). Politics and the "US LAW" do not define words. If i am not mistaken it is an old Latin word which LITERALLY means "to frighten". But dont let that stop you guys from grazing on that nice green grass.
Einherjar86
Active Member
But you were discussing terrorism, no? An indiscriminate criminal act might be terrifying, or even induce terror; but that doesn't make it terrorism.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
You want to use a dictionary - sure - here you go
"
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
"Terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/terrorism
"Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence directed against civilians for the purpose of creating intense fear, which the terrorist hopes to exploit to attain political or ideological goals."
"
ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
"Terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/terrorism
"Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence directed against civilians for the purpose of creating intense fear, which the terrorist hopes to exploit to attain political or ideological goals."
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
... and here comes another nitwit stating the obvious. Thanks for pulling out one of the definitions that literally no one here argued against. Did anyone here say that terror is excluded from the world of politics? No, you mushead. What is being argued is that terror doesn't only exist when politics is involved.
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
rms
Active Member
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1061168803218948096
wildfire mismanagement is actually legit, probably 100% right
wildfire mismanagement is actually legit, probably 100% right
Dak
mentat
I love how the chorus is that it's Trump fault because of the "stripping of funds". Because money just magically makes things be managed better. But it's not really true anyway:
https://www.fs.fed.us/blogs/fire-budget-21st-century
Environmentalists have supported policies which put the forests in greater danger by total opposition to logging, just as they have for various wildlife with total opposition to hunting. Forests and herds need culling for health.
https://www.fs.fed.us/blogs/fire-budget-21st-century
Environmentalists have supported policies which put the forests in greater danger by total opposition to logging, just as they have for various wildlife with total opposition to hunting. Forests and herds need culling for health.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Dak
mentat
You didn't say it, but you're acting like it. I already linked the data source from your link, which shows no "right wing" source, only "neo-nazis" and "white extremists", and showing that those, "right-wing" or no, are minuscule in both fatalities and injuries compared to run of the mill violent crimes/homicides. Yet you are quite concerned about them, while not about the more clear and present dangers.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
i know a few people out here in California who have been charged with "Terrorist Threats"(PC422) for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with politics. You can get even get charged with terrorist threats for threatening to beat someone up. Which i even mentioned a few pages ago during another argument.
Dak
mentat
https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1060621171715162112
Contact theory has been oversold.
I personally believe contact is helpful - As long as "they" (whoever that is, depending on the context) aren't moving in next door. Appreciation of cultures requires distinct spaces for those cultures. Safe spaces, if you will.
Contact theory has been oversold.
I personally believe contact is helpful - As long as "they" (whoever that is, depending on the context) aren't moving in next door. Appreciation of cultures requires distinct spaces for those cultures. Safe spaces, if you will.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You didn’t expect me to argue about the meaning of words?
I mean, sure—I experience terror when I watch a good scary film, or when an oncoming vehicle drifts into my lane, or even when a stranger lunges at me. But none of those qualify as terrorism.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
I already linked you to what the meaning of the word straight from the worlds most respected dictionary. But don't let that get in your way my man.
what if that stranger continued following you around and kept trying to harm you? Would that not qualify as terrorism for you? Because the guy would literally be charged for terrorist threats out here in Cali for that. Do you disagree with "California Law"(which imo doesnt mean shit since the government doesn't define words)? Do you disagree with Webster's dictionary?
Just to be clear, you are saying terrorism only occurs when politics is involved, correct?
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I already pasted an image from the actual US Code of Laws that Crimsontard referred to, the meaning therein for terrorism isn't only political, the first definition it offers is to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
The US Code of Laws LITERALLY debunks his argument.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
I never said anything of the sort and am not gonna waste my time debating about what you think I think.
That simply has to do with the way that website classifies terrorist groups. It appears they use the most specific classifications possible, which is great. However, that doesn't mean there aren't reasons to examine whether those categories of terrorism fall under a larger category of right wing terrorism. Nazism is a form of fascism and fascism is a far right wing ideology. Therefore, it would make sense to call it right-wing terrorism. White extremism is a little more nebulous, but for those that identify as white nationalists, it would be totally reasonable to say that they are far-right.
Dak
mentat
I didn't say you said it specifically. But you did say:
"All of the". Single digit fatalities and less than 30 injuries over the course of a year, including Charlottesville (1 fatality, 19 injuries), where the fatality and injuries were due to a clash, not an "attack". You've got a weird fixation.
It would make as much sense to say democratic socialists and black nationalists are right wing. Maybe you want to go there, maybe you don't.
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
First of all, there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. All I did was mention the etymological history, i.e. the way the word entered the English language.
You ask a lot of questions boy.
California punishes "criminal threats," if I'm not mistaken. Is that interchangeable with "terrorist threats"?
I'm saying that terrorism is etymologically inextricable from political violence.
Well, I'd have to a pain in the ass and say that intimidating or coercing a civilian population virtually implies a political dimension. Often, civilians are intimidated and/or coerced so that their behavior serves political ends.
Similar threads
