4 ms·
And you'll get no further than 'A terrorist is a person who engages in terrorism'. And then the debate is still exactly where we left off. Was that person eng
by ukj 6y ago
And you'll get no further than 'A terrorist is a person who engages in terrorism'.
And then the debate is still exactly where we left off.
Was that person engaging in X, or was he engaging in Y?
X = Terrorism, Y = Freedom fighting
The main issue is that your attitude towards the activity/person is encoded in the language you are using to describe it.
- keiferski 6y agoI don’t think this is accurate or a charitable interpretation of what I said. I am making a distinction between actions and nouns. I hold that it is not controversial to say certain actions are considered terroristic actions and certain actions are considered freedom fighting actions. Often, the same people engage in both, and combined with our tendency to want to assign people in noun classes (He is an X), this results in the perceived equivalence you are speaking about.
- ukj 6y agoWhy? Exactly as you proposed: An X is somebody who engages in X. If you are engaging in terrorism then you are a terrorist. If you are engaging in freedom fighting then you are a freedom fighter. You say you are engaging in freedom fighting. I say you are engaging in terrorism. The distinction is merely your description of your behavior vs my description of your behavior. Perspective.
- keiferski 6y agoI just added more to my comment. But again, you seem to be misunderstanding my point entirely.
- ukj 6y agoI understand what you are saying. You are not seeing that it doesn't work. Instead of calling you a 'terrorist' (noun). I can simply describe your actions/behaviour as 'terrorising' (verb). Whether I classify you into a noun-class or a verb-class is moot. I am still classifying your behaviour as terrorism, not freedom fighting.
- keiferski 6y agoAt some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. By actions I mean specific things, not the broad amorphous label of "terrorizing." As I said, if you narrow it down to specific actions (shooting, bombing, protest, etc.) the distinction between the two seems far more clear. I don't think anyone would claim that killing a crowd of civilians is somehow a freedom-fighting act, even if it is done by someone who mostly engages in freedom-fighting actions.
- ukj 6y ago>At some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. Person A defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'terrorism'. Person B defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'freedom fighting'. They do it ostensively. THAT (points finger) is X. Language doesn't work the way you think it works. What you are trying to achieve is called Essentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism
- keiferski 6y agoI mean, you can define words however you want, but as I just said, I have a hard time believing that anyone would categorize "blowing up a bus filled with civilians" as a freedom-fighting act. Are you arguing that some people are justified in saying it is?
- ukj 6y agoThe person who blew up the bus and everybody who supports their actions defined it as 'freedom fighting'. That is how they justified killing civilians to themselves. Casualties of war. Just a short excursion into recent history: Nelson Mandela was once classified as a terrorist. It's because the ANC was involved in a number of bombings while engaging in 'freedom-fighting'. https://time.com/5338569/nelson-mandela-terror-list/ https://time.com/5338569/nelson-mandela-terror-list/