2 ms·
I 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/beha
by ukj 6y ago
I 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/
- keiferski 6y agoThe issue isn't what particular actors think to justify their beliefs, but whether society-wide definitions are justified. This is a practical matter. As I said initially: if you stick to describing actions, rather than intents or consequences, the difficulty of defining things is much easier. Your example is also illustrating my point perfectly. Under my system, Nelson Mandela would not be a terrorist or a freedom fighter, he would be a man who engaged in both (separately) terroristic acts and freedom-fighting acts. That seems far less controversial of a statement to me.
- ukj 6y agoThe ANC engaged in blowing up a bar full of civilians. Was that an act of terrorism or an act of freedom fighting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_beach-front_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_beach-front_bombing
- keiferski 6y agoIt seems like you aren't really reading my comments, because as I have said a few times now, this would clearly be an act of terrorism. If your next question will be, "Is the ANC then a terrorist organization?" I refer you to my previous comment where I said we should avoid labeling nouns, but instead label actions.
- ukj 6y agoWhy are you interpreting it that way? Labeling actions is exactly what I did. The acton was "blowing up a bar full of civilians". You labelled that action as 'terrorism'. The ANC labelled that action as 'freedom fighting'.