8 ms·

I'm deeply saddened to see so many people on Hacker News trying so hard to downplay this.

nostromo 6y ago
Saying something wasn't terrorism doesn't mean it wasn't unlawful or stupid or terrible. It just means it wasn't terrorism.
- King-Aaron 6y ago
  The definition - 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims' - seems to fit the event we're discussing.
  - sojournerc 6y ago
    Yup, and Antifa and BLM have caused fear in Portland for political reasons as well. They lit the mayor's apartment building on fire, but were not called out as terrorists. The media is not even handed here.
    - King-Aaron 6y ago
      Yes, there is credence to the old saying: "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". But I really don't think we need to devolve to whataboutism here. We're talking about the actions of people storming the capitol building, to try and say 'yes well X group of people are also terrorists' is a completely moot point and an intentional deflection.
      - sojournerc 6y ago
        This thread started with you saddened at folks downplaying the events at the Capitol. I'm much more concerned with the media being complicit in downplaying what we both agree is domestic terrorism elsewhere. I suppose that's a "what about", but I fear the current structures of power colluding to form narratives more than angry trumpers.
        King-Aaron 6y ago
        So, there's a few things to unpack here. 1. I don't (personally) agree that the 'black lives matter' protests should be considered as 'terrorism', because fundamentally they began as a protest against the systematic mistreatment of a certain race/demographic of people. While it can be viewed as political, it's not quite the same as 'storming the capital of a country to overturn the result of an election', which is undeniably a political goal. While some BLM rioters eventually did conduct what could be described as terrorist acts, it fundamentally isn't the same thing. 2. You're welcome to disagree on that point, but it's not what's being discussed in this thread. 3. Yes, media overreach is an issue, but it's not the topic of the conversation. 4. I am still sad that people are trying to downplay the issue, and not just because some people don't want to call it terrorism. People saying 'oh in the future it won't even be remembered' etc etc is also problematic as it's downplaying the event itself. Edit: Added point 2
        hairofadog 6y ago
        Thank you; I really appreciated this comment. I’m feeling much the same way, and it’s been in my mind a lot lately. I think the heart of the issue is a failure to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. People look at each thing in isolation and say, “it’s not that big a deal”, but somehow (especially surprising for folks who frequent HN) fail to see the larger patterns.
        pstuart 6y ago
        And every single BLM fear-monger here continues to ignore that violence at those protests had outside agitators in the mix: https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-supremacist-trying-to-incite-floyd-rioting/571932272/ https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-...
        thelastwave 6y ago
        No, BLM began in reaction to a hispanic person shooting a black person who was beating him up, and directly led to unprovoked and extremely violent attacks by blacks on white people, literally saying "This is for Trayvon!" BLM does not really address the underlying problem of conflict but has led to acts of murder and terrorism in the name of racial justice. It is part of the problem, not a solution.
      - thelastwave 6y ago
        whataboutism is really just hypocritical deflection, meaning, but we're not talking about the other situation. it's important to push back when people try to invoke "whataboutism" which is toxic to the integrity of discourse.
    - pelliphant 6y ago
      BLM is protesting against systematic racism, the trumpers where trying to overturn an election. Why would you even try to group those two things together? How could it possibly be a problem that "the media" doesn't consider those two things equal?
      - sojournerc 6y ago
        It doesn't matter. Violence for a political reason is terrorism[1]. I'm pointing out media hypocrisy, that doesn't mean I'm condoning any violence. Violence is wrong in support of BLM, it's wrong in support of Trump. The ends do not justify those means (and in fact are likely to be counterproductive). [1] ter•ror•ism tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm► n. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
        pelliphant 6y ago
        Terrorism is one of those words that are a bit hard to define. If you would use the definition you wrote here, a lot of things would be considered terrorism. There would probably be more terrorists than non-terrorists in the world then.. But anyway, I think we can agree on the "violence is wrong"-part, and the counterproductive part. But saying that if any form of violence occured during a protest, then those protests should be considered equal, is, well, I don't even know what to call it; Dishonest? Now, what I really disagree about is the "I'm pointing out media hypocrisy"-part. I really don't think you are doing that, I think that what you are doing is, complaining that "the media" seems to agree more with me than with you on this issue, and then phrasing it like your point of view is objectively correct.
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    It's quite odd that that phrasing allows for lawful violence and intimidation.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    Terrorism, by definition to many, requires the intentional infliction of terror to achieve those aims. That’s why it’s called “terrorism” rather than “political violence”
  - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
    I think missing from the definition is "indiscriminate" That makes a significant difference. On one side, the Right's movement against the capitol was specifically targeting politicians. This movement affected a priviledged political class and the people that they employ. In the other extreme, the BLM movement against (x) targeted (y) . This movement affected seniors, students, women, owners , employees, blacks, latinos, indiscriminately. This is the crux of the issue. X and Y are quite random and thus lend themselves far easier to the classic definition of terrorism
NewOrderNow 6y ago
Hyperbole harry over here
toofy 6y ago
the same people have been denying this problem for the past few years. they’ve been constantly either changing the subject or denying that the problem exists at all. mass shootings? oh no big deal. a newsroom was shot up? oh no big deal. bombs sent to every democrat leader, cnn, soros, etc..? oh don’t discuss that, discuss this instead! obvious signs of misinformation and propaganda spreading like a virus through internet forums? oh that’s not anything to worry about.

Saying something wasn't terrorism doesn't mean it wasn't unlawful or stupid or terrible. It just means it wasn't terrorism.

King-Aaron 6y ago
The definition - 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims' - seems to fit the event we're discussing.
- sojournerc 6y ago
  Yup, and Antifa and BLM have caused fear in Portland for political reasons as well. They lit the mayor's apartment building on fire, but were not called out as terrorists. The media is not even handed here.
  - King-Aaron 6y ago
    Yes, there is credence to the old saying: "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". But I really don't think we need to devolve to whataboutism here. We're talking about the actions of people storming the capitol building, to try and say 'yes well X group of people are also terrorists' is a completely moot point and an intentional deflection.
    - sojournerc 6y ago
      This thread started with you saddened at folks downplaying the events at the Capitol. I'm much more concerned with the media being complicit in downplaying what we both agree is domestic terrorism elsewhere. I suppose that's a "what about", but I fear the current structures of power colluding to form narratives more than angry trumpers.
      - King-Aaron 6y ago
        So, there's a few things to unpack here. 1. I don't (personally) agree that the 'black lives matter' protests should be considered as 'terrorism', because fundamentally they began as a protest against the systematic mistreatment of a certain race/demographic of people. While it can be viewed as political, it's not quite the same as 'storming the capital of a country to overturn the result of an election', which is undeniably a political goal. While some BLM rioters eventually did conduct what could be described as terrorist acts, it fundamentally isn't the same thing. 2. You're welcome to disagree on that point, but it's not what's being discussed in this thread. 3. Yes, media overreach is an issue, but it's not the topic of the conversation. 4. I am still sad that people are trying to downplay the issue, and not just because some people don't want to call it terrorism. People saying 'oh in the future it won't even be remembered' etc etc is also problematic as it's downplaying the event itself. Edit: Added point 2
        hairofadog 6y ago
        Thank you; I really appreciated this comment. I’m feeling much the same way, and it’s been in my mind a lot lately. I think the heart of the issue is a failure to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. People look at each thing in isolation and say, “it’s not that big a deal”, but somehow (especially surprising for folks who frequent HN) fail to see the larger patterns.
        pstuart 6y ago
        And every single BLM fear-monger here continues to ignore that violence at those protests had outside agitators in the mix: https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-supremacist-trying-to-incite-floyd-rioting/571932272/ https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-...
        thelastwave 6y ago
        No, BLM began in reaction to a hispanic person shooting a black person who was beating him up, and directly led to unprovoked and extremely violent attacks by blacks on white people, literally saying "This is for Trayvon!" BLM does not really address the underlying problem of conflict but has led to acts of murder and terrorism in the name of racial justice. It is part of the problem, not a solution.
    - thelastwave 6y ago
      whataboutism is really just hypocritical deflection, meaning, but we're not talking about the other situation. it's important to push back when people try to invoke "whataboutism" which is toxic to the integrity of discourse.
  - pelliphant 6y ago
    BLM is protesting against systematic racism, the trumpers where trying to overturn an election. Why would you even try to group those two things together? How could it possibly be a problem that "the media" doesn't consider those two things equal?
    - sojournerc 6y ago
      It doesn't matter. Violence for a political reason is terrorism[1]. I'm pointing out media hypocrisy, that doesn't mean I'm condoning any violence. Violence is wrong in support of BLM, it's wrong in support of Trump. The ends do not justify those means (and in fact are likely to be counterproductive). [1] ter•ror•ism tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm► n. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
      - pelliphant 6y ago
        Terrorism is one of those words that are a bit hard to define. If you would use the definition you wrote here, a lot of things would be considered terrorism. There would probably be more terrorists than non-terrorists in the world then.. But anyway, I think we can agree on the "violence is wrong"-part, and the counterproductive part. But saying that if any form of violence occured during a protest, then those protests should be considered equal, is, well, I don't even know what to call it; Dishonest? Now, what I really disagree about is the "I'm pointing out media hypocrisy"-part. I really don't think you are doing that, I think that what you are doing is, complaining that "the media" seems to agree more with me than with you on this issue, and then phrasing it like your point of view is objectively correct.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  It's quite odd that that phrasing allows for lawful violence and intimidation.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  Terrorism, by definition to many, requires the intentional infliction of terror to achieve those aims. That’s why it’s called “terrorism” rather than “political violence”
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  I think missing from the definition is "indiscriminate" That makes a significant difference. On one side, the Right's movement against the capitol was specifically targeting politicians. This movement affected a priviledged political class and the people that they employ. In the other extreme, the BLM movement against (x) targeted (y) . This movement affected seniors, students, women, owners , employees, blacks, latinos, indiscriminately. This is the crux of the issue. X and Y are quite random and thus lend themselves far easier to the classic definition of terrorism

NewOrderNow 6y ago

Hyperbole harry over here

toofy 6y ago

the same people have been denying this problem for the past few years. they’ve been constantly either changing the subject or denying that the problem exists at all. mass shootings? oh no big deal. a newsroom was shot up? oh no big deal. bombs sent to every democrat leader, cnn, soros, etc..? oh don’t discuss that, discuss this instead! obvious signs of misinformation and propaganda spreading like a virus through internet forums? oh that’s not anything to worry about.