2 ms·

Hm, I see it the other way around. To me, the "slippery slope" here is that men who repeatedly commit domestic violence could be labeled terrorists. And, frank

Hm, I see it the other way around. To me, the "slippery slope" here is that men who repeatedly commit domestic violence could be labeled terrorists. And, frankly, I'm ok with that.

LightG 5y ago
Yes, 'domestic terrorist' could take on an extended meaning, and rightfully in this case. (edit: judging by the downvotes, a decent amount of sympathy on HN for those engaged in domestic violence. Noted).
Waterluvian 5y ago
Why? What does that serve other than to ruin the word? One of the scariest things happening right now in a post-intellectual America is that words don’t have meaning anymore. It’s all just “good” or “bad”, “our team” or “your team”. It’s how a group that does manifestly unpatriotic things gets by calling themselves patriots with a straight face. I’m not sure calling abusive criminals “terrorists” does a single good thing.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Calling someone who abuses women to rule them by fear a "terrorist" doesn't sound like a stretch to me. In contrast, the media calling anyone attacking a cop or a military officer a "terrorist" sounds like way more of a stretch, and much closer to Nazi Germany's understanding of the word where anything the government (NOT the people) feared was labeled a terrorist.
mountainb 5y ago
Spend some time around defense attorneys and the types of people who constantly get in trouble for domestics. This would just be one of the many other things politicians have foisted on the poor (who have less self-control, else they would not be poor) that put them into continual conflict with the legal system long after they have served their prison sentences. If you want domestics to go to jail for 50 years, change the statutes so that there's mandatory minimums of 50 years in prison. Or life, who cares? The chickenshit stuff of larding lifelong restrictions on convicts related to domestic abuse results in the unending harrying of poor bums with complex post-sentencing requirements involving guns, cars, etc. that keeps lawyers busy, cops doing make-work, and poor people poor. Adding terrorism nonsense to the mix will just encourage the FBI to employ thousands of CIs to induce working class couples to cheat on one another with their catfished agents to get one or both to commit 'terrorism' to lock them up.

Hm, I see it the other way around. To me, the "slippery slope" here is that men who repeatedly commit domestic violence could be labeled terrorists. And, frankly, I'm ok with that.

LightG 5y ago

Yes, 'domestic terrorist' could take on an extended meaning, and rightfully in this case. (edit: judging by the downvotes, a decent amount of sympathy on HN for those engaged in domestic violence. Noted).

Waterluvian 5y ago

Why? What does that serve other than to ruin the word? One of the scariest things happening right now in a post-intellectual America is that words don’t have meaning anymore. It’s all just “good” or “bad”, “our team” or “your team”. It’s how a group that does manifestly unpatriotic things gets by calling themselves patriots with a straight face. I’m not sure calling abusive criminals “terrorists” does a single good thing.

southerntofu 5y ago
Calling someone who abuses women to rule them by fear a "terrorist" doesn't sound like a stretch to me. In contrast, the media calling anyone attacking a cop or a military officer a "terrorist" sounds like way more of a stretch, and much closer to Nazi Germany's understanding of the word where anything the government (NOT the people) feared was labeled a terrorist.

mountainb 5y ago

Spend some time around defense attorneys and the types of people who constantly get in trouble for domestics. This would just be one of the many other things politicians have foisted on the poor (who have less self-control, else they would not be poor) that put them into continual conflict with the legal system long after they have served their prison sentences. If you want domestics to go to jail for 50 years, change the statutes so that there's mandatory minimums of 50 years in prison. Or life, who cares? The chickenshit stuff of larding lifelong restrictions on convicts related to domestic abuse results in the unending harrying of poor bums with complex post-sentencing requirements involving guns, cars, etc. that keeps lawyers busy, cops doing make-work, and poor people poor. Adding terrorism nonsense to the mix will just encourage the FBI to employ thousands of CIs to induce working class couples to cheat on one another with their catfished agents to get one or both to commit 'terrorism' to lock them up.