5 ms·

This is one of my favourites: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ Snopes ackn

by nailer 5y ago

This is one of my favourites: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/ Snopes acknowledges that a convicted terrorist (ie, someone that targeted civilians to enact political change) sat on the board of a BLM funding body then concludes 'mixture' because there is no universally agreed definition of 'terrorism'. > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."

willcipriano 5y ago
I'd like to watch them sweat if you forced them to fact check "The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists" using the same priors. > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions of Mohamed Atta - leading a group of young men to hijack planes and fly them into buildings — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- slavik81 5y ago
  It's kind of beside the point, but Mohamed Atta would never be considered a domestic terrorist. He travelled to the United States on a tourist visa, specifically to engage in terrorism. That disqualifies his actions from being 'domestic'.
ModernMech 5y ago
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time the claim was that she was a “convicted terrorist”, when in fact she was not convicted of terrorism. That’s just a fact. You can look at her convictions, and there is no conviction for terrorism. There’s plenty to say about her actions, which are certainly terroristic, but her being “convicted” of terrorism is straight up not true, no matter how you feel about it. That’s why they say it’s mixed and subjective, because there is no objective fact you can point to that would back up the position that she was convicted of terrorism. She wasn’t.
- refurb 5y ago
  You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays. The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective. ”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." What was this left-wing revolutionary doing with hundreds of pounds of illegal explosives? Starting a mining company? It’s just splitting hairs to such a degree you try and weasel out of a perfectly rationale take. It’s like saying someone is a “convicted robber” then saying the claim is “mixed” because they weren’t convicted of robbery but rather assault and theft. Well, ok, but clearly that’s a distinction unworthy of calling out?
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me. You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument? Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. A verdict of “mixture” given this split seems appropriate.
    - refurb 5y ago
      By this logic no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. To quote Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “is”. Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. But again, it’s a distinction without worth - the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts.
      - 5y ago

by nailer 5y ago

willcipriano 5y ago

I'd like to watch them sweat if you forced them to fact check "The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists" using the same priors. > In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions of Mohamed Atta - leading a group of young men to hijack planes and fly them into buildings — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
slavik81 5y ago
It's kind of beside the point, but Mohamed Atta would never be considered a domestic terrorist. He travelled to the United States on a tourist visa, specifically to engage in terrorism. That disqualifies his actions from being 'domestic'.

ModernMech 5y ago

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time the claim was that she was a “convicted terrorist”, when in fact she was not convicted of terrorism. That’s just a fact. You can look at her convictions, and there is no conviction for terrorism. There’s plenty to say about her actions, which are certainly terroristic, but her being “convicted” of terrorism is straight up not true, no matter how you feel about it. That’s why they say it’s mixed and subjective, because there is no objective fact you can point to that would back up the position that she was convicted of terrorism. She wasn’t.

refurb 5y ago
You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays. The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective. ”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." What was this left-wing revolutionary doing with hundreds of pounds of illegal explosives? Starting a mining company? It’s just splitting hairs to such a degree you try and weasel out of a perfectly rationale take. It’s like saying someone is a “convicted robber” then saying the claim is “mixed” because they weren’t convicted of robbery but rather assault and theft. Well, ok, but clearly that’s a distinction unworthy of calling out?
- ModernMech 5y ago
  I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me. You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument? Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. A verdict of “mixture” given this split seems appropriate.
  - refurb 5y ago
    By this logic no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. To quote Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “is”. Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. But again, it’s a distinction without worth - the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts.
    - 5y ago