6 ms·

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

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.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Critically, lots of these things are viewed through a political lens. So the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted.
      - nailer 5y ago
        > > 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. > the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted. It seems you didn't read the comment you were replying to, which addresses this point.
        mc32 5y ago
        You and I can agree on what terrorism tends to be. Fact checkers may apply political lenses to interpret violent actions differently.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      > no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. That's not true, because Rosenberg was convicted of crimes. It's a fact to state what those convictions were. There's no arguing with that. - Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosive possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of fraudulent document possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of terrorism: not 100% true, there are multiple, valid, although subjective interpretations of the facts that relate to terrorism. > Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government. I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted. We can go back and forth for a while about what the definition of terrorism is, but that would just further prove the Snopes article right - that the definition of terrorism and how that applies to the facts is subjective, and would need to be determined by a court of law. > 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. Then why not just say that? You believe she was a terrorist because she was convicted of illegal weapons and explosives possession. That's a fine statement to make, and the Snopes article agrees. But it's different from "convicted terrorist". You believe there is no distinction, but others disagree. Notably, the Snopes article covers this nuance, includes sources, and makes clear that your viewpoint is valid. It also makes room for other valid viewpoints here, which you refuse to do. Nevertheless, I disagree that words are meaningless, especially highly politically charged words like "terrorist". I'm advocating for nuance here, and your continued replies seem very absolutist to me. You're instructing me to ignore the nuance in the Snopes article, and replace it with a black-and-white view of the world that aligns with your own. What's astounding to me is that you say the Snopes article is playing games with words and definitions, when in reality it provides a well-sourced and nuanced point of view on this issue. Meanwhile you're trying to tell me that "convicted terrorist" means "someone who was convicted of unstated crimes and is also separately a terrorist". I mean, come on. That's not a fuck-fuck game?
- seneca 5y ago
  You're dead on. This is a "distinction without a difference" and is a classic logical fallacy. It is the heart of "weasel words".
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    I’m sorry but don’t you see the irony here? This Snopes fact check goes into a measured analysis of the claim. It presents all sides fairly. It arrives at a conclusion that one aspect of the claim is subjective, and they aren’t wrong about that. Therefore they give split rating with caveats and context. You and others are arguing an absolutist position that removes all the nuance, and blurs technical crimes with subjective interpretations of those crimes. Moreover, you claim those who engage with the nuance are weasels playing fuck fuck games (I know you didn’t say that but you endorsed the comment that did). For example, I could say that the people who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 were terrorists. Hundreds have been charged, some convictions are coming down, none of which are terrorism. Would it be fair for me to say they are convicted terrorists? No, there is a lot of nuance here that is lost if I do that.
    - nailer 5y ago
      > For example, I could say that the people who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 were terrorists. Hundreds have been charged, some convictions are coming down, none of which are terrorism. Would it be fair for me to say they are convicted terrorists? If they're convicted of planning an attack on civilians then yes. How many instances of this happening do you know of?
- 8note 5y ago
  "Convict and a robber" seems like the appropriate description to me. They could also be convicted of any number of things, that aren't robbery. By saying convicted robber, you're assigning more certainty to your claim that they're a robber than there is. You're trying to argue that they're a robber when you're saying somebody is a robber and they haven't been convicted of robbery. Saying that they're a convicted robber pretends that it's already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, which it hasn'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.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Critically, lots of these things are viewed through a political lens. So the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted.
    - nailer 5y ago
      > > 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. > the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted. It seems you didn't read the comment you were replying to, which addresses this point.
      - mc32 5y ago
        You and I can agree on what terrorism tends to be. Fact checkers may apply political lenses to interpret violent actions differently.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. That's not true, because Rosenberg was convicted of crimes. It's a fact to state what those convictions were. There's no arguing with that. - Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosive possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of fraudulent document possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of terrorism: not 100% true, there are multiple, valid, although subjective interpretations of the facts that relate to terrorism. > Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government. I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted. We can go back and forth for a while about what the definition of terrorism is, but that would just further prove the Snopes article right - that the definition of terrorism and how that applies to the facts is subjective, and would need to be determined by a court of law. > 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. Then why not just say that? You believe she was a terrorist because she was convicted of illegal weapons and explosives possession. That's a fine statement to make, and the Snopes article agrees. But it's different from "convicted terrorist". You believe there is no distinction, but others disagree. Notably, the Snopes article covers this nuance, includes sources, and makes clear that your viewpoint is valid. It also makes room for other valid viewpoints here, which you refuse to do. Nevertheless, I disagree that words are meaningless, especially highly politically charged words like "terrorist". I'm advocating for nuance here, and your continued replies seem very absolutist to me. You're instructing me to ignore the nuance in the Snopes article, and replace it with a black-and-white view of the world that aligns with your own. What's astounding to me is that you say the Snopes article is playing games with words and definitions, when in reality it provides a well-sourced and nuanced point of view on this issue. Meanwhile you're trying to tell me that "convicted terrorist" means "someone who was convicted of unstated crimes and is also separately a terrorist". I mean, come on. That's not a fuck-fuck game?
seneca 5y ago
You're dead on. This is a "distinction without a difference" and is a classic logical fallacy. It is the heart of "weasel words".
- ModernMech 5y ago
  I’m sorry but don’t you see the irony here? This Snopes fact check goes into a measured analysis of the claim. It presents all sides fairly. It arrives at a conclusion that one aspect of the claim is subjective, and they aren’t wrong about that. Therefore they give split rating with caveats and context. You and others are arguing an absolutist position that removes all the nuance, and blurs technical crimes with subjective interpretations of those crimes. Moreover, you claim those who engage with the nuance are weasels playing fuck fuck games (I know you didn’t say that but you endorsed the comment that did). For example, I could say that the people who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 were terrorists. Hundreds have been charged, some convictions are coming down, none of which are terrorism. Would it be fair for me to say they are convicted terrorists? No, there is a lot of nuance here that is lost if I do that.
  - nailer 5y ago
    > For example, I could say that the people who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 were terrorists. Hundreds have been charged, some convictions are coming down, none of which are terrorism. Would it be fair for me to say they are convicted terrorists? If they're convicted of planning an attack on civilians then yes. How many instances of this happening do you know of?
8note 5y ago
"Convict and a robber" seems like the appropriate description to me. They could also be convicted of any number of things, that aren't robbery. By saying convicted robber, you're assigning more certainty to your claim that they're a robber than there is. You're trying to argue that they're a robber when you're saying somebody is a robber and they haven't been convicted of robbery. Saying that they're a convicted robber pretends that it's already been proven beyond reasonable doubt, which it hasn't