4 ms·
Except there isn't a good general understanding. Quoting [3] from Wikipedia's entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ter
by eesmith 2y ago
Except there isn't a good general understanding. Quoting [3] from Wikipedia's entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism :
> "The ordinary current use of the word terrorism is much too wide. That is to say, if we list all the different phenomena which are at one time or another described as terrorism in ordinary conversation, or in ordinary newspapers, or by ordinary politicians, we will end up with a huge rag-bag of not very similar items . . The disadvantages of trying to construct an ordinary-language definition based on current usage can be seen, too, in the plethora of conflicting definitions occurring in philosophical and political literature. Thus philosophers for instance disagree about whether or not terrorism is wrong by definition or wrong just as a matter of fact; they disagree about whether terrorism should be defined in terms of its aims, or its methods, or both, or neither; they disagree about whether or not states can perpetrate terrorism; they even disagree about the importance or otherwise of terror for a definition of terrorism."
If you're going to be pick at nits, you need to be aware of the nits.
Violence used to extort money from a person/group of people is not generally considered terrorism, but your definition says it would be.
Violence against combatants is not generally considered terrorism, but your definition says it would be.
- not_your_vase 2y agoNope, it's you only. Nobody else thinks that - it is very important how a language is used in real life, and the intention and actual meaning behind its usage. Have a sleep, and read your response once again tomorrow - if you don't find it ridiculous, flaming for the 3rd definition of the word just for the sake of a pointless "akchyually" comment, then I give you victory, hands down. Otherwise, just have a laugh, and carry on with your life. I will do carry on myself after posting this. Offtopic: in a previous life as a CSR, decades ago, a customer at work was complaining to us about someone (from very east EU, maybe even Russia? definitely not native speaker) using the word "bro" in a casual, but innocent sentence, and he felt so extremely insulted, he went on literally for hours, demanding the person to be reprimanded... and we had no idea what he was talking about, until we found it on the 11th page of Urban Dictionary that "bro" has a 285th meaning in some random village, which is pejorative under some circumstances - and that's what he was complaining about. It just came to my mind, don't mind it. Happy new year!
- eesmith 2y agoI literally quoted someone else who said it, with a quote found on the Wikipedia page entry for the topic, linking to the paper at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751606?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751606?seq=1 which goes into details. A Wikipeda entry which starts, by the way, with: "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims." showing that combatants and monetary aims are outside at least its broadest definition. Someone claiming to be in "grammar nazi mode" should be wary of claiming something else is 'pointless "akchyually".'