3 ms·
It is terrorism, indisputably. Arguing other point is relatively inconsequential. But if we were to argue the point, to argue that spray-paint isn't "violence"
by mrangle 2y ago
It is terrorism, indisputably. Arguing other point is relatively inconsequential. But if we were to argue the point, to argue that spray-paint isn't "violence" isn't going to have much credibility when it's perceived to be from the long standing "words are violence" and "silence is violence" crowd. A selective standard is no standard at all. How the spray paint differs is that it is property destruction in service of intimidation toward a political end.
- acdha 2y agoDoes that mean that Republicans engaged in terrorism when they threatened to hang journalists, shoot immigrants or Democrats, etc.? Seems like the courts might be overloaded if we redefine every threat as an act of terrorism.
- outer_web 2y agoWe need a new word then, for hijacking planes and driving explosives-laden boats into tankers. Any ideas?
- Jensson 2y agoWhy? Not all crimes with the same name is of the same severity.
- n4r9 2y agoIt's certainly disputable: https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2019/09/11/spray-paint-and-violence-what-is-physical-force-against-property-update-for-september-11-2019/ https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2019/09/11/spray-paint-and-violen...