It basically just means “designated enemy of the state”
That’s how it’s used but that’s not what it means. We seem to fundamentally agree; my point is mostly that “terrorist” is a noun that we, as people, have allowed to become a proper noun with a universal adapter.
It’s become a buzzword that gets thrown out to delegitimize opposition of any sort. I figure this is where you’re coming from when you say it has no meaning because we’ve allowed the word to be cheapened.
A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).
A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals
That describes the current US government perfectly. It describes the Israeli government and military perfectly. It’s actually pretty spot on with a lot of government action at various points across the globe.
Once citizenry react to a government “that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals”, I think we’d agree, they are not terrorists but in fact anti-terrorists.
There we disagree. If I called your comment a sandwich it doesn’t change the meaning of the word. In fact, people would rightfully call me out for misusing the word.
People need to start doing that for words like “terrorist” or “socialist” or “communist”. Language is frequently co-opted by bad actors. Each of us has a choice to fight back against it or to give in to it.
“How a word is used” is not the same as “how you personally use a word”
Individuals don’t get to determine the meaning of words, and that’s what you’re trying to do by insisting that “terrorist” has some kind of special meaning beyond “enemy of the state”. Words are defined by law and history and society and usage, not individuals.
Legally, a “terrorist” can only be a “designated enemy of the state”
Historically, “terrorist” has always just meant “designated enemy of the state”
Socially, a “terrorist” is just used to refer to “designated enemy of the state”
And, in common usage, “terrorist” just means “designated enemy of the state”
You’re trying to insist on some more concrete meaning beyond this, and it’s just not real. It’s a useless word for us.
A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).
I already quoted the literal definition of the word. I’ve made no reference to how I personally use the word. I’ve never actually had pccasion to call anyone a terrorist.
You seem to be getting a little worked up about this. Perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree here.
That’s how it’s used but that’s not what it means. We seem to fundamentally agree; my point is mostly that “terrorist” is a noun that we, as people, have allowed to become a proper noun with a universal adapter.
It’s become a buzzword that gets thrown out to delegitimize opposition of any sort. I figure this is where you’re coming from when you say it has no meaning because we’ve allowed the word to be cheapened.
A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals
That describes the current US government perfectly. It describes the Israeli government and military perfectly. It’s actually pretty spot on with a lot of government action at various points across the globe.
Once citizenry react to a government “that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals”, I think we’d agree, they are not terrorists but in fact anti-terrorists.
How a word is used is what it means tbh
There we disagree. If I called your comment a sandwich it doesn’t change the meaning of the word. In fact, people would rightfully call me out for misusing the word.
People need to start doing that for words like “terrorist” or “socialist” or “communist”. Language is frequently co-opted by bad actors. Each of us has a choice to fight back against it or to give in to it.
“How a word is used” is not the same as “how you personally use a word”
Individuals don’t get to determine the meaning of words, and that’s what you’re trying to do by insisting that “terrorist” has some kind of special meaning beyond “enemy of the state”. Words are defined by law and history and society and usage, not individuals.
Legally, a “terrorist” can only be a “designated enemy of the state”
Historically, “terrorist” has always just meant “designated enemy of the state”
Socially, a “terrorist” is just used to refer to “designated enemy of the state”
And, in common usage, “terrorist” just means “designated enemy of the state”
You’re trying to insist on some more concrete meaning beyond this, and it’s just not real. It’s a useless word for us.
I already quoted the literal definition of the word. I’ve made no reference to how I personally use the word. I’ve never actually had pccasion to call anyone a terrorist.
You seem to be getting a little worked up about this. Perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree here.
You quoted a definition, but a definition that has nothing to do with how it is used legally, historically, or socially i.e. useless
Words are defined by their use, not by dictionaries. That’s why the meaning of words tends to change over time.
Accusing me of getting “worked up” is a good way to discredit everything I have to say, though. Cute.
I’m sorry but this statement is flat out wrong. Perhaps reading about terrorism will clear this up.
I’d also recommend the US legal definition within federal law.
Yes they do, which is why I posted the modern definition and not the original from the French Revolution:
My intention was not to discredit you, it was based on your defensive language. You seem to take the disagreement personally.
I’m going to disengage now. As-salamu alaykum.
Firing off a parting shot and then declaring that you are “disengaging” is horseshit. I’m sorry I ever talked to you. Blocked.