n 1: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence)
against civilians in order to attain goals that are
political or religious or ideological in nature; this is
done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Well, kind of sounds like textbook terrorism. And to be clear, I’m cheering on these terrorists. This is terrorist on terrorist action and, in my opinion, a fair and fitting response.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don’t even believe ourselves.
If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
You’re 100% playing devil’s advocate and drawing false equivalencies. Trying to sound like what you’re saying matters only works when what you’re saying… actually matters.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
No falsehoods like “property damage isn’t violence against civilians,” when we both know perfectly well it can be.
“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.
The thing is: nearly everything can cause harm, in some small, indirect way. And everything is political, even if only some small, indirect way.
So taken to the “logical” extreme, me eating oatmeal for breakfast is terrorism. It harmed the people in the fields working for low wages, and it’s a political choice to eat less meat for a meal.
This is why it seems silly to meant of us to call burning Tesla dealerships terrorism. Does sitting bud light cans count as terrorism? Do boycotts count as terrorism?
Well, kind of sounds like textbook terrorism. And to be clear, I’m cheering on these terrorists. This is terrorist on terrorist action and, in my opinion, a fair and fitting response.
What you’re missing is Trump includes holding a sign as an “attack”
Property damage is not violence against civilians.
What if I blew up a water tower?
Or burned down every grocery store in the city? (At night, while no-one was there to get hurt)
Then your act of vandalism/sabotage would have effects that harms people. Is this so difficult for you to understand? SMH.
It’s quite easy to understand. But you said “Property damage is not violence against civilians.”
Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.
Yeah, I get the argument that you’re trying to make, but this is a really shitty time to play devil’s advocate.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don’t even believe ourselves.
If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
You’re 100% playing devil’s advocate and drawing false equivalencies. Trying to sound like what you’re saying matters only works when what you’re saying… actually matters.
No falsehoods like “property damage isn’t violence against civilians,” when we both know perfectly well it can be.
“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.
deleted by creator
Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That’s harm.
Maybe not a lot of harm. But it’s harm.
Still not violence
It is if you’re using the definition provided by the person I’m replying to.
The thing is: nearly everything can cause harm, in some small, indirect way. And everything is political, even if only some small, indirect way.
So taken to the “logical” extreme, me eating oatmeal for breakfast is terrorism. It harmed the people in the fields working for low wages, and it’s a political choice to eat less meat for a meal.
This is why it seems silly to meant of us to call burning Tesla dealerships terrorism. Does sitting bud light cans count as terrorism? Do boycotts count as terrorism?