11–20 of 129 posts
In other words, a sibboleth?
Exercise for hackers: what are the minimal code sequences one can write to distinguish between various x86 versions? various python versions? etc.
As the article points out, irregardless is pretty uncommon. I'll be much more horrified when Merriam-Webster begins defining terrorism the way that the Americans often use it in common discourse, i.e. , the attacker's acts were terrifying and the victims and community were terrorised, therefore he's a terrorist.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but what is the issue with that definition? Lack of an explicit political goal?
Ted Bundy terrorised his community, but there was no political aim. He was a sociopath, but not a terrorist.
Anders Behring Breivik terrorised his community, and he had an explicit and clear ideological aim. He's a sociopath, and a terrorist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a problem because it bases the definition on the feelings of the recipients and not on the actions of the perpetrators.
Both terrorists and freedom fighters act the same way. In the battlefield of narratives perspective matters.
I am a freedom fighter.
You are conducting asymmetric warfare.
They are terrorists.
Truth-loving Persians do not dwell upon
The trivial skirmish fought near Marathon.
As for the Greek theatrical tradition
Which represents that summer's expedition
Not as a mere reconnaisance in force
By three brigades of foot and one of horse
(Their left flank covered by some obsolete
Light craft detached from the main Persian fleet)
But as a grandiose, ill-starred attempt
To conquer Greece - they treat it with contempt;
And only incidentally refute
Major Greek claims, by stressing what repute
The Persian monarch and the Persian nation
Won by this salutary demonstration:
Despite a strong defence and adverse weather
All arms combined magnificently together.Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but I think this meme is actually not so clearly true in practice. Freedom fighters may engage in terrorist acts (see Algeria for example) but that doesn’t seem like a quality of “fighting for freedom”, merely a correlative practice.
OK, but that's how language is broken. You can't define 'terrorism' in such a way so as to include all terrorists, and exclude all non-terrorists. This is the essentialist dream.
Instead of X is [noun], we could say X is Person who engaged in X [acts.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but that's how language is broken. You can't define 'terrorism' in such a way so as to include all terrorists, and exclude all non-terrorists. This is the essentialist dream.
I’m not a linguist, but the main issue here seems to be the desire to make adjectives into nouns, as it’s easier for humans to conceptually understand. Instead of X is [noun], we could say X is Person who engaged in X [acts.]
And then the debate is still exactly where we left off.
Was that person engaging in X, or was he engaging in Y?
X = Terrorism, Y = Freedom fighting
The main issue is that your attitude towards the activity/person is encoded in the language you are using to describe it.
As the article points out, irregardless is pretty uncommon. I'll be much more horrified when Merriam-Webster begins defining terrorism the way that the Americans often use it in common discourse, i.e. , the attacker's acts were terrifying and the victims and community were terrorised, therefore he's a terrorist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but I think this meme is actually not so clearly true in practice. Freedom fighters may engage in terrorist acts (see Algeria for example) but that doesn’t seem like a quality of “fighting for freedom”, merely a correlative practice.
OK, but that's how language is broken. You can't define 'terrorism' in such a way so as to include all terrorists, and exclude all non-terrorists. This is the essentialist dream.
Defining terrorism is not hard - public violence on civilians for ideological (political, religious) reasons. Or more narrow definition that would replace 'civilians' with 'general public' (t exclude attack on state structures).
What you cannot is to hope that any definition of 'terrorism' would include all 'evil' acts and exclude all 'good' acts, because distinction between these is complex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not a linguist, but the main issue here seems to be the desire to make adjectives into nouns, as it’s easier for humans to conceptually understand. Instead of X is [noun], we could say X is Person who engaged in X [acts.]
And you'll get no further than 'A terrorist is a person who engages in terrorism'. And then the debate is still exactly where we left off. Was that person engaging in X, or was he engaging in Y? X = Terrorism, Y = Freedom fighting The main issue is that your attitude towards the activity/person is encoded in the language you are using to describe it.
I am making a distinction between actions and nouns. I hold that it is not controversial to say certain actions are considered terroristic actions and certain actions are considered freedom fighting actions. Often, the same people engage in both, and combined with our tendency to want to assign people in noun classes (He is an X), this results in the perceived equivalence you are speaking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but that's how language is broken. You can't define 'terrorism' in such a way so as to include all terrorists, and exclude all non-terrorists. This is the essentialist dream.
Why not? 'terrorists' are by definition people committing terrorism. Any definition of 'terrorismu' whould define a set of terrorists, bud different definitions would lead to different people considered terrorists. Defining terrorism is not hard - public violence on civilians for ideological (political, religious) reasons. Or more narrow definition that would replace 'civilians' with 'general public' (t exclude attac…
>What you cannot is to hope that any definition of 'terrorism' would include all 'evil' acts and exclude all 'good' acts, because distinction between these is complex.
Precisely the problem.
Ceteris paribus, it's 'terrorism' when you think it's 'evil', and it's freedom fighting' when you think it's 'good'.
Two different descriptions of exactly the same facts.