|
Post by juju on Jun 20, 2017 19:00:12 GMT
I made this point recently on Ming's Facebook post, but it's something I've been thinking about. There's been a lot of talk about whether the Finsbury Park guy is a terrorist or just a vicious unhinged racist.
But I do wonder that by calling any of them 'terrorists' (the Manchester suicide bomber, the London Bridge killers, any of the white suprematists, anyone claiming to act for ISIS, etc) we are actually making things worse?
The definition of terrorist is 'a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims'. By calling them 'terrorists' it therefore makes them seem more powerful, as if they have the weight of a shared cause behind them. That may well be the case in their minds, but I do wonder whether this might make it seem more attractive to some. If the media simply referred to them as 'murderers', perhaps it would sound less ideological, and thus less attractive? Just a thought... I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Jun 20, 2017 19:24:15 GMT
It's true that "murderer" doesn't have the same weight as "terrorist", but I think people actually prefer the term to be "terrorist" because it implies "them" murdering "us". People love to feel righteously indignant, and using the term terrorism allows that. I think that's why there's a resistance to calling white supremacists "terrorists". You can't have righteous indignation over "us" murdering "us".
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jun 20, 2017 20:11:58 GMT
I'd actually personally prefer murderers..
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jun 20, 2017 20:22:35 GMT
I'm unhappy with calling the Finsbury Park guy a terrorist. He was a racist murderer, plain and simple. His motivation was to get rid of Muslims not to strike terror in people's minds.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jun 20, 2017 21:39:49 GMT
But aren't the 'Muslims' who kill non Muslims simply murderers too? I think that that was Julie's point.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jun 21, 2017 0:15:59 GMT
Well yes, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Jun 21, 2017 6:59:16 GMT
I really dislike and avoid using the word terrorist as it has recently lost any definition and objective meaning. Generally I used to say that if they were part of an organised group they were terrorists, but it is getting very fuzzy and the term is thrown around for anyone who feels "outgroup" now. As such it is seen as a statement if one calls someone that - or indeed when one does not call them that.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jun 21, 2017 7:18:49 GMT
Exactly.
And the objective of any wannabe terrorist - I would imagine - is to 'strike terror into people's hearts' (as Steve put it) and thus feel powerful, part of an ideological movement. Surely we should be doing all we can to diminish that, even if only semantically and in the way we report it?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jun 21, 2017 8:01:13 GMT
*nods*
Calling a person a terrorist also gives him or her legitimacy in their eyes. I am doing this for a noble cause.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 21, 2017 8:37:50 GMT
What about inverting the American habit? When a non-white person carries out a terror attack, they're "terrorists", when a white person does, it's "a mental health issue". (Just never a gun control issue.)
How about calling all such attacks mental health issues?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jun 21, 2017 10:14:59 GMT
No, that's too positive. And not fair on the billions of people with mental health issues who *don't* kill people.
I'm not really thinking of this in terms of Muslim v. Christian, white v. brown terrorism - I'm just trying to think of ways to make *any* terrorism seem less appealing (for want of a better word).
I can understand why Muslims would want the Finsbury Park guy to be called a terrorist - after all, he's done exactly the same as the other terrorists - but 'terrorist' implies belonging to a group or cause. Even the recent so-called Islamic terrorists may well have been acting independently, with ISIS simply claiming it after the fact. Perhaps therefore we need to diminish their power, make them seem more like lone, deviant, cold blooded killers than part of some political cause which might attract others.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jun 21, 2017 17:13:35 GMT
I suspect Joe was being tongue in cheek
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 21, 2017 21:29:15 GMT
Perhaps therefore we need to diminish their power, make them seem more like lone, deviant, cold blooded killers than part of some political cause which might attract others. So, "lone, deviant, cold blooded killers" then? Or "despicable murderers"? Or "shits"?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 21, 2017 21:29:35 GMT
I suspect Joe was being tongue in cheek Or I have a mental health issue.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah W. on Jun 22, 2017 15:12:19 GMT
One of the only things I've liked about President Trump so far is that he called terrorists "losers". In he usual inarticulate way, I think he's stumbled onto something. It's much more usual for Republicans (and for Trump himself) to wave the culture war flag in an "Us" vs. "Them" way and in so doing make "Them" seem more powerful than they are. "Losers" cuts through that. It's not appealing. It's not cool. Blowing people up is a shitty thing to do and if you do that, you're a loser.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jun 22, 2017 18:28:20 GMT
To be honest the losers thing made me cringe... it's not very Presidential. I think I'd rather he'd stuck with terrorists in that instance
|
|
|
Post by Sarah W. on Jun 23, 2017 3:47:28 GMT
Of course it's not presidential. He's not presidential. Admittedly, I didn't watch it, I just read it. I avoid watching video of him to keep my blood pressure in check. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Jun 24, 2017 13:34:39 GMT
Well, you can call it what you want. But "murderer" is too vague imo. There are so many murdereras about. If the government and police call it it "terrorism", then media will call it terrorism and everyone else will too. One definition of terrorism: metro.co.uk/2017/03/23/what-is-the-definition-of-a-terror-attack-6528383/#ixzz4kvV8n97lOf course, I also consider them as "losers". But they consider themselves as "winners". Should Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 persons, be called just a murderer? It is the motive which makes him something else than "just" a mass murderer. The sad thing is that there are other who think like him and think he did the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jun 24, 2017 13:44:26 GMT
A mass murderer perhaps.
We know words have power, and by calling them terrorists, we're palying into their cause. Their deeds become part of a cuase. If they are called murderers, they are treated like criminals. We think of them as criminals. I think this is how we should think of them. Additionally, it worries me that politicians use terrorism as an excuse to loosen laws that protect our rights. Suddenly, a suspected terrorist can be held longer without charge than any other sort of suspected criminal. Politicians use the fear of terrorism to chip away at laws that protect our rights and liberties and it all seems very convenient to get those terrorists behind bars, or to have more access to data, or revoke citizenship of dual citizens that have terrorist links - until one day we're on the receiving end of that new law.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Jun 24, 2017 14:04:53 GMT
Was it wrong to call IRA, RAF etc terrorists too? Should the word be abolished altogether?
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jun 24, 2017 18:57:52 GMT
I think it's important to use the same word, whatever it is, for all of them, so that it doesn't highlight the "them" and "us" aspect of it!
|
|