The Politics Thread v2

[dman11235]

A reason a lot of people are shying away from talking about it is that it doesn't fit their preferred definition for a terrorist attack (for many, it's 'a brown person did it').  It's also not got that quick and easy stereotype for such an attack, because these things happen differently more often than not (lately, it's been easy to ignore arson for this cause).

[MrWolfe]

Seems different this time.  The news stories are less "He was a quiet man" than "That motherfucker was crazy.  Everyone knew it.  Dogs knew it.  We're surprised it's taken him this long."

True, but it feels like they're still trying to put that spin on it despite all the people coming forward.

A reason a lot of people are shying away from talking about it is that it doesn't fit their preferred definition for a terrorist attack (for many, it's 'a brown person did it').  It's also not got that quick and easy stereotype for such an attack, because these things happen differently more often than not (lately, it's been easy to ignore arson for this cause).

Well, it fits the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism, for what that's worth.

Personally, I always find that "it's not so quick and easy" thing to be a bit of a copout. Words have definitions, which if you can't tell by now I'm rather big on. You can't have a meaningful discussion about something unless you define your terms first, which is why having an authoritative source you can point to for those definitions is crucial. Fortunately, in the English language we always have the dictionary.

Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say on the subject.

So yeah, it's terrorism. Trying to argue the definitions or claiming that they aren't that clear is just a troll-tactic used to stall and derail. Hence the popularity of this tactic with lawyers and politicians.

[Raineh Daze]

Unfortunately, English grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. The dictionary definition is not an absolute and not perfectly nuanced. Thus, short of flagrant misuse of a term, the dictionary is not going to help. And then, what dictionary? I'd rather use the OED, for instance, and that includes many random things.

[KellKheraptis]

Unfortunately, English grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. The dictionary definition is not an absolute and not perfectly nuanced. Thus, short of flagrant misuse of a term, the dictionary is not going to help. And then, what dictionary? I'd rather use the OED, for instance, and that includes many random things.

Thus we find the problem with trying to nuance a language initially meant only for trade.

[Raineh Daze]

Unfortunately, English grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. The dictionary definition is not an absolute and not perfectly nuanced. Thus, short of flagrant misuse of a term, the dictionary is not going to help. And then, what dictionary? I'd rather use the OED, for instance, and that includes many random things.

Thus we find the problem with trying to nuance a language initially meant only for trade.

It wasn't really meant for anything. It's just a thing that evolved in England.

[MrWolfe]

And thus, the derail happens anyway.

Look, definitions are definitions. English may be descriptive, but if you describe an apple as an orange or a pomegranate you are still wrong. If you can't agree on what a word means, then language itself becomes pointless, in which case, why are you trying to use it?

[Raineh Daze]

I'm more interested in the validity of dictionary definitions than 'some asshole went and killed a bunch of people' for the umpteenth time this year.

Which is more or less what I said: you can cite the dictionary all you want if someone's wilfully misusing a term. If they're using it in a way in line with popular usage, though? No good. When the media's been painting a very distinct picture for a decade and a half? The dictionary definition's probably outdated.

[Samwise]

True, but it feels like they're still trying to put that spin on it despite all the people coming forward.

All the people coming forward and saying that the murderer never said anything political?
Yet somehow . . .

Well, it fits the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism, for what that's worth.

What political goal has the murderer declared?
So far, none.

Words have definitions, which if you can't tell by now I'm rather big on.

Words do indeed have definitions.
And without that declared political goal by the murderer, classifying this as terrorism is not possible, as that is an essential element of the definitions.

So yeah, it's terrorism. Trying to argue the definitions or claiming that they aren't that clear is just a troll-tactic used to stall and derail. Hence the popularity of this tactic with lawyers and politicians.

So no, it is a crime with an unclear motive.
But yes, you are just going with a troll-tactic to derail and score political points, as are the lawyers, politicians, and media hacks leaping to call it terrorism without any functional evidence.

[MrWolfe]

I'm more interested than the validity of dictionary definitions than 'some asshole went and killed a bunch of people' for the umpteenth time this year.

Which is more or less what I said: you can cite the dictionary all you want if someone's willfully misusing a term. If they're using it in a way in line with popular usage, though? No good. When the media's been painting a very distinct picture for a decade and a half? The dictionary definition's probably outdated.

And normally I would agree with you. Whether it's "terrorism" or not is of secondary importance to the fact that it was a horrific and despicable act of mass murder. (And here comes the debate on whether three people counts as "mass" murder. )

The problem though, it that the media specifically engages in the practice of misusing terms to suit their preferred narratives or to push a certain agenda. So that very distinct picture they've been painting? It's wrong. And because most people spend much more time paying attention to the media than they did in English class, those intentionally distorted meanings become common use.

So no, I don't agree that a popular usage based on deliberate misinformation trumps the original definition.

True, but it feels like they're still trying to put that spin on it despite all the people coming forward.

All the people coming forward and saying that the murderer never said anything political?
Yet somehow . . .

From the article I linked to:

Zigmond Post, a neighbor, said one of the few interactions he had was when Dear brought him some anti-Obama pamphlets. "That's about all I've run into him," he said.

That's literally the only example in the article of someone who actually interacted with the shooter prior to the attack. Where are all these other people who claim that he "never said anything political?"

Well, it fits the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism, for what that's worth.

What political goal has the murderer declared?
So far, none.

A declared political goal is not required.

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Note the wording: "Appear intended", the FBI's definition does not rely on actual or stated intentions.

Words have definitions, which if you can't tell by now I'm rather big on.

Words do indeed have definitions.
And without that declared political goal by the murderer, classifying this as terrorism is not possible, as that is an essential element of the definitions.

Nope.

So yeah, it's terrorism. Trying to argue the definitions or claiming that they aren't that clear is just a troll-tactic used to stall and derail. Hence the popularity of this tactic with lawyers and politicians.

So no, it is a crime with an unclear motive.
But yes, you are just going with a troll-tactic to derail and score political points, as are the lawyers, politicians, and media hacks leaping to call it terrorism without any functional evidence.

Well, I confess, I did have an ulterior motive when I chose to engage dman11235 on the subject of terrorism's definition:

You see it's not just the word "terrorism" that gets deliberately misused by politicians and the media. They also do the same thing with "anarchism." Riots are referred to as "anarchy in the streets." Violent attacks against the government are immediately blamed on "anarchists." Politicians and pundits warn that repealing restrictive legal policies "will lead to anarchy."

The word is treated as being synonymous with "violent chaos," and the word "Anarchist" is treated as synonymous with "anti-government terrorist," when they absolutely are not. But because this deliberately false definition gets pushed on us with such frequency, it's become the commonly accepted one--to the point that new generations of people are mis-applying the label to themselves, and it has become nearly impossible for those who actually believe in anarchy as a political view to be taken seriously.

This last bit, of course, has been the goal all along. To redefine the terms in order to undermine their opponents without actually engaging them. Why debate a philosophy's merits when you can just call it criminal and wrong? It's basically just a very involved form of ad-hominem attack, but one that attempts to enshrine it's slander in the English language itself.

We see the same thing with politicians and the media conflating Daesh with Islam, despite the fact that Islamic law and religion have some very specific prohibitions regarding warfare--many of which are being flagrantly violated by Daesh.

A widely held misconception is still a misconception.

Terrorism is not unique to brown people or those from another country.
Terrorism is not consistent with the Muslim faith.
Terrorism is not consistent with the political philosophy of Anarchism.

No matter how much the media and the government tells you otherwise.

[Raineh Daze]

I'm more interested than the validity of dictionary definitions than 'some asshole went and killed a bunch of people' for the umpteenth time this year.

Which is more or less what I said: you can cite the dictionary all you want if someone's willfully misusing a term. If they're using it in a way in line with popular usage, though? No good. When the media's been painting a very distinct picture for a decade and a half? The dictionary definition's probably outdated.

And normally I would agree with you. Whether it's "terrorism" or not is of secondary importance to the fact that it was a horrific and despicable act of mass murder. (And here comes the debate on whether three people counts as "mass" murder. )

The problem though, it that the media specifically engages in the practice of misusing terms to suit their preferred narratives or to push a certain agenda. So that very distinct picture they've been painting? It's wrong. And because most people spend much more time paying attention to the media than they did in English class, those intentionally distorted meanings become common use.

So no, I don't agree that a popular usage based on deliberate misinformation trumps the original definition.

So you're arguing for prescriptivism. Or that we should still be speaking whatever dead language the effort of backtracking ends at. Since that's one of those things that CAUSES language drift.

Arguing for prescriptivism because anarchy has been used to mean something else since its inception is a stupid level of hypocrisy, too.

[MrWolfe]

I'm more interested than the validity of dictionary definitions than 'some asshole went and killed a bunch of people' for the umpteenth time this year.

Which is more or less what I said: you can cite the dictionary all you want if someone's willfully misusing a term. If they're using it in a way in line with popular usage, though? No good. When the media's been painting a very distinct picture for a decade and a half? The dictionary definition's probably outdated.

And normally I would agree with you. Whether it's "terrorism" or not is of secondary importance to the fact that it was a horrific and despicable act of mass murder. (And here comes the debate on whether three people counts as "mass" murder. )

The problem though, it that the media specifically engages in the practice of misusing terms to suit their preferred narratives or to push a certain agenda. So that very distinct picture they've been painting? It's wrong. And because most people spend much more time paying attention to the media than they did in English class, those intentionally distorted meanings become common use.

So no, I don't agree that a popular usage based on deliberate misinformation trumps the original definition.

So you're arguing for prescriptivism. Or that we should still be speaking whatever dead language the effort of backtracking ends at. Since that's one of those things that CAUSES language drift.

Arguing for prescriptivism because anarchy has been used to mean something else since its inception is a stupid level of hypocrisy, too.

And here we see another bullshit derailing tactic: Putting words in people's mouths and then attacking that, instead of what they actually said.

[Raineh Daze]

I'm more interested than the validity of dictionary definitions than 'some asshole went and killed a bunch of people' for the umpteenth time this year.

Which is more or less what I said: you can cite the dictionary all you want if someone's willfully misusing a term. If they're using it in a way in line with popular usage, though? No good. When the media's been painting a very distinct picture for a decade and a half? The dictionary definition's probably outdated.

And normally I would agree with you. Whether it's "terrorism" or not is of secondary importance to the fact that it was a horrific and despicable act of mass murder. (And here comes the debate on whether three people counts as "mass" murder. )

The problem though, it that the media specifically engages in the practice of misusing terms to suit their preferred narratives or to push a certain agenda. So that very distinct picture they've been painting? It's wrong. And because most people spend much more time paying attention to the media than they did in English class, those intentionally distorted meanings become common use.

So no, I don't agree that a popular usage based on deliberate misinformation trumps the original definition.

So you're arguing for prescriptivism. Or that we should still be speaking whatever dead language the effort of backtracking ends at. Since that's one of those things that CAUSES language drift.

Arguing for prescriptivism because anarchy has been used to mean something else since its inception is a stupid level of hypocrisy, too.

And here we see another bullshit derailing tactic: Putting words in people's mouths and then attacking that, instead of what they actually said.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I want anarchy to work. But you're complaining about misuse of a term and appealing to the authority of something that just describes usage. Yes, there's the original usage. No, that on its own doesn't describe what you mean. It's something that has to be accepted, because meanings splinter and expand over time unless they're forgotten about entirely.

[Samwise]

From the article I linked to:

Zigmond Post, a neighbor, said one of the few interactions he had was when Dear brought him some anti-Obama pamphlets. "That's about all I've run into him," he said.

That's literally the only example in the article of someone who actually interacted with the shooter prior to the attack. Where are all these other people who claim that he "never said anything political?"

So . . . one person who says he brought some pamphlets.
Did this person say the murderer endorsed the pamphlets?
Oppose the pamphlets?
Or just shambled by and hand them over?

A declared political goal is not required.

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Note the wording: "Appear intended", the FBI's definition does not rely on actual or stated intentions.

And you'll never get someone charged, let alone convicted, with "it appeared intended to terrorize people, even though it was just a random shooting".
The intent, with declarations, is required to prove a particular crime.

Well, I confess, I did have an ulterior motive when I chose to engage dman11235 on the subject of terrorism's definition:

See, you are confessing to the intent.

This last bit, of course, has been the goal all along. To redefine the terms in order to undermine their opponents without actually engaging them. Why debate a philosophy's merits when you can just call it criminal and wrong? It's basically just a very involved form of ad-hominem attack, but one that attempts to enshrine it's slander in the English language itself.

And never mind the people who call themselves "anarchists", even if it doesn't match your preferred definition.
Sure.

We see the same thing with politicians and the media conflating Daesh with Islam, despite the fact that Islamic law and religion have some very specific prohibitions regarding warfare--many of which are being flagrantly violated by Daesh.

Yes, and too bad most of that is contradicted by the koran:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm

Other elements, such as the need for a declaration of war (issued multiple times), the killing of women and children prisoners (but no prohibition against killing slaves), or against killing the elderly (but no prohibition against punishing people for causing "strife" in the land), and pretty much every other parsing, can be found with minimal effort.

The Islamic State has violated none of those rules, at least not by their definitions.

A widely held misconception is still a misconception.

Yes it is.

Terrorism is not unique to brown people or those from another country.

That is a strawman of "progressives".

Terrorism is not consistent with the Muslim faith.

Well:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know (8:60)

Nice misconception you have there.

Terrorism is not consistent with the political philosophy of Anarchism.

No matter how much the media and the government tells you otherwise.

Shouldn't that be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Propaganda_of_the_deed_and_illegalism

Some anarchists, such as Johann Most, advocated publicizing violent acts of retaliation against counter-revolutionaries because "we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda."[106] By the 1880s, people inside and outside the anarchist movement began to use the slogan, "propaganda of the deed" to refer to individual bombings, regicides, and tyrannicides.

No matter how much you tell us otherwise?

Or do you have an explanation as to how some definitions are more equal than others?

[MrWolfe]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I want anarchy to work. But you're complaining about misuse of a term and appealing to the authority of something that just describes usage. Yes, there's the original usage. No, that on its own doesn't describe what you mean. It's something that has to be accepted, because meanings splinter and expand over time unless they're forgotten about entirely.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm not sure I follow.

And yes, you are putting words in my mouth when you come up with that business about dead languages and "prescriptivism."

We see the same thing with politicians and the media conflating Daesh with Islam, despite the fact that Islamic law and religion have some very specific prohibitions regarding warfare--many of which are being flagrantly violated by Daesh.

Yes, and too bad most of that is contradicted by the koran:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm

Other elements, such as the need for a declaration of war (issued multiple times), the killing of women and children prisoners (but no prohibition against killing slaves), or against killing the elderly (but no prohibition against punishing people for causing "strife" in the land), and pretty much every other parsing, can be found with minimal effort.

The Islamic State has violated none of those rules, at least not by their definitions.

Hmm, an anonymous webpage dedicated to saying bad things about Muslims. Doesn't strike me as a particularly unbiased source.

I'll admit my knowledge of Islam is extremely limited, however I'll still take the word of numerous Muslims over you and an obviously anti-muslim website.

[Raineh Daze]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I want anarchy to work. But you're complaining about misuse of a term and appealing to the authority of something that just describes usage. Yes, there's the original usage. No, that on its own doesn't describe what you mean. It's something that has to be accepted, because meanings splinter and expand over time unless they're forgotten about entirely.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm not sure I follow.

And yes, you are putting words in my mouth when you come up with that business about dead languages and "prescriptivism."

You're citing a 'correct' definition for a word even when all popular usage gives alternate, descriptively correct, meanings for the same word. That is prescriptivism.

By the very definition of anarchy you're espousing, it's rank hypocrisy to ask that people respect the authority of dictionaries because it spares you a few sentences of clarification about anarchism.

[Libertad]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I want anarchy to work.

Today I learned that both of the women in my regular gaming group are anarchists.  Interesting coincidence, that.

[dman11235]

All of the sources cited by the Daesh/ISIS/whatever with regards to the Koran are from an alternative interpretation written in the 1860s.  Yeah, 1800s.  It was taken about as seriously then as Branch Davidians are today.

Also, the terrorist /did/ share a political motivation, althoguh as had been pointed out a declared motivation is not necessary as long as the motivation is there.  He was politically motivated to stop PP.

[Samwise]

Hmm, an anonymous webpage dedicated to saying bad things about Muslims. Doesn't strike me as a particularly unbiased source.

You can find plenty of non-anonymous sources that say the same things.
Of course I'm sure you'll still want to dismiss them because you don't like what they say.

I'll admit my knowledge of Islam is extremely limited, however I'll still take the word of numerous Muslims over you and an obviously anti-muslim website.

So just, totally closed mind.
As long as you admit it.

All of the sources cited by the Daesh/ISIS/whatever with regards to the Koran are from an alternative interpretation written in the 1860s.  Yeah, 1800s.  It was taken about as seriously then as Branch Davidians are today.

I'm pretty sure the koran goes back further than the 1800s, as do the collections of sayings, and even the main biography.
And yes, they are taken quite seriously.
As for "just" going back to the 1800s:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Also, the terrorist /did/ share a political motivation, althoguh as had been pointed out a declared motivation is not necessary as long as the motivation is there.  He was politically motivated to stop PP.

No, he didn't.
A "source" reported a portion of some rambling without any context.
That doesn't establish a political motivation, and without that it fails to be intent to terrorize or to affect any policies.

[dman11235]

No, the cult that was formed in the late 1800s was taken about as seriously as one of the doomsday cults today.  And then in the late 40s/early 50s some religious nuts took control of various Middle Eastern countries riding a wave of popular support much like how the current religious right is doing in this country, decrying the intervention of foreign powers (their foreign power: the West, one specific example is carving out land for the Jews in Israel, another is propping up puppets and West-friendly dictators).  They latched on to this relatively new interpretation of the Koran, with it's awful treatment of women, glorifying violence, request for submission to the government, etc.  Go back to the early 50s in Iran?  Women are wearing "revealing" clothes like T-shirts in public, they're getting degrees in college, etc. etc.  Same for a lot of the other nations there.  I'd have to go searching for the book right now, but Islam is NOT violent.  It's been, over the course of its history on average, one of the more peaceful religions out there.  Not like, Jain levels, but around Hindu levels.  Definitely less violent than Christianity, at pretty much every time period.  During the early days Christianity was the aggressor in all the major wars, the Middle Ages were fairly peaceful, the 15-1900s were moderately peaceful, the early 1900s were WWI and II, and then late 1950's-today it's been getting steadily polarized between extremists and the majority of Muslims in places like Indonesia being fine.

[bhu]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/

'Dear mentioned "baby parts" after the shooting and expressed anti-abortion and anti-government views, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation said.'

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151130/PC16/151139933

“He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions,” Mescher stated in the affidavit. “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/who-robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting-suspect-seemed-strange-not-n470896

'Former next door neighbor John Hood said that Dear hardly ever spoke wit him, but when he did, he would offer nonsensical advice, like recommending that Hood put a metal roof on his house so the U.S. government couldn't spy on him.'