Well, I don’t deny it being terrorism, I refute it being terrorism. If people are being honest, I hope they understand that there is a big difference. Right from the first post, I am told that it is important that I see it that way. And some people here are saying that not framing the problem that way is somehow apologetic. So that can come off as a bit manipulative, implying censure and putting all of the onus upon those who may either disagree, or simply not be convinced.
On a slight tangent, it reminds me of when people in a topic accuse someone of treason because it is such a reprehensible crime, despite it having a specific and seldom-met definition. This conveys that they feel very strongly, which is significant, but I think that the misunderstanding doesn’t in any way help. Terrorism is often used to describe asymmetrical power conflicts, but white supremacy in the US is arguably not fringe, and has a degree of structural support. If I had to use a more severe word to describe random ethnically-based murder I suppose I would call it apartheid.
If seeking justice are to remain evidence-based, I think it is reactionary to simply choose the most evocative crime instead of the most accurate one, as rather than “going easy” on them, it actually hurts the case against the perpetrator. And when crime is defined more by the public’s emotional state, we also risk getting into thought-crime territory where the court of popular opinion can mask decree by the dominant ideology.
