And yet, somehow, people will see deny all of this as being terrorism.
11 Likes
I’m not really sure how you are justifying this as lesser than it is… What differentiates a white supremacist that identifies himself as such purposely murdering a random black person to create fear of being black and a more famous white supremacist group whose members do the same?
4 Likes
I’d argue nothing.
I’m not sure either, considering I’m not justifying anything whatsoever as less. What on Earth gave you the idea that there’s some ladder with being murdered because of terrorism is somehow worse than being murdered because the man (and I use the term loosely) killing you is a hate-filled snake?
Terrorism is a very specific thing and this, I believe, doesn’t fit. It resembles a school shooting a lot more. The fact that I don’t think it is terrorism, however, absolutely does not mean I think it is one iota less important. If you convinced me that it was terrorism through an argument of some sort I’d change my opinion but I wouldn’t think it was any worse than what I think now because it’s already maximally terrible.
Plausible projection of force. If a KKK member kills someone and is a member of the KKK and this is known, then you can feel terror that some other member of the KKK might kill you. This bastard is never tasting free air again and good riddance and, thus, is done being a threat.
Now you may suggest that this is a part of a pattern of killings that are done from a place of a common fascist ideology and thus while he has no organizaiton we can assume there will be more like him. To this I reply that this is likely a good argument—the best I can think of, certainly—but what makes me wary of it is that it cannot discriminate between those who are part of this distributed conspiracy and those who frame their own hollow evil in terms that they believe will glamorize them.
It absolutely is.
I just feel given his behavior that the racist, fascist murderer is also lying and didn’t do this to precipitate ethnic cleansing or even to kill the poor fellow he did end up killing. I think what he says and what he does are in service of self-aggrandizement. I mean, goodness knows, I’m no psychiatrist but it is a very common pathology. Killers get to be famous. Killers get to be on TV. Killers get to be someone. This particular nobody just happened to be also a racist piece of shit. Not a uncommon state of affairs in America, I’m given to understand.
I’m going to repeat what I wrote above: I don’t think calling this terrorism makes the death any more tragic or the murder any more unforgivable. I don’t think it makes the investigation and swift trial of the scumbag perpetrator any more urgent. If it turns out that me saying it is terrorism will somehow make it be taken more seriously, I’ll gladly say it. But I just don’t think it is, is all.
Wasnt it only recently that the definition of rape was changed so it included nonpenetrative acts? We have a long history of narrowly defining things to the detriment of society.
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.
What, he didn’t feel that being a Murder and a Racist was enough, he had to target a homeless person? 
I think 50 years hard labor where every cent of profit the prison makes on that labor goes to a fund for homeless black men, would be a start…
5 Likes
Being both is certainly worse than being one, especially when the hate crime in question is a man saying he is a member of a white supremacist group killing black men to make them afraid to date white women. But hey, the crime may meet all of your qualifications for your personal definition for terrorism, so I shouldn’t be questioning why you would insist on self-ascribed pedantry.
I don’t think you’re defending the actions of the person, it’s clear you’re not. However, I do think that this event is part of a larger historical context of white people terrorizing black people in America. [quote=“popobawa4u, post:50, topic:97531”]
I don’t deny it being terrorism, I refute it being terrorism.
[/quote]
Why don’t you expand on this a bit and let us know why you’re refuting that it’s terrorism, maybe putting it in the context of what you think terrorism actually IS and when it applies. [quote=“popobawa4u, post:50, topic:97531”]
Terrorism is often used to describe asymmetrical power conflicts
[/quote]
No doubt. I completely agree here with this assessment. Yet, the actions are still often aimed at terrorizing people to aid a political point of view. Whether or not we agree with the actors in question is irrelevant, I think. [quote=“popobawa4u, post:50, topic:97531”]
but white supremacy in the US is arguably not fringe, and has a degree of structural support.
[/quote]
And again, you’re not wrong. But why not call it terrorism despite anyway, since the intent is to terrorize a specific group of people for political ends. [quote=“popobawa4u, post:50, topic:97531”]
I think it is reactionary to simply choose the most evocative crime instead of the most accurate one,
[/quote]
I do think the policing of white supremacist structures through violence qualifies, quite honestly. [quote=“popobawa4u, post:50, topic:97531”]
we also risk getting into thought-crime territory where the court of popular opinion can mask decree by the dominant ideology.
[/quote]
Should we be inclusive of white supremacists? Really?
12 Likes
Statement? How about more along the lines of finally satisfying his “Yeeh-hhhaaaa! Gotta kill me a n----r!” urge?
This guy was from a place with some serious racial tensions I would classify the Baltimore media as NOT HELPING.
Check out the dog whistles in today’s paper:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-rockville-high-school-rape-20170323-story.html
Do you think that the unspeakable crime of taking away a human life is different depending on the precise nature of hate that motivated the perpetrator? Do you think the late Timothy Caughman’s life is worth less if he’s killed by merely a psychopath and not a psychopath and a terrorist?
I am baffled by this sense of morality.
I can discuss about whether something is or isn’t terrorism with detachment because it fundamentally doesn’t matter. The perpetrator cannot be a worse person nor more guilty and Mr. Caughman cannot be more senselessly dead.
Yes.
If the life is taken unintentionally, as opposed to intentionally, that’s less of a crime.
If the life is taken in the heat of the moment, as a result of a provoking action, as opposed to being planned out in advance, that’s less of a crime.
If the life is taken because of what a person is instead of who they are, that is more of a crime, because at that point the killer isn’t even seeing the victim as human.
Finally, if your goal in killing is not just based on someone being an “unperson,” but is supposed to frighten all of the other “unpeople” into submission, that’s much more of a crime, because you’re not just attacking one person and unintentionally inflicting pain on the community, you are intentionally attacking the community. You’re not just targeting one victim, but dozens, or hundreds, or more.
Not at all. But is the trauma inflicted on the community worth nothing in itself?
12 Likes
You are the one that challenged my saying it’s both terrorism and a hate crime, and since that point you have been basically talking to yourself. For someone who can speak about terrorism with detachment, you sure bring a lot of moral strawmen to the table to speak to your point.
BTW, your definition of terrorism still matches this crime and yet here.
Or, for that matter, someone writing this.
1 Like
1 Like
…and the thread would be full of racist trollies arguing that “hate crime” equals “thought crime”, and why can’t we just treat it all as plain old crime?
6 Likes
Squeaking in under he wire!
9 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
