You gave me an example of : [arrest people for saying that other people should be killed] after removing the context of the question which was clearly :[stand on street corner with a megaphone] plus [getting prosecuted as an accessory]
I think you misunderstood me. Was any will involved in that, for you? or would you move past it with me and cite examples of what I asked about?
Your argument, as I understand it, is similar to a physicist modeling his experiments on a perfectly Spherical Cow moving through a vacuum. (Ima gettinā good with weird analogies :D)
In Oregon, if you stand on a street corner with a megaphone and tell people to kill themselves, and one does, you can be prosecuted as an accessory.
It varies state by state. It is not a blanket rule. But certainly can and has been applied.
You are mixing the end result (of victims feeling terror) with the reason the terrorist is attacking the victims (to inspire terror).
This is about the actor and the actions. Why on earth would you think that calling something āterrorismā says anything about the people the action is being taken against?
The act is being defined in terms of the goal, which is an entirely different thing.
Who knows? What is āplaying semanticsā?
Whenever there are topics here about tragic events where numerous people are killed, there seem to inevitably be posts where some people insist that the even must be understood as āterrorismā. And whenever I ask for explanations of WHY it must be seen this way, people confront me with questions instead of simply backing up their initial assertion. It feels like a crappy rhetorical device for them to avoid answering a simple question. Indeed, why should it not simply be referred to as āviolenceā? This seems more clear, because violence describes a kind of act rather than a feeling.
Why donāt you simply read the topic? When I reply to somebody, click on the arrow at the upper-right of the post and it shows the post which is being replied to. My initial question was a reply to @nubwaxer here:
Rampage shooting at Planned Parenthood in Colorado - #51 by nubwaxer
Who simply repeated it was @Thebarton_Gamer here:
Rampage shooting at Planned Parenthood in Colorado - #108 by Thebarton_Gamer
Followed by @Nonentity turning my questions back upon me, and deliberately misstating my position.
FFS, it was a simple fucking question. It is not only this topic either. If a question comes across as a provocation which people refuse to answer, then this suggests to me that people are either not being honest with themselves or with me. The vague innuendo about my supposed position and high-fiving seem to suggest that people are simply regressing to partisanship instead of open communication, As if my asking the question āsays something about meā rather than presenting an opportunity for them to be able to articulate their views on something they apparently feel strongly about.
I responded to what you seemed to be saying was āmore probableā. You know, in the quote that I included. If that misstated your position, perhaps thereās a chance that your position was unclear.
You constantly want to play silly word games. Thereās no point getting pissy now when people are starting to call you on it.
I did not state a position, I asked a few questions. You seemed to assume that my questions were implying a position.
Thatās the problem, it should be an entirely different thing, but it usually isnāt in practice.
Like I asked above in this topic: How do we know that the attacker didnāt simply want to kill them to stop what they are doing? Where is the evidence that their goal was a particular emotional state? And why should that distinction have anything to do with law at all? It assumes that people are easily emotionally manipulated, which is itself a fairly misanthropic outlook.
And it still doesnāt explain why people chant āterrorismā when they donāt know anything about the perpetrator or their goals. People are often quick to assume causation, and insist that because āI feel terrorizedā that āThat was their goal!ā It just strikes me as an extremely counter-productive way to go about framing and addressing social problems, so I am skeptical when people advocate doing so.
Sorry, I am more interested in communication than mind-reading. I know that mind-reading seems a lot quicker and easier, but it often lacks precision.
whose mind is that true for? Yours? Cool?
Mine? How could you know that it seems easier for me when YOU SAY it is me doing it, or that it lacks precision when YOU SAY IT IS ME.
unless you are mindreading?
The two statments āI think you believe you are psycicā and āYou believe you are psychicā are not the same sentences, by a long shot. The difference is not semantic. There are objectively more words in the former sentence.
Why strip one or two out and respond to that?
So, there are a bunch of things going on here. Not unlike a bunch of oregano, sage, basil, thyme, and perhaps dill.
I will try to untangle, in my twisted, warped, delicious mind what it means.
Person.kill('no reason');
That is a crime, regardless of body count.
Person.kill.callback({function() { person.scareTheShitOutOfNormalPeeps});
That is terrorism.
There is an overlapping venn diagram, and calling the PP shooting criminal is true. But the callback is to prevent people from going to/working for PP. That is what makes it terrorism.
Yes, it removes agency. In fact that is the point. If we were all perfectly Spherical cows in a vacuum it wouldnāt be an issue. But we arenāt. (Well, Iām not Sphericalā¦)
And on the moon, nerds get their pants pulled down and they are spanked with moon rocks.
I asked about people encouraging the murder of OTHERS specifically, under a circumstance posed by another commenter. It appears someone may be changing the subject, repeatedly, to not have to say touche?
It is bad enough when those who perpetrate violent acts deny the victims their agency. But it compounds the problem when the law does this also. If the laws exist to protect the victims, then these should perhaps be framed to affirm their agency. Otherwise, politically, the āterroristsā and the government become the only real participants in the exchange, with the public going from being merely an excuse for the āterroristsā, to being merely an excuse for the government. It seems to disenfranchise the victims, who already have enough problems.
One of those questions was, āIsnāt that more probable?ā And I replied to the thought which that question was asking about. Oddly, this is something that happens when you ask āis this more probableāā¦ people actually respond about whether that thing is or is not more probable. Amazing, aināt it?
Yeah, no. When you ask if itās more probable that someone did something for some reason, itās perfectly reasonable to respond that āyour thought is thatā¦ā. Your questions proposed a position, I replied to it. If you donāt want your questions responded to, you shouldnāt be asking them.
Thereās evidence that his goal had to do with PP in general (āno more baby partsā).
Where is the evidence that he had any other goal, whatsoever in that particular location?
AS WELL AS BEING A CRIME (you get that, but it seems it must be either/or for some, and that the distinction is worth the focus)
sorry to yell, my father was deaf and ignorant.
People have predicting doomsday since before Christ. And Christās return since the day after he died. And the end of the US since July 5th, 1776. Nothing new.
Youāre 100% right that most of our fears are unfounded - as they have always been. With information we have at our fingertips we get to read every macabre story from ever where in the world. Everything from 3 year olds putting a 1 year old in an oven, to people killing albinos for witchcraft, to people keeping others prisoner for decades.
Of course like many conspiracy nuts and doomsayer and the like, they see the dots and think they are all connect, when it is just random horrible shit.
You are a hoopy frood, and I enjoy your writing and opinions.
But I am not your paralegal.
You can certainly, in almost every state be prosecuted civilly and criminally for Legal Homicide or Wrongful death, for doing exactly what you posit.
Will it stick? Will you be convicted? As I am not a paralegal or a judge, or on a jury I canāt answer that.
But donāt tell someone to kill someone else. The laws are certainly vague enough for a conviction.
the way one SIMPLY induces a change in others is by use of violence to PROVOKE emotional reactions.
The hard way is called government.
Maybe provoking of emotional reactions in others is something we ALL (cough cough) might consider laying off on. Maybe provoking others just now is rudie-poo bullshit man.
Popobawa4u is never unclear. We just choose not to understand.
Sure, but this seems typical for any violent campaign. When a country engages another in war, does it follow that the goal is obviously the many emotional states probable to be inspired by war? Do they do it to make people feel sad? To feel terrified? Or are they more often trying to fulfill a specific goal? Perhaps they are taking resources, or changing how people do business, or even simply eliminating people who they think hold beliefs they find problematic.
To reduce a clash of ideologies into being an exercise in emotional incontinence seems to distort the events and the motivations. And does nothing to encourage better strategies. It seems dangerously naive. Yet many insist upon this! What saddens me is that many feel a need to lash out at me about these things and assume me to be unsympathetic, because itās a way of distancing themselves from other interpretations of events. As I said above, I had a flatmate and friend who was present at a clinic shooting, so this has affected me personally, and I certainly do sympathize with the victims.
But I do think that how people frame situations like this does affect what they are able to do about them.
