Sorry if you mean me. It’s just that racism denial is a sore spot with me, including refusals to call racist terrorism what it is.
7 Likes
Which is why I hate the umbrella of the label “terrorism”! Points 1 and 3 are not only clear, they are really more or less redundant with a much of US law, and exist here mostly as a justification for selective enforcement, which is what 2 is for. Which amounts to thought-crime of a judge deciding that they know what somebody was thinking. I know that intention is relevant to laws and law enforcement, but I never trust that this is something which can or should be determined judicially based upon pure inference. Prosecute people for what they actually do, not for what you imagine its significance to be, because they cannot be culpable for that. Also, if we wanted less ambiguity, laws would be drafted specifically to minimize overlap.
The US definitions of domestic terrorism, in practice, amount to being 90% the same as many other crimes, unless somebody decides that an event was such a big deal, that they are psychic enough to know exactly what people’s motivations were.
And worse, the US government itself does these exact same things on a regular basis. So, the US government has never tried to coerce or intimidate populations or other governments? ‘S an utter crock o’ shite. There is no moral high ground presented here.
Some racists simply want “the other” gone, and don’t care what they feel about. This would, by definition, not be terrorism. I must admit that I don’t know either way. If the perpetrators made clear that terror was their goal, then sure, this law applies. The possibility that it might not doesn’t let anybody off the hook for what was actually done, since it was already illegal in numerous other ways. Stretching the evidence to make your desired punishments possible represents the worst kind of vigilante mob “justice”. I hate it when corrupt cops do it, and I am certainly not going to do it myself with the excuse that I am emotionally reacting to an atrocity.
Basically, I think it’s a trap for progressives who might think they are getting somewhere by saying: “See, terrorism doesn’t only apply to brown people!”, while simultaneously using a definition which can enable nearly any form of activism as being “terrorism” once somebody decides that it is. If you are willing to set that precedent, you might need to live with those consequences. I am not willing to go there, and don’t need to for justice to be served with better-established (and less capricious) laws.
2 Likes
All that said, I think it’s good that bb did write about this, because I hadn’t heard about it elsewhere.
4 Likes
The US (and the UK where I am) both have a bad history in not calling terrorists terrorists if the perpetrators are white. It’s worse if they are nationals. And worse still if the victims aren’t white. In my opinion. But I also have issues with calling it terrorism if the act doesn’t (to me) look like it was intended to terrorise. The twat who sat through a service and then opened fire on a black congregation was a terrorist in my eyes. An arson attack on a church when it’s closed is a cowardly hate crime, but I can’t see it as terrorism.
And I’ll happily discuss the rights and wrongs of that with anyone, but I find name calling and insults (by multiple people on this thread) isn’t discussion, it’s dismissal. shrug
But then, I’ve not been a victim of terrorism since the IRA days…
On a single church, perhaps not. On multiple churches, in a short period of time, in the same area, all of which predominantly serve the same group of people, on the other hand?
You don’t need dead bodies for people to be terrorized.
7 Likes
So your definition of terrorism includes bravery?
Mine doesn’t; if the act succeeds in “terrorizing” a select demographic, then to me and many others, that’s obviously “terrorism.” It’s also obvious to me that black parishioners, and others in the community, will be set on edge and worried for their lives by a series of black church burnings. Black communal memory hasn’t forgotten the iconic deaths in churches of four little girls (let alone the recent nine adults), nor the fact that a lot of white supremacists haven’t either. As you yourself are saying, context matters; it accounts for the specific forms of symbolism that are central to terrrorism.
ETA: And btw, “insults” are just one more way of communicating. In my circles, we insult each other constantly, but calling anyone a “twat” (let alone a “cunt”) could well prompt an ass-kicking. However, in this forum full of people from all over the world, I’m not going to call you out on that.
4 Likes
Let’s be fair, he could also be a Randian capitalist asshole.
4 Likes
Church arsons are fairly common in the US. On average, there are 5 such arsons every week.
This is why someone setting a CVS on fire during a highly charged event is going to get a lot more news coverage than another church arson.
The assumption in the comments seems to be captured by this:
“An arson attack on a church when it’s closed is a cowardly hate crime, but I can’t see it as terrorism.”
But arsonists who attack churches have a diverse set of motives. One of the reasons churches are often targeted is they are easy targets of opportunity. Generally they have less security, for example, than other potential targets.
Certainly this warrants further investigation, and it may even turn out to be racially or religiously motivated, but running around yelling “terrorism” with so little evidence is a little Bush-esque for the author of “Little Brother.”
1 Like
It occurs to me that, for better or worse, I get most of my news from a couple of blogs. So the reason I personally hadn’t heard of these fires before now is because BoingBoing hadn’t covered it.
3 Likes
The Venn diagram of those two groups is close enough to a single circle that it’s hard to tell the difference with the naked eye.
Edit: Just wanted to note that I’m not trying to imply that the numbers are almost equal. The randian circle gets subsumed by the much larger general racist circle.
2 Likes
This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot with this story. On the one hand, yes, church arsons are surprisingly frequent and the statistics I’ve seen so far appear to indicate that nationally, there has not been an uptick in arsons specifically at black churches.
On the other hand… it is extremely unlikely that five different churches were all hit (apparently) by the same person or group in a short period entirely due to them being “targets of opportunity”, and they all just coincidentally happened to be predominantly black churches. Especially given the location. There’s a chance, but, really, it’s tough to criticize the conclusion.
5 Likes
2 Likes
@anon15383236 Wish I could give you many more likes, just for using this in one of your comments: ‘some other fuckhead’.
4 Likes
There’s also those of us who feel that going from zero to fuckhead in one comment does nothing but escalate things for the sake of escalation.
1 Like
Well, as I said above, “insults” are just one more way of communicating. Must I, a person who travels in circles in which we swear and insult each other constantly as a way of just getting along, consent to the more polite mores followed by some other users of this forum?
You know what? Fuck it. Please learn what’s wrong with “tone arguments.” And let’s all focus more on what people say, rather than on how they say it, m’kay?
3 Likes
Given my previous comment, it’s sort of hilarious that I can’t get past the lack of apostrophes in that otherwise righteous t-shirt. Gah! >.<
5 Likes
Meh. Millie’s entitled to call it as she sees it.
3 Likes
Just so I’m clear, in your view, namecalling, swearing at people, and insults have no affect on an argument or debate; the only thing that matters is the raw data of what’s being said, and not how it’s being said?
1 Like
How the fuck can anyone consider gunning down unarmed worshippers brave? Calling one thing cowardly doesn’t mean the other is bravery. If you are going to try and put words in my mouth, try harder.
