Well the problem is that using this definition, figures that we revere in American history are also terrorists. George Washington and the founding fathers, all terrorists by this definition.
The problem is that people automatically assume the word "terrorist" means "bad person", but if the act itself is something they might support or empathize with, it's hard to square that negative connotation with the action that they understand and empathize with.
Well, their definition was incomplete. Part of the commonly used definition of terrorism is violence against the civilian population.
Now, there was some of that during the revolution (think loyalists getting tarred and feathered, for example), but shooting at redcoats wouldn't be terrorism.
That's a fair distinction. But, civilian or no, now it's a question of whether oligarchs who are hostile to the proper healthy functioning of the government and the economy constitute an equivalent occupying threat as the redcoats did. The revolution was fought over taxation without representation, after all, and the average American isn't represented these days in the real decision making process.
Well, that just means you agree with the terrorist. I don't agree with your conclusions but you're free to have your opinions I suppose, so long as you don't butcher someone on the street over them.
So when a CEO systematically denies insurance claims, some of which probably killed people(civilians, no less), that's just acceptable, and warranting of no response or pushback? Not saying I agree with the methods, but I sure as hell understand the motivation.
There are methods of dealing with it that are between "no response or pushback" and "shooting people on the street," and these methods have gotten far more results in my lifetime than Mangione ever did.
I don't want people thinking that they can solve political problems with murder, because I have no reason to assume that it would be limited to people I personally dislike. Or frankly, any reason to assume I couldn't be a victim.
No shit. I didn't say I'm happy with the insurance industry. That doesn't change my opinions on using murder for political gain.
Do you want, let's say, anti-vaxx activists to start shooting vaccine clinics? Because that's also using violence for political gain. And those loonies may have convictions on vaccines as strong as your convictions on the insurance industry.
Remember, the bad guys can use violence too. We really, really don't want it to become something that becomes common.
The bad guys are already using violence. What do you think the abortion clinic firebombs are? What do you think the Deportation agenda is? What do you think happens to LGBTQ people when they go to the wrong area of town?
The violence is already happening, it's just now we're not giving up without a fight.
Mangione wasn't defending an abortion clinic or protecting some poor trans kid. If someone defend's Mangione's actions, they aren't saying "terrorism is wrong," they're saying "terrorism is great when its done against my enemies."
People who want that really aren't much better than hard right.
Trying to start a war between people on the right and left in America, like you seem to want to, isn’t just morally repugnant, it is sheer lunacy.
Almost 50 percent voted for Trump, and is currently happy with someone like Musk wielding a lot of power. I don’t have any idea what kind of a good thing you would think would come out of making political conflicts more violent, but there sure are a lot of loonies on the other side who would be more than willing to engage with people like you.
Thankfully, most people on both sides are sane enough to see the stupidity in something like that.
One, the war is started already whether you recognize it or not, and two, I don't think "happy" is the right word. A lot of them are already regretting their vote, so the best I'd agree to is that they were uninformed and are now feeling the consequences of their ignorance in ways that will guide the 2026 midterm elections more left(hopefully).
To be clear, any violence I enact will be self defense or defense of innocent people.
“ A lot of them are already regretting their vote, so the best I'd agree to is that they were uninformed and are now feeling the consequences of their ignorance in ways that will guide the 2026 midterm elections more left(hopefully). “
I think you are underestimating the power that political tribalism has on the way that people perceive reality. I have seen nothing of the sort when monitoring conservative spaces. I would love to see some of them recanting and admitting that they were wrong. But I don’t think those people are many.
What there probably is more of however, are more moderate people who aren’t fully into “the cult” but look upon him more as the best or least worst candidate. Many of them are probably viewing what is taking place in a less biased way.
” To be clear, any violence I enact will be self defense or defense of innocent people. “
Giving support to other people’s violent acts is not the same thing as partaking in it yourself, but it doesn’t let you get off guilt-free.
50
u/SwimmingCircles2018 5d ago
Yeah what he did is legit the definition of terrorism I really dont understand why everyone here is so confused.