what's in a word?

[kelber at mindspring.com]

And adding to the confusion are the gray areas, such as the Colorado Springs shooting, where mental illness and ideology overlap, or, as the San Bernardino shooting seems to be developing into, a mixture of ideological inspiration and going postal. If there's some ideology in the mix (how about hatred of women, as in that Montreal shooting?), how much is needed before it becomes terrorism? What's the difference between inspiration (from ISIS, from Trump)and a direct order? In the present climate the answer seems to be: the Muslim factor. Muslim shooters are most, or even always likely to be labelled terrorists, while the rest get shunted into the mentally ill category. To the dead and wounded, it's a pretty arcane distinction.

Laura


-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>Sent: Dec 4, 2015 2:26 PM
>To: Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com>
>Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>
>yes, I fell back on my first 'studies'....Nechaev....and Laquer's
>definition a bit later.
>You are right, and I remember reading it in what you sent, about REIGN
>OF TERROR.
>
>On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If "traditional" actually means "original," the "traditional" meaning of the
>> term is the intimidation undertaken by the government during the Reign of
>> Terror in the French Revolution. If by "traditional" we just mean "what it
>> has meant up until recently," then the "traditional" meaning has changed
>> over time, as is the case with most politically charged words (and with a
>> good chunk of less politically charged words, too). A good summary can be
>> found in section 1 of this article:
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I always thought the core 'traditional' meaning of the word was to
>>> kill/attack citizens when not at war.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > This is the traditional meaning of the word, I always thought.
>>> >
>>> > Non-terrorist gun killing may be the greater threat in one sense, but a
>>> > lesser one in another.  Fear can change people in bad ways, but THAT
>>> > ship
>>> > has sailed.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:44 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> So, by this logic, the motive of the killer determines whether the
>>> >> violence is an act of terrorism.  Only if the intent is to instill a
>>> >> sense
>>> >> of danger/terror in the surviving populace would the act be properly
>>> >> called
>>> >> terroeism.
>>> >>
>>> >> David Morris
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "
>>> >>> As one friend pointed out, Paris is not actually any more dangerous
>>> >>> than
>>> >>> before Nov. 13. What's changed, dramatically, is our perception of
>>> >>> imminent
>>> >>> danger. And that makes all the psychological difference."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> And that's what makes it TERRORISM.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/03/does-motive-matter-in-mass-shootings-like-the-one-in-san-bernadino/even-in-paris-guns-look-like-a-greater-threat-than-terrorism
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>
>>
>-
>Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l