what's in a word?

[Joseph Tracy]

so what then is the valid use of the term? I would like to hear a bit more.


Consider a reasonably parallel word: plagiarism.  It is derived from the verb plagiarize as terrorism is derived from terrorize. Anyone can plagiarize. You just rip off another writer’s words and claim them as yours. There is no gender restriction, no age limits, no ethnic consideration. I would say terrorizing is quite similar, there is no inherent limit implied in the word on who can terrorize. Groups can do it, individuals can do it, even animals can do it to other animals.  Terrorism is just the noun form.  

To my mind if a writer wants to further target or narrow the meaning of the term, then an adjective should be added like political terrorism, racial terrorism, intellectual terrorism. 

One has to be a little careful when it comes to the ism ending but this is clearly not a belief like communism or pacifism. 
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 10:38 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think a clear understanding of the valid use of the term is the best first defense against its misuse.
> 
> David Morris
> 
> On Friday, December 4, 2015, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> I think Laura is onto the key factor in what is going on now with the use of this word ’Terrorism’. It is needed, wanted, and used not as a word which might apply to a  range of circumstances, and be used variously with seriousness, with political precision, in apolitical context, even with humor etc., though all of those uses will appear in literature. It now fills a role as a political term which is directed almost exclusively at acts of violence by Muslims not aligned with theUS and to the extent it applies to anyone else it will be non-state groups or individuals with political messages or goals clearly at odds with Western media and cultural values.  It is purposely undefined as a legal term, because then it could be logically applied to state as well as non-state instances of immoral violence against non-combatants.
>   This current use comfortably allows and legitimizes state violence, targeted abuse,  and the suspension of laws and imposition of intrusive surveillance, while expressing abhorrence for certain non-state uses against those we care about. That should make us wary of its use and wary of trying to agree with the media appropriation as a  narrow and purely pejorative term that can only apply on their unstated but implied terms.
>        NON-STATE HYPOCRISY
> Most  mass shootings by individuals have been by white men but there is no widespread fear or investigation of white men. Many Cops operate in dangerous and lawless affinity groups and have chalked up a lot of dead bodies that look like unjustified racist violence. Where is the media call for accountability and investigation there? Terrorism? The term certainly applied to the Ku Klux Klan, or the Brownshirts. Why not in this case?
> 
> I remember the  global appearance of the word in its current application to be under Ronald Reagan with the fall of Soviet Communism and the need for new enemies. It was applied to THE Nicaraguan Government but not the contras and to Salvadoran rebels but not to the right wing para-military groupsIN El Salvador or their CIA helpers.
> 
> 
> 
> > On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:35 PM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > 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
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l

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