what's in a word?

Sat Dec 5 19:36:01 CST 2015

English is not Chineese. Context doesn't overrule everything, unless we let
it.

David Morris

On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>
> 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 <javascript:;>>
> > >> Sent: Dec 4, 2015 2:26 PM
> > >> To: Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > >> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> > >> 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 <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> > >>>>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> > >>>>>> 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/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151205/2d145e26/attachment.html>