• Jaytreeman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Violence is a key word in that definition.

      Violence: Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.

      So, starving a group of people isn’t terrorism because you’re not exerting physical force.

      Not easily stopping a fire when you know it’s going to spread towards an occupied house isn’t violence because you’re not exerting physical force.

      Poisoning drinking water isn’t violence because you’re not exerting physical force.

      Real question: what do you call those things? It can’t be defined as terrorism. What is it?

      • betheydocrime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think “physical force” is a necesarry component of violence. Take, for example, domestic violence. The US DOJ gives these criteria for if an action is DV or not:

        Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of actions or other patterns of coercive behavior that influence another person within an intimate partner relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.

        I think a more apt definition of violence would be “coercive behavior”

        • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Coercive behavior doesn’t quite work though.
          Yours is better than either of the ones posted, but I do think the physical force aspect is important to differentiate from other aspects.

          I was going to attempt to make a point about how stopping terrorism that isn’t explicitly violent with violence isn’t the same thing.

          Starving a population isn’t violence, but it is terrorism. Attempting to give that population food and being stopped by the state by legal means is terrorism.

          The state is going to define things in specific ways to ensure that they’re considered correct.

          I had written out a response to the person I replied to and then didn’t post after reading some of their other comments. They’re probably just a troll, or one of those people that’s legitimately kind of smart but hasn’t been around people that are incredibly smart, so hasn’t had a reason to adjust their opinions about things because they might be shallowly correct but are fundamentally wrong. Like Newton’s laws.

      • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Kinda missed the point here. The other guy was saying that eco terrorism is not terrorism. I said nothing about if starving people is violence or not.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean its also not possible to save humanity from fossil fuel induced runaway climate catastrophe, I just applaud anyone willing to take extreme measures in that pursuit. No hubris whatsoever lol

      • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        "Saving humanity from the sins of the west and their ideological indoctrination is also not political. "

        • Osama Bin Laden (probably)

        Just call it what it is then say it’s justified if you think it is. If you can dress this up as not terrorism then nothing is.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          One is literally happening outside as we speak, one is based upon an extremist interpretation of a 2000 year old book. Can you spot the difference?

          • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The existence of God is unfalsifiable, so you can’t say it’s untrue to the believer. Just make the rules and play by them. Also it’s more like 1500 years ago 🤓.

            • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The idea of climate change and it’s causes IS falsifiable though, which is why taking actions related to that cause is a bit different than something that has no way to be proven.

              • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                In which scenario do you think that you’re gonna live for longer and/or with a higher quality of life.

                • Mass blowing up and destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure
                • The status quo

                Think about the implications of each scenario and let me know.

                • Nudding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think you’re an idiot if you think it’s the status quo. Even if we stopped producing fossil fuels tomorrow its too late to undo what we’ve already set in motion anyway.

                  • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If we stopped producing fossil fuels tomorrow, you don’t think they’re gonna be mass famines and global economic collapse?

                    We depend so much already on fossil fuels. The solution is to invest more into renewables and plastic alternatives, not to rip it out without proper work to avoid disaster.