LogFAQs > #885629241

adjl posted...

Indeed. Again, this is just the discussion of whether or not they're cowardly. The fact that they can be defended as not being cowardly is exactly why one shouldn't try to paint them as cowards. Calling one's enemies cowards is an ancient and hopelessly transparent propaganda technique, which is not remotely necessary when one can just condemn the fact that they're being violent assholes. This is why I gave the extreme example of suicide bombers, whom everyone agrees are awful and indefensible, but which clearly cannot be called cowardly. Just call them (and only them, not everyone who has similar views or beliefs) violent assholes and leave it at that.

I can see calling them cowards, for the same reason why the KKK are cowards. First of all, attacking a peaceful opposition is cowardly, not brave or courageous, regardless of numbers. You're jumping people who don't want to fight back - that's cowardly. Second, if you're so set in your convictions that you're willing to resort to violence to propagate them, you should at least have the courage to show your face; not doing so is, again, cowardly.

Zeus posted...

And when a news publication posts against their self-interest, it means that the news is usually more valid. Think about Fox News saying something nice about Obama because, for that to happen, Obama *must* have done something incredible.

Nope, sorry, it's fake news. You convinced me that the Washington Post can never be trusted.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!