Poll of the Day > Can you, by pedantic definition, be a non-violent terrorist?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Topic
---

I suppose you could use terror to try to affect political and social change without causing physical harm. Things like false bomb scares maybe?

it would still be criminal and a shitty thing to do though

---

Ripping a nasty fart in a packed elevator?
---

It depends on whether you believe that intimidation or the threat of violence is an act of violence onto itself. That's probably as close as you can get, but even that doesn't really qualify. Or, I guess, if you consider the destruction of property not to be violence. Practically speaking, there's no such thing, though.
---

Violence doesnt have to be against a person, I think destroying property is still violent

---

It's setting onesself on fire with gas and just sitting there like a good monk.....
---

Threatening violence
---

Not at all... Sadi grata...
---

To whom was violence set towards?
---

No because by definition a terrorist uses violence.
---

Revelation34 posted...

No because by definition a terrorist uses violence.

Not at all, you can be a political, economical, or social terrorist.
---

hypnox posted...

Not at all, you can be a political, economical, or social terrorist.

Definition of terrorist in English:

terrorist
noun

A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists
a suspected terrorist

adjective
attributive

Unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
a terrorist organization
terrorist attacks
---

Seems like using unlawful intimidation and fear could still count as terrorism depending on the circumstances

although that itself is arguably violence itself

---

Depends on what you consider to be violence or what violence you think is acceptable. For example, a lot of people think it's okay to give the State the power to kill people (death penalty), and one justification that is commonly used for that is that they hope that it will scare other people into not committing crimes. This example? The only thing that makes it terrorism or not terrorism is whether or not the death penalty is legal.

I'm going to go ahead and say that I think that the definition is too broad. *shrug*

As an aside, are you talking about stochastic terrorism, by any chance?
---

Gaawa_chan posted...

As an aside, are you talking about stochastic terrorism, by any chance?

Not sure.

I was just watchin' a TJ Kirk vidya and he says that there's no way Antifa could be terrorists since they haven't killed anyone yet...

So I wanted to get pedantic
---

Lokarin posted...

Not sure.
I was just watchin' a TJ Kirk vidya and he says that there's no way Antifa could be terrorists since they haven't killed anyone yet...
So I wanted to get pedantic

Ah. I assume you already know the arguments leveled against Antifa. If you want some nuanced material to look at in support of Antifa, I can give you some links as well as explain some of their positions myself (I'm not a member of Antifa btw). But I'm a slow typer so you have to be a little patient.
---

Talking about political violence is kind of awkward because there are a lot of people out there who think (perhaps rightfully) that ALL politics is violent. States/laws are enforced through... well, force. So the question is not so much violence/non-violence, but when/where/what kind of violence is acceptable. See my example on the death penalty.
.
Antifa's primary defense against accusations that they are violent/just as bad as fascists/etc is that antifascist action is defensive in nature. In order to understand THAT position, you have to understand fascism which... I'll spare you the history lesson (god we'd be here forever), but to state it very generally, the problem with fighting fascism is that fascism uses the rights given by their democracy/republic in order to dismantle those very systems. If you want more information, I highly recommend watching videos made by Youtuber Three Arrows, who makes great videos on the history of fascism and German fascism in particular.

If you understand how fascism works, then you understand why Antifa behaves as it does. In general, most of our standard political systems are not really equipped to deal with fascistic attempts to dismantle the systems... using the systems. However... Antifa is. Antifa tactics have been shown to be highly effective against fascism... and non-violent protest has been shown to be highly ineffective against fascism, conversely, which is... not a very comfortable thing to admit. Violent protest was at its height of effectiveness during the era of fascism (late 30's to mid 40's) and declined sharply due to the shift in protest goals/targets.

(basics on Antifa thought, and this video specifically addresses the "is antifa terroristic?" at about 29 minutes in)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwS_FMZ3nQ" data-time="

(three arrows)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCT8a7d6S6RJUivBgNRsiYg/videos

I will try and find some other interesting things on this topic for you... I watched a really interesting one that went into the statistical effectiveness of various forms of protest against fascists in history, but I am not seeing it anywhere... >_<

Anyway, hopes that helps you understand where they're coming from.

Edit: I forgot to explain stochastic terrorism. Uh, so you know how there are a lot of mass shootings going on right now? No small number of them actually came from people who were encouraged by others online to commit those shootings. That is stochastic terrorism; those people didn't pull the triggers, but they encouraged people to commit random acts of criminal violence for political reasons. It's like the terroristic equivalent of convincing someone to kill themselves or someone else. That makes it very hard to stop, because, again, they're using the rights afforded to them under their States to commit violence against people in order to undermine the State.

Edit2: Forgot to mention... Germany's history is really worth looking into when talking about this. Because of their history, Germany took specific pains in order to weaken any potential efforts to bring back fascism. Three Arrows talks about this a decent amount in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX8Iw37srmY" data-time="
---

Mr Hangman posted...

^I disagree with your posts implication that most of antifa's activity is not non-violent

? Did I state that somewhere? Oops. For the record I do not believe that. I haven't slept in like three days so I am not perhaps phrasing things as well as I ought to.
---

There was more bombings in the 70s than the past 20years combined. Most were political in motivation...
---

Brah, I'm pretty sure a bombing is unequivocally violent...
---

I mean eco terrorism is a thing. Spiking trees and destroying logging equipment isn't violent per se.
---

I think you meant terror enablers and sponsors.
---

KeijiMaedaTiger posted...

I mean eco terrorism is a thing. Spiking trees and destroying logging equipment isn't violent per se.

Trees technically have feelings, and destroying private property is considered violence if rioters smashing cars are already considered violent .
---

tonicpalin posted...

KeijiMaedaTiger posted...

I mean eco terrorism is a thing. Spiking trees and destroying logging equipment isn't violent per se.

Trees technically have feelings, and destroying private property is considered violence if rioters smashing cars are already considered violent .

You don't have to smash something to destroy it. Sugar in the gas tank is the go to. Removing wires and hoses is pretty common too. I suppose I should have said sabotage instead of destroying.
---

Yes. Its the same as being passive aggressive.
---

ferko420 posted...

There was more bombings in the 70s than the past 20years combined. Most were political in motivation...

A bombing against civilians is by definition an act of terrorism.
---

light yagami?