Word Power

[sagegirl]

While not particularly an advocate of political correctness, I see this example of reporting to be particularly bias or at least troubling. In recent reports of arsons committed on new housing developments, the perpetrator/s were referred to as eco-terrorists, the arson, an act of eco-terrorism. A few weeks later a fire at a women's health care clinic was reported as an arson at an abortion clinic.
I have heard the word "terrorism" used to define other illegal acts.....and I am not defending any of this type of behavior.....such as animal rights activists releasing animals from test labs or fur farms, or the vandalism of logging equipment, but I do think the use of the word terrorism/terrorist should be used carefully lest it become a term to define ANY antisocial or illegal activity.

 

[5stringJeff]

While not particularly an advocate of political correctness, I see this example of reporting to be particularly bias or at least troubling. In recent reports of arsons committed on new housing developments, the perpetrator/s were referred to as eco-terrorists, the arson, an act of eco-terrorism. A few weeks later a fire at a women's health care clinic was reported as an arson at an abortion clinic.
I have heard the word "terrorism" used to define other illegal acts.....and I am not defending any of this type of behavior.....such as animal rights activists releasing animals from test labs or fur farms, or the vandalism of logging equipment, but I do think the use of the word terrorism/terrorist should be used carefully lest it become a term to define ANY antisocial or illegal activity.

Terrorism is defined as: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Using that definition, an extreme environmentalist group burning a building or a laboratory for the effect of intimidating people who work there, or to "make a statement" that uch-and-such is wrong, would certainly be terrorism. Terrorism is not restricted to Islamic fundamentalists.

 

[Zhukov]

People who use violence (and destruction of property is a form of violence) as a means to sway or circumvent the will of the people are terrorists.

What's the problem?

I would add that the term 'eco-terrorist' predates the 9/11 attacks and the Patriot Act.

 

[Annie]

I agree. The eco-nutcases, are criminals that should be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Other than they have caused serious injury if not death, they are the modern day equivalent of the extremist found by some of the prohibitionists when it came to destruction of property. Probably a better comparison would be with a nut case like John Brown. The cause may be good, but the methods suk.

I think we should be using the term terrorist more carefully, but not in the sense of Reuters or AP, that just seem utterly in denial.

 

[sagegirl]

People who use violence (and destruction of property is a form of violence) as a means to sway or circumvent the will of the people are terrorists.

What's the problem?

I would add that the term 'eco-terrorist' predates the 9/11 attacks and the Patriot Act.

Zhukov....my point was why wasnt the wanton destruction of a health care facility, setting it on fire, reported as an act of terrorism.....say maybe health care terrorism.....or maybe a guy who spreads a computer virus, a internet terrorist, or a guy who bootlegs music a copyright terrorist, or a union guy who walks a picket line a labor terrorist. The problem as I see it is that the word is being overused and tends to add fear and intensity of our everyday
experience. Not to mention the application of laws and methods of law enforcement to catch the perps, that document which redefines any activity that "APPEARS TO" coerce or influence, not neccessarily the intent or the commission of said act......as terrorism, the patriot act.

 

[Bonnie]

Zhukov....my point was why wasnt the wanton destruction of a health care facility, setting it on fire, reported as an act of terrorism.....say maybe health care terrorism.....or maybe a guy who spreads a computer virus, a internet terrorist, or a guy who bootlegs music a copyright terrorist, or a union guy who walks a picket line a labor terrorist. The problem as I see it is that the word is being overused and tends to add fear and intensity of our everyday
experience. Not to mention the application of laws and methods of law enforcement to catch the perps, that document which redefines any activity that "APPEARS TO" coerce or influence, not neccessarily the intent or the commission of said act......as terrorism, the patriot act.

I have heard all those things you mentioned reported as forms of terrorism, including the bombings and shootings of an abortion clinic. Im sure all media outlets use the word terrorism to describe these acts knowing they will get a visceral reaction from their audiences. Im not sure what your real concerns are, too much use of the word or the idea that it may not be used in areas you think it should be?

 

[Annie]

Bonnie: too much use of the word or the idea that it may not be used in areas you think it should be?

I feel both are wrong. Using 'terrorism' to describe crimes caused by criminals, desensitizes the public to the word. On the other hand, the common use of 'insurgents' in place of 'terrorists' is also inappropriate.

 

[Bonnie]

I feel both are wrong. Using 'terrorism' to describe crimes caused by criminals, desensitizes the public to the word. On the other hand, the common use of 'insurgents' in place of 'terrorists' is also inappropriate.

Absolutely true that overusing any word will detract form it's impact one way or the other.......It's truly amazing how powerful language really is and often how carelessly it's used often by the press, to the detriment of many.

 

[5stringJeff]

Zhukov....my point was why wasnt the wanton destruction of a health care facility, setting it on fire, reported as an act of terrorism.....say maybe health care terrorism

No one destroys hospitals for political or ideological reasons. Although, were it an abortion clinic, one could call it anti-abortion terrorism.

or maybe a guy who spreads a computer virus, a internet terrorist

Those designations are out there.

or a guy who bootlegs music a copyright terrorist,

The problem is bootleging music is not wanton violence, nor is it harmful, except for the lost revenue. Therefore, it wouldn't be terrorism.

or a union guy who walks a picket line a labor terrorist.

Again, walking a picket line is not violent or harmful in itself; therefore, not terrorism.

The problem as I see it is that the word is being overused and tends to add fear and intensity of our everyday experience.

Overused where? The only one overusing it is you.

 

[sagegirl]

I have heard all those things you mentioned reported as forms of terrorism, including the bombings and shootings of an abortion clinic. Im sure all media outlets use the word terrorism to describe these acts knowing they will get a visceral reaction from their audiences. Im not sure what your real concerns are, too much use of the word or the idea that it may not be used in areas you think it should be?

My concern is the overuse of the word. I dont think it applies to any illegal act and should be used with restraint.

 

[sagegirl]

I feel both are wrong. Using 'terrorism' to describe crimes caused by criminals, desensitizes the public to the word. On the other hand, the common use of 'insurgents' in place of 'terrorists' is also inappropriate.

Acts of war are nearly always acts of terrorism...calling participants soldiers or insurgents or freedom fighters, mostly comes from a political point of view.

 

[5stringJeff]

Acts of war are nearly always acts of terrorism...calling participants soldiers or insurgents or freedom fighters, mostly comes from a political point of view.

That is, frankly, a very ignorant viewpoint. When soldiers fight, they fight against other soldiers, and both sides are officials of their governments, used to acheive political objectives. Terrorists rarely fight against other soldiers; they usually attack civilians and/or their property. Moreover, soldiers fight for the political objectives of the country's leadership, not for an ideological "message" like terrorists do.

 

[sagegirl]

No one destroys hospitals for political or ideological reasons. Although, were it an abortion clinic, one could call it anti-abortion terrorism.



Those designations are out there.



The problem is bootleging music is not wanton violence, nor is it harmful, except for the lost revenue. Therefore, it wouldn't be terrorism.



Again, walking a picket line is not violent or harmful in itself; therefore, not terrorism.



Overused where? The only one overusing it is you.

Mostly I agree with you....I stated overuse or misuse in a couple of instances and tried to show examples that would be really a stretch. Like I said, Im not too concerned with pol. correctness, but words evoke powerful emotions and can be used to convey directly and indirectly attitudes and perceptions that may or may not be fair and accurate.

 

[MtnBiker]

Word power is an interesting thing and many groups will use words to promote their postion.

Sagegirl, should Pro-Choice advocates be called Pro-Prelife Terminators?

 

[Bonnie]

Word power is an interesting thing and many groups will use words to promote their postion.

Sagegirl, should Pro-Choice advocates be called Pro-Prelife Terminators?

And it would sure be nice if the Pro-life movement was actually called Pro-life and not Anti-abortion radicals.

 

[Annie]

Acts of war are nearly always acts of terrorism...calling participants soldiers or insurgents or freedom fighters, mostly comes from a political point of view.

The later would be fine on an editorial page or the outlet could just be upfront and say they are of a certain political persuasion.

Not all acts of war are terrorism, they are acts of war. Terrorism is aimed at civilians, without any of the rules of war. I would deduce that our political persuasions may keep us from agreement here. Then again, we are not writing the 'news.'

 

[sagegirl]

Word power is an interesting thing and many groups will use words to promote their postion.

Sagegirl, should Pro-Choice advocates be called Pro-Prelife Terminators?

I think labels on both sides of this issue suck big time. One on the pro life side..... "pro birth" because of a seeming discrepancy between their opinions regarding the life of an unborn child and its life after birth, and still advocate pro death penalty, or war. The issue gets very tangled. On the pro choice side, terms like abortion advocates, or baby killers, or as you suggest pro prelife terminators are just as antagonistic. Everyone has their own opinion on this issue and none are likely to change it. I like the term pro choice, it seems all inclusive.....the choice to have an abortion or not.

 

[freeandfun1]

I think labels on both sides of this issue suck big time. One on the pro life side..... "pro birth" because of a seeming discrepancy between their opinions regarding the life of an unborn child and its life after birth, and still advocate pro death penalty, or war. The issue gets very tangled. On the pro choice side, terms like abortion advocates, or baby killers, or as you suggest pro prelife terminators are just as antagonistic. Everyone has their own opinion on this issue and none are likely to change it. I like the term pro choice, it seems all inclusive.....the choice to have an abortion or not.

Not all Pro-Life people support the death penalty or war. Therefore, you are (typically) painting with a very broad brush.

Using your logic, Pro-Choice people are not truly Pro-Choice when so many constantly go against teaching abstinence or counseling which offers insight into alternatives to abortion.

 

[MtnBiker]

I like the term pro choice, it seems all inclusive.....the choice to have an abortion or not.

I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread, we have had plenty of those. However the term pro choice is not all inclusive the person impacted the most by the "choice" had no choice at all.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Terrorism is defined as: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Using that definition, an extreme environmentalist group burning a building or a laboratory for the effect of intimidating people who work there, or to "make a statement" that uch-and-such is wrong, would certainly be terrorism. Terrorism is not restricted to Islamic fundamentalists.

Yes, of course it is terrorism - and fundamentalists burning abortion clinics and murdering doctors is also terrorism, clearly.


Regards,


Andy