Sandies wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:27 am
But wait, you're saying these aren't equal to acts of violence committed on hateful ideology? They're better!?
It's not 'better'. I don't think that was what he meant to say.
This is part of the problem with words like terrorism. People assume that because a mass shooting isn't necessarily labelled as a terrorist act, that means that it is not as bad as a shooting that is labelled as such, because they don't understand what terrorism means. Its as if people think the word just means 'terrible' or 'terrifying' or something.
Obviously a random act of psycho violence where a pupil shoots and kills 30 students is worse in terms of the death toll than the murder of Lee Rigby where only one person was killed, but it was the motive and the reason given by the killers that made Lee Rigby's murder an act of terrorism.
Best example I can think of atm, it's like dangerous driving and drink driving. Both of them are crimes and can cause death and you can be driving dangerously while drink driving. You can kill someone driving dangerously and only crash your car when drink driving so the former would be 'worse' there, but drink driving describes something more specific. Same with terrorism.
Usually a shooting like this is followed by lots of point scoring and identity politics, saying how it's never called terrorism when the attacker is white (not true, the murder of Jo Cox was terrorism as was the guy who ran over Muslims outside the mosque in London, as was Anders Breivik, and there are hundreds of examples from the IRA during the Troubles) and that if he was brown it would be terrorism (also not true necessarily).
I assume the intention with it all is to downplay the reality that the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts are committed by followers of one ideology, its kind of "but look at them, they are doing it too".
I agree with your posts on gun control btw.