• Allonzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yep.

      This and virtually all countries were founded by people who would fit the definition of terrorist.

      How history remembers you is solely on the basis of how successful your “terrorism” was.

      George Washington is a very well regarded terrorist in modernity.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ve had this issue in a story I’m writing, because one faction in this story is fighting for a cause that’s essentially good, but they’ve become extremely jaded by lack of change and have resorted to extremely violent measures. So it’s obvious the government they’re fighting would call them terrorists, but a hundred years later, history should view them with reserved optimism. It’s hard to categorize how the narrator and heroes should view them though, since the heroes don’t necessarily directly cooperate.

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I mean, it was inarguably violence, and that violence seems to have a political motive (since changing or reforming the healthcare system is considered a political issue), and there is an element of using fear to further that end (since he would obviously have known that he cannot realistically change everything by himself or even just shoot every health insurance CEO, but shooting one while featuring a catchy phrase to make it clear the motive was being fed up with the health system, potentially makes all the other such CEOs and people in similar positions afraid that the next guy to try this might go after them next, and that more might be inspired seeing the shooting). Id argue that it does technically fit the term. People are just so used to that term being used alongside causes that they have no agreement with that they think it can never apply to a good one, or consider if it can ever be justified.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I’d argue the US for-profit health insurance system is state sanctioned terrorism of the civilian population, for profit.

      What greater way to terrorize a population than to deny them and their families healthcare, under the threat of bankruptcy? How about the threat of bankruptcy either way, whether they’re insured or not?

      The industry kills 30x 9/11 every year, bankrupts 500k, while stealing 500-700 billion from the population (compared to the public systems of the developed world). At the very least, it’s financial terrorism and extortion.

        • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 month ago

          Saying “legally” isn’t much of an argument, IMO, not to imply you meant it as one. What’s legal or illegal is arbitrarily decided on by those in power, and arbitrarily enforced. The vast majority of these laws were not voted on by us and they’re rarely if ever reviewed.

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Well no shit, state-sanctioned terrorism is always legal according to the state that sanctions the terrorism

    • Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      The point is that terrorism is only applied when it’s convenient for the ruling class. Hate crime murders are similarly politically motivated but don’t get the terrorism label.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      You can certainly interpret the killing that way, but there are many other reasonable interpretations, and to get a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we have a quote of him saying before the murder or publishing at any time something indicating that he was killing this guy to send a message to all the evil m************ who act just like him? If we do, your conclusion is warranted. If we don’t, your conclusion is speculation.

      Let me give you a parallel. Imagine someone cuts me off in traffic and I pull out a gun and I shoot them. Am I terrorizing other bad drivers? Probably not. Probably I’m a psychopath dealing with road rage in a terrible fashion. In other words, the fact that other people can draw conclusions about similar behavior does not in itself make my actions threatening to them in any way.

  • samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 month ago

    I never noticed that Spongebob’s shoulders change position on his body when he raises his arms.

    • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      So does that mean his shoulders are actually inside his torso, and he just has really long upper arms?

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        I was unable to find any images from the show where he didn’t have sleeves, so they must be part of his body. Maybe they just slide around on the sides of him.

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        He doesn’t have bones (except for in gags), so he doesn’t actually have shoulders anyway. He’s just squishy

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          no his arms have TWO ELBOWS EACH and his finger bones are doubled with claws inside the flesh of his hands so he can quickly regenerate in case of traumatic injury he’s a monster

    • MonkderVierte
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      is accused of saying "Delay, deny, depose, you people are next

      Which is… illegal now?

      Free speech for me but not for thee, huh?

  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Technically, he is a terrorist, since he targeted a civilian for political or ideological reasons. Doesn’t change the fact that his victim was absolute scum.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 month ago

      Terrorism?

      No.

      Terrorism is the targeting of uninvolved civilians to spread fear for political purposes among the population at large. It can get a bit blurry but I’m not afraid of being assassinated for denying healthcare.

      Are you?

      Now if we want to talk about how carpet or drone bombing campaigns are terrorism that’s an interesting conversation but the system is just doing what’s it’s designed to do, protect the oligarchy no matter what.