Edit- Getting a pretty negative response here, and not really sure why. I support Luigi and what he did, but we don’t need to rewrite the dictionary. If oligarchs decide to oppress, they will (and should) get terrorists.
It was terrorism. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary. Squeeze people the way insurance companies do, and eventually they’ll start to bite back. If oligarchs don’t want people to resort to terrorism, they can loosen their grip any second. Keep fucking people over, and we’ll get more terrorism… it’s a pretty predictable cycle that boils down to ‘fuck around, find out’.
It can be - depends on the motive. The word ‘terrorism’ stirs up some pretty extreme imagery, but it doesn’t actually take much to meet the description.
If I stick a knife into a bag of potato chips on the shelf of a Walmart just for shits and giggles, I’ve just committed vandalism.
If I stick a knife into a bag of potato chips on the shelf of a Walmart because I don’t like that Walmart drives local shops out of business, I’ve just committed terrorism.
Luigi committed terrorism. Don’t conflate that with ‘Luigi is bad’ - he’s a fucking hero, and we desperately need more people like him.
No he didn’t. He wasn’t attempting to influence policy, or terrorize the institutions. He was exacting revenge against the person he felt was most responsible for suffering. That’s not terrorism, that’s murder.
False. You can only commit murder against a human being. And Thompson surrendered his humanity a long time ago. If what Luigi did was murder, so was what Seal Team Six did.
I don’t feel intimidated by luigi, I’m sure most americans are not intimidated by someone who killed a ceo. He’s not a terrorist, he’s a hero and soon to be martyr.
All of these terms can be true at the same time, y‘know the sentence “one man‘s terrorist is another man‘s freedom fighter”. He‘s fighting for sick ppl and terrorizing the CEOs, I think that‘s what the comment was trying to say. The CEOs are also the ones up the hierarchy and in league with government, police, prosecution and media. They likely deliberately chose to use this term on him to bring to mind for people the disgust or fear response they get when the worst terror attack they have heard of is brought to mind.
So you can deny it completely (in the case of the charge which hopefully the lawyers can do well), but also you can argue by itself the meaning of the word and how it‘s used and if it‘s always bad (like say bring example of Nelson Mandela who was labelled a terrorist and is now widely known as freedom fighter).
So terrorist is in my point of view a politically charged term which is selectively applied by the people in charge to form a public opinion.
‘Terrorism’ is a code word, much like ‘communist’ in the 1950s or ‘evil’ in a cheap sci-fi movie. It means what the government wants it to mean. It’s not what happened on 12/4/2024.
We’re bashing heads over denotation vs connotation. I’m sticking with the former. Making up or ignoring definitions is a big part of what makes politics infuriating; we don’t need to do that to Luigi.
Then why not use another word with the same denotation, but different connotation. Why “terrorist?” Why not revolutionary, freedom fighter, martyr, or saint?
Because the conversation is about what he’s being charged with, which is terrorism. The scope here is legal, so why use an ideological framework to discuss it? He’s 100% a freedom fighter, he’s absolutely being made into a martyr - etc - but none of those have anything to do with his charges.
Pushing a narrative that he didn’t commit terrorism isn’t going to help him in a courtroom. I’d rather steer the conversation to that he was pushed by UHC into resorting to terrorism due to being victimized by their wildly unethical interference with healthcare. Of the two parties, he’s the one that acted ethically, and therefore the jury should be empowered to nullify the charges despite him meeting the criteria.
Basically, staging the public opinion of “he didn’t do it” is just setting him up for failure. “Fuck yeah he did it - may this be a lesson to oligarchs to stop pushing people over the edge - let’s get him out of the fire that he threw himself into to help everyone.”
Edit- Getting a pretty negative response here, and not really sure why. I support Luigi and what he did, but we don’t need to rewrite the dictionary. If oligarchs decide to oppress, they will (and should) get terrorists.
It was terrorism. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary. Squeeze people the way insurance companies do, and eventually they’ll start to bite back. If oligarchs don’t want people to resort to terrorism, they can loosen their grip any second. Keep fucking people over, and we’ll get more terrorism… it’s a pretty predictable cycle that boils down to ‘fuck around, find out’.
Every murder can be called terrorism if this is.
It can be - depends on the motive. The word ‘terrorism’ stirs up some pretty extreme imagery, but it doesn’t actually take much to meet the description.
If I stick a knife into a bag of potato chips on the shelf of a Walmart just for shits and giggles, I’ve just committed vandalism.
If I stick a knife into a bag of potato chips on the shelf of a Walmart because I don’t like that Walmart drives local shops out of business, I’ve just committed terrorism.
Luigi committed terrorism. Don’t conflate that with ‘Luigi is bad’ - he’s a fucking hero, and we desperately need more people like him.
No he didn’t. He wasn’t attempting to influence policy, or terrorize the institutions. He was exacting revenge against the person he felt was most responsible for suffering. That’s not terrorism, that’s murder.
False. You can only commit murder against a human being. And Thompson surrendered his humanity a long time ago. If what Luigi did was murder, so was what Seal Team Six did.
Of course what seal team six did was murder. Even if it’s justifiable, it’s still murder. The only time it’s not is if it’s accidental.
I don’t feel intimidated by luigi, I’m sure most americans are not intimidated by someone who killed a ceo. He’s not a terrorist, he’s a hero and soon to be martyr.
I bet the billionaires feel threatened tho
All of these terms can be true at the same time, y‘know the sentence “one man‘s terrorist is another man‘s freedom fighter”. He‘s fighting for sick ppl and terrorizing the CEOs, I think that‘s what the comment was trying to say. The CEOs are also the ones up the hierarchy and in league with government, police, prosecution and media. They likely deliberately chose to use this term on him to bring to mind for people the disgust or fear response they get when the worst terror attack they have heard of is brought to mind.
So you can deny it completely (in the case of the charge which hopefully the lawyers can do well), but also you can argue by itself the meaning of the word and how it‘s used and if it‘s always bad (like say bring example of Nelson Mandela who was labelled a terrorist and is now widely known as freedom fighter).
So terrorist is in my point of view a politically charged term which is selectively applied by the people in charge to form a public opinion.
No it wasnt. You being unsure why you are getting downvoted is pretty fucking dumb dude lmao
‘Terrorism’ is a code word, much like ‘communist’ in the 1950s or ‘evil’ in a cheap sci-fi movie. It means what the government wants it to mean. It’s not what happened on 12/4/2024.
We’re bashing heads over denotation vs connotation. I’m sticking with the former. Making up or ignoring definitions is a big part of what makes politics infuriating; we don’t need to do that to Luigi.
Then why not use another word with the same denotation, but different connotation. Why “terrorist?” Why not revolutionary, freedom fighter, martyr, or saint?
Because the conversation is about what he’s being charged with, which is terrorism. The scope here is legal, so why use an ideological framework to discuss it? He’s 100% a freedom fighter, he’s absolutely being made into a martyr - etc - but none of those have anything to do with his charges.
Pushing a narrative that he didn’t commit terrorism isn’t going to help him in a courtroom. I’d rather steer the conversation to that he was pushed by UHC into resorting to terrorism due to being victimized by their wildly unethical interference with healthcare. Of the two parties, he’s the one that acted ethically, and therefore the jury should be empowered to nullify the charges despite him meeting the criteria.
Basically, staging the public opinion of “he didn’t do it” is just setting him up for failure. “Fuck yeah he did it - may this be a lesson to oligarchs to stop pushing people over the edge - let’s get him out of the fire that he threw himself into to help everyone.”
It was objectively not terrorism. Luigi acted in self defense.
Your liberalism is showing.