If the BBC, the UN, and specialists cannot agree on what the word means, neither can politicians or the police. Does it make sense to soldier on fighting a semantic battle that will never be won? Why argue for a word that everyone agrees in confusing and some find loaded?
Why argue for a word that everyone agrees in confusing and some find loaded?
Because a lot of the people involved object to the semantics of the word not the word itself. And they will fight just as hard against any other word that seeks to point to that cluster in thingspace.
And they will fight just as hard against any other word that seeks to point to that cluster in thingspace.
The point is that there is no cluster in thingspace referred to by the word; the fact that there are so many diverging definitions shows that.
If he switches to another word or words that don’t have basic definitional debates, then while people can object to his implications of using the word, they can’t misinterpret or be confused over what is meant.
It’s not just that. For a lot of people it’s convenient to apply the connotations of “terrorist” to everything besides actual terrorists, e.g., the AP is perfectly willing to call the UKIP or Tea Party “terrorists” while refusing to call groups like Hamas terrorist.
This is similar to the way the US government has declared war on poverty/drugs/cancer, while calling actual wars “kinetic actions”.
the AP is perfectly willing to call the UKIP or Tea Party “terrorists”
Could you link to an article in which the AP calls the Tea Party “terrorists”?
while refusing to call groups like Hamas terrorist.
The term terrorist is often used to describe nonstate actors. Hamas is govern and that makes it a state actor.
That’s basically the same justification of why the CIA employee who isn’t a military solider isn’t a terrorist when he bombs rescuers against the laws of war with a drone.
Daniel Pipes, I Give Up: There Is No Terrorism, There Are No Terrorists
(Noteworthy for changing their opinion after decades of holding the opposite view)
Because a lot of the people involved object to the semantics of the word not the word itself. And they will fight just as hard against any other word that seeks to point to that cluster in thingspace.
The point is that there is no cluster in thingspace referred to by the word; the fact that there are so many diverging definitions shows that.
If he switches to another word or words that don’t have basic definitional debates, then while people can object to his implications of using the word, they can’t misinterpret or be confused over what is meant.
This is debatable. I believe there is—it’s just that the word is so convenient for propaganda, it is routinely hijacked.
It’s not just that. For a lot of people it’s convenient to apply the connotations of “terrorist” to everything besides actual terrorists, e.g., the AP is perfectly willing to call the UKIP or Tea Party “terrorists” while refusing to call groups like Hamas terrorist.
This is similar to the way the US government has declared war on poverty/drugs/cancer, while calling actual wars “kinetic actions”.
Could you link to an article in which the AP calls the Tea Party “terrorists”?
The term terrorist is often used to describe nonstate actors. Hamas is govern and that makes it a state actor.
That’s basically the same justification of why the CIA employee who isn’t a military solider isn’t a terrorist when he bombs rescuers against the laws of war with a drone.