Can you explain like I am a child terrorism without the whole good vs evil schtik? My sister in laws kid asked me about it. He is 9.

Comments

• SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Jimmy doesn’t like it when his class talks about wizards. He’s asked them to stop, nicely and then very angrily, but the class said they will not stop.

  The next time someone started talking about wizards, jimmy put gum in that kid’s hair, and stomped on their foot. Everyone is now scared that if they talk about wizards, Jimmy will hurt them.

  Jimmy used hurting someone to scare everyone else to do what he wanted them to do.

  ————————

  When a child is 9, it can be difficult to discuss the nuances of whether violence is justified or not. Perhaps the wizard’s were racists, or bigots that discriminated against people with immutable traits that Jimmy has. Perhaps Jimmy disagrees that the wizard’s support allowing warlocks to also be called wizards, stating that he believes this is a moral wrong. Giving a black and white answer to politically motivated violence is impossible, and providing context and nuance at that age is difficult at best.

  The ultimate message should be that harming others should never be the answer. As they grow up and learn more about historical context, they can connect that back to the definition of hurting someone to get what you want.

  source

  • SharkWeek@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yes, that’s why hurting the feelings of of people who are innocently going about their business, doing a little light genocide, is a terrorist action

    source

    • SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      We are talking about a 9 year old here. Should we show them videos of the Israeli’s sniping children, point, and say “that is terrorism”.

      Read the fucking room.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• SarahFromOz@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Terrorism is war for the poor and war is Terrorism for the rich.

  source
• DomeGuy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Terrorism is a problematic word. Some adults use it to mean “violence I dont like”, but that’s just a kind of lying.

  I dont like discarding words, however, so here are two workable definitions for you:

  1. An act of war against a civilian target without a formal government direction.

  (Broadly covers most mainstream reporting and legal criminal enhancements)

  1. Any violent act against a stranger intended to change the political opinion of the attacked.

  (Very specifically targets the action without regard for the actor.)

  ---

  Also, while this may be obbious, my dislike for any definition of terrorism as just “bad violence” means I need to acknowledge that sometimes terrorism is a morally right action. Guy Fawkes, John Brown, and intentional riots would be plausible examples of the same.

  source

  • heartSagan5@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Those seem like legal definitions because at the root of it it’s (IMO) “applying severe fear to coerce someone to act to avoid further acts of severe fear (usually in favor of the fear actor).”

    source

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      By that definition, scolding a child who nearly walked into traffic is terrorism.

      source
  • reksas@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    but if some group targets non-civilian targets, they will be labeled terrorists just the same. Doesnt matter if they are justified or not, unless of course the target is someone global leaders dont like.

    “unauthorized violence” seems more apt definition.

    source
• hedders@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Terrorism is usually defined as acts of violence against civilians to further a political or religious agenda.

  source

  • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    which is why if you agree with the agenda, you don’t see it as terrorism.

    source

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I see violence against the innocent as terrorism always. Usually, the civilians caught in the crossfire had little to no control over the actions of their government

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• PieMePlenty@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Plain and simple its violence against civilians to gain a political goal.
  The next question is going to be when is it considered political and thats a complex answer. That’s going to be the root of all controversy. You can give examples of attacks targeting civilians from around the world and explain the political motive behind them.

  source
• FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Terrorism is when someone co.mits violence against civilians for political reasons. The goal is to make people afraid

  source
• GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Political violence, basically. Violence done in the name of politics.

  source