Defining Terrorism. Also, Same Old Rhetoric About KKK and the Democrats

[Doctor Cringelord]

Continuing a discussion started in Tellenbach's climate change thread because there's a lot to unpack and I don't want to keep derailing that discussion.

I am just arguing the semantics. It is very important in this conversation that we all agree on what is, or is not a terrorist.

Yes, and we basically provided the same definition, so I'm not sure why you're worried about the semantics at this point. I provided a definition paraphrased from the Oxford Online Dictionary which more or less says the same thing you did. So I don't see why you're getting defensive over semantics (especially when you first assumed I had some more limited understanding of the word).

Just in case, I'll put that definition right here:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I don't know much about the KKK's history, but I do know time changes things. From what I have seen from the organization today, they are similar the the WBC and no where near as scary as they used to be.

"scary" is a highly subjective term. So what's scary or not scary to you might not be the same for someone else. Understandable you have less reason to fear them as a conservative white person.

Are they breaking the law now? That is the question that should be asked now. For example, Illegal intimidation is defined by things like black mail, and harassment etc (what mafia, and pimps do). Words, and beliefs spouted at protests are not illegal intimidation.

Yep. There are more recent incidents tied to them. See Overland Park Jewish Community Center Shooting of 2014.

I wasn't talking about what they say at protests. Although following your own reasoning, the majority of protesters are currently doing it peacefully. Many of these people have still been lumped under the Antifa label by Trump. So it seems like you have a double standard where you want to accuse one entire movement of being terrorists whilst excusing another group from a similar treatment. It's also fair to point out that much of the violence happening now is being provoked by police. This is not fake news, there are multiple videos of people capturing footage of police lobbing rubber bullets and smoke grenades into peaceful crowds. Then when they try to fight back or defend themselves, lo and behold we rush to label them rioters and protesters. I'd also allege these police inciting violence are engaging in their own version of terrorism, if we're following the definition above. They are A) violating those protesters' 1st amendment lights and B) using violence to intimidate these crowds into dispersing and going home.

Something else to understand, since you yourself claim to not know much about the KKK, is that they are currently comprised of multiple independent local chapters rather than one unified organization as they were in past iterations. Thus it makes it a lot more difficult to trace specific acts of violence back to any one group, so they can simply disavow or say "ah that's just those guys in the Greensboro Chapter, we're a peaceful chapter here in Raleigh." Another thing is they've learned how to better cover their tracks in recent decades (as have organizations like the Mafia), having been infiltrated by the FBI and undercover cops in the past. Just because they're not as vocal or wearing their hoods as frequently doesn't mean they've stopped existing. They're also going to be a lot more careful about covering their tracks when they do commit acts of violence. I do find it fishy that in the wake of the recent events, there has been a slew of "suicides" by hanging committed by black men. Peculiar these guys would choose a method closely resembling a popular execution method of the past KKK, and all in rapid succession remarkably soon after the beginning of the recent racial tensions.

So even if they say things like "Black people are inferior", it is still protected by the first amendment, and not considered illegal intimidation.

I said nothing about preventing them from such speech. I may not like it, but unless it becomes violent or harassing, they have that right, as the ACLU have agreed in the past.

Using the past to retroactively apply modern labels isn't viable, and has always been a taboo in law. Don't make me defend this shit, even if it is semantics. I am just saying the distinction is important to understand the situation against Antifa.

but we're not talking about ancient history here. we're talking about recent events and living memory for many people. You can go look up yourself lists of past acts of violence by the KKK and/or associated white nationalist groups, and many occur up into our own lifetimes. I'm not even going to try to list them all here, but if you really care, I trust you can do your research and learn more about the history of the KKK spanning from the end of the civil war to the present day.

If you wanna talk about retroactively applying labels, remember, the KKK was connected with the Democratic party for a long time. Even if history revisionists try to cover that up.

Then you need to look at the series of realignments that have happened over the last century or so. You just said yourself you don't know much about KKK history, so forgive me if I seem a little skeptical when you make a statement like this. Racist southerners were usually associated with the democratic party. Northern democrats tended to be more socially liberal and in favor of civil rights and integration, as did liberal republicans back then. The racist southern democrats had to form their own break-off party in 1948 because they were pissed off that the Democratic Convention was agreeing on a platform of human rights.

When you make a statement like that which lacks any context or background info, it just looks like propaganda designed to say that the modern democrats are a direct continuation of the old Dixiecrat wing of that party, or that the entire Democratic Party held those same views. The old Republican and Democrat parties were not really aligned left or right, they each had wings of both liberal and conservative members within, unlike the current parties. And for that matter, you overlook that most democrats beyond the south were not in favor of segregation and tended to support civil rights. Those who didn't eventually flipped republican when the liberal democrats and their liberal republican allies pushed civil rights legislation. Concurrently, liberal republicans were gradually pushed out of their own party, many later joining the democrats. Strom Thurmond, who ran for President as a segregationist in 1948 (in reaction to the aforementioned adoption of human rights by the democratic convention of 1948) was a democrat. He later flipped to republican.

So actually you're the one regurgitating a common revisionist point often made by rightwingers about the democratic party. This argument glosses over history and omits a lot of important points and events. You're bitching about revisionists, yet you're the one using a popular argument made by revisionists. Let me guess, you learned about this from Prager University?

This video is a pretty good look at the realigning of both parties, and it serves to debunk the tired argument that the democrats of today are the same party of 1876, or even of 1954:

For that matter, why the fuck are you even bringing up democrats in the first place, as if I had been arguing about the merits of democratic positions? It feels like pettifogging designed to shift away from what we were actually discussing, that being the, according to you, mostly benign nature of the modern KKK. I didn't say shit about democrats, and frankly I could care less who they aligned with in the past. You do realize I don't even identify as one, and haven't voted for one since 2012, right? I'm a libertarian socialist, for the record, so don't come at me like I'm another Biden supporter.

 

[Maou]

Yes, and we basically provided the same definition, so I'm not sure why you're worried about the semantics at this point. I provided a definition paraphrased from the Oxford Online Dictionary which more or less says the same thing you did. So I don't see why you're getting defensive over semantics (especially when you first assumed I had some more limited understanding of the word).

Just in case, I'll put that definition right here:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

"scary" is a highly subjective term. So what's scary or not scary to you might not be the same for someone else. Understandable you have less reason to fear them as a conservative white person.

Yep. There are more recent incidents tied to them. See Overland Park Jewish Community Center Shooting of 2014.

You didn't read the part where I said that a person belonging to a group, commiting a bad, isn't the same as a group organizing around saying and comitting a bad? Otherwise you can say a political party is a terrorist group, because one person belonging to it commited acts of terrorism. Another thing, is why didn't anyone else label the KKK a terrorist organization in 2014? Was it because they don't legally fit the definition. Antifa was pretty neutral till Trump got elected, and then organized violent riots all across the USA and Europe. Just like other groups, they covered their tracks.

I wasn't talking about what they say at protests. Although following your own reasoning, the majority of protesters are currently doing it peacefully. Many of these people have still been lumped under the Antifa label by Trump. So it seems like you have a double standard where you want to accuse one entire movement of being terrorists whilst excusing another group from a similar treatment.

The protestors of George Floyd was co-opted by Antifa. It was Antifa instigating the riots, because they believe in tearing down the government and specifically Trump. How is that not terroristic intent? I am also certain anyone arrested, isn't going to be treated like ISIS. It isn't a double standard, you just don't seperate the actual protests from Antifa, and think I label both groups as Antifa. No, just the rioters.

It's also fair to point out that much of the violence happening now is being provoked by police. This is not fake news, there are multiple videos of people capturing footage of police lobbing rubber bullets and smoke grenades into peaceful crowds. Then when they try to fight back or defend themselves, lo and behold we rush to label them rioters and protesters. I'd also allege these police inciting violence are engaging in their own version of terrorism, if we're following the definition above. They are A) violating those protesters' 1st amendment lights and B) using violence to intimidate these crowds into dispersing and going home.

I agree police are violent, and need reform. But I also don't believe their use of force at protests are entirely unprompted. They are human as well, and get angry and triggered like everyone else. It is unfortunate things have gotten to this point to begin with. I have also seen the protest videos (and some can't be shown on TV), and other perspectives of sensationalized videos that prove that things are not always unprompted. You shouldn't believe the news at all during states of unrest, because thats exactly what they want to make money off of. Controversy.

Something else to understand, since you yourself claim to not know much about the KKK, is that they are currently comprised of multiple independent local chapters rather than one unified organization as they were in past iterations. Thus it makes it a lot more difficult to trace specific acts of violence back to any one group, so they can simply disavow or say "ah that's just those guys in the Greensboro Chapter, we're a peaceful chapter here in Raleigh." Another thing is they've learned how to better cover their tracks in recent decades (as have organizations like the Mafia), having been infiltrated by the FBI and undercover cops in the past. Just because they're not as vocal or wearing their hoods as frequently doesn't mean they've stopped existing. They're also going to be a lot more careful about covering their tracks when they do commit acts of violence. I do find it fishy that in the wake of the recent events, there has been a slew of "suicides" by hanging committed by black men. Peculiar these guys would choose a method closely resembling a popular execution method of the past KKK, and all in rapid succession remarkably soon after the beginning of the recent racial tensions.

Same can be said for Antifa. Honestly, I wouldn't say no to labeling the KKK as domestic terrorist. But my argument is that Antifa is definately one. That my knowledgr of the KKK isn't big enough to say if they are, or are not one. I don't hear about them often. Last time I did, was about someone wearing a hood in the supermarket to mock covid.

I said nothing about preventing them from such speech. I may not like it, but unless it becomes violent or harassing, they have that right, as the ACLU have agreed in the past.

Okay, because most people on the Left conflate words with violence, and I dislike that belief. There is a quote that says something along the lines of "Never give yourself power, that you don't also want your opponent to have." And I think its true in terms of American politics.

but we're not talking about ancient history here. we're talking about recent events and living memory for many people. You can go look up yourself lists of past acts of violence by the KKK and/or associated white nationalist groups, and many occur up into our own lifetimes. I'm not even going to try to list them all here, but if you really care, I trust you can do your research and learn more about the history of the KKK spanning from the end of the civil war to the present day.

I don't deny they were violent in the past, or the numbers. I believe you.

Then you need to look at the series of realignments that have happened over the last century or so. You just said yourself you don't know much about KKK history, so forgive me if I seem a little skeptical when you make a statement like this. Racist southerners were usually associated with the democratic party. Northern democrats tended to be more socially liberal and in favor of civil rights and integration, as did liberal republicans back then. The racist southern democrats had to form their own break-off party in 1948 because they were pissed off that the Democratic Convention was agreeing on a platform of human rights.

When you make a statement like that which lacks any context or background info, it just looks like propaganda designed to say that the modern democrats are a direct continuation of the old Dixiecrat wing of that party, or that the entire Democratic Party held those same views. The old Republican and Democrat parties were not really aligned left or right, they each had wings of both liberal and conservative members within, unlike the current parties. And for that matter, you overlook that most democrats beyond the south were not in favor of segregation and tended to support civil rights. Those who didn't eventually flipped republican when the liberal democrats and their liberal republican allies pushed civil rights legislation. Concurrently, liberal republicans were gradually pushed out of their own party, many later joining the democrats. Strom Thurmond, who ran for President as a segregationist in 1948 (in reaction to the aforementioned adoption of human rights by the democratic convention of 1948) was a democrat. He later flipped to republican.

So actually you're the one regurgitating a common revisionist point often made by rightwingers about the democratic party

This video is a pretty good look at the realigning of both parties, and it serves to debunk the tired argument that the democrats of today are the same party of 1876, or even of 1954:

For that matter, why the fuck are you even bringing up democrats in the first place, as if I had been arguing about the merits of democratic positions? It feels like pettifogging designed to shift away from what we were actually discussing, that being the, according to you, mostly benign nature of the modern KKK. I didn't say shit about democrats, and frankly I could care less who they aligned with in the past. You do realize I don't even identify as one, and haven't voted for one since 2012, right? I'm a libertarian socialist, for the record, so don't come at me like I'm another Biden supporter.

Ah, sorry my brain went on a tangent. I just think Democrats are more racist than Republicans today, that is why I brought them up with their ties to the KKK in the past. Nothing to do with you personally. So sorry if I came off insulting or calling you a Democrat. If anything should come of this argument, is KKK should be labled terrorist too. Which I am not against.

Anyways, we've gone off coarse. We can end this here. That, and I am tired. Too many convos at once while I am stuck at work.

 

[Tellenbach]

Some of these topics are discussed in Larry Elder's movie "Uncle Tom". I haven't seen it yet, but it's got tremendous reviews. Larry recently pointed out that only 2 Democrats changed party affiliations after the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Strom Thurmond was one of them and there was a Dem House member who also switched parties, but it was hardly a mass exodus of racists to the GOP. Almost all the Dixiecrats stayed in the Democrat party.

It is also accurate to say that the KKK had strong historical ties to the Dem party and was considered the enforcement wing of the Dem party. Lincoln and MLK were Republicans; the slave owners were Democrats.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Some of these topics are discussed in Larry Elder's movie "Uncle Tom". I haven't seen it yet, but it's got tremendous reviews. Larry recently pointed out that only 2 Democrats changed party affiliations after the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Strom Thurmond was one of them and there was a Dem House member who also switched parties, but it was hardly a mass exodus of racists to the GOP. Almost all the Dixiecrats stayed in the Democrat party.

It is also accurate to say that the KKK had strong historical ties to the Dem party and was considered the enforcement wing of the Dem party. Lincoln and MLK were Republicans; the slave owners were Democrats.

I don't know what his party registration was, but MLK was basically a socialist.

I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.

 

[Tellenbach]

I don't know what his party registration was, but MLK was basically a socialist.

In that case, you can have him. Yuck.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In that case, you can have him. Yuck.

Tee-hee.

 

[Lark]

Coming from a land of paramilitaries, organized crime gangs and not a few cases in which murderers were only apprehended as they themselves decided to volunteer to authorities and confess their crimes, I define terrorism along the lines of coercive control, some of the best practitioners of this are mafia or similar crime syndicates.

Its literally about using terror to control people, it does not matter if the organization is large or small, has managed to supplant other authorities or not. Most of the time there's violence involved, some sadism and cruelty too, often its not even necessary, I'm thinking about the various crimes and horrific public killings carried out in Afghanistan prior to the US invasion, like beheadings and cutting peoples hands off. I do think there are varieties of terror that do not involve direct violence or force so much, like blackmail, hacking, invasions of privacy, trespass etc.

Something I would say too is that most of the time the actual terrorists themselves dont mind being labelled that way. I mean I've known people who wanted it that way. If people where not afraid of them they would see little point to behaving as they do and they might escalate to some more atrocious behaviour in order to evoke that sort of reaction once more (the problem with that is that eventually the subject dies or does not care anymore because they've been driven mad or whatever, so the perpetrator needs another subject, its a weakness and dependency to need to acquire subjects like that but perpetrators are unlikely to see it that way).