The existence of God is unfalsifiable, so you can’t say it’s untrue to the believer. Just make the rules and play by them. Also it’s more like 1500 years ago 🤓.
The idea of climate change and it’s causes IS falsifiable though, which is why taking actions related to that cause is a bit different than something that has no way to be proven.
I think you’re an idiot if you think it’s the status quo. Even if we stopped producing fossil fuels tomorrow its too late to undo what we’ve already set in motion anyway.
I mean its also not possible to save humanity from fossil fuel induced runaway climate catastrophe, I just applaud anyone willing to take extreme measures in that pursuit. No hubris whatsoever lol
I don’t think “physical force” is a necesarry component of violence. Take, for example, domestic violence. The US DOJ gives these criteria for if an action is DV or not:
Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of actions or other patterns of coercive behavior that influence another person within an intimate partner relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
I think a more apt definition of violence would be “coercive behavior”
Coercive behavior doesn’t quite work though.
Yours is better than either of the ones posted, but I do think the physical force aspect is important to differentiate from other aspects.
I was going to attempt to make a point about how stopping terrorism that isn’t explicitly violent with violence isn’t the same thing.
Starving a population isn’t violence, but it is terrorism. Attempting to give that population food and being stopped by the state by legal means is terrorism.
The state is going to define things in specific ways to ensure that they’re considered correct.
I had written out a response to the person I replied to and then didn’t post after reading some of their other comments. They’re probably just a troll, or one of those people that’s legitimately kind of smart but hasn’t been around people that are incredibly smart, so hasn’t had a reason to adjust their opinions about things because they might be shallowly correct but are fundamentally wrong. Like Newton’s laws.
Have you not heard the terms eco-terrorism or eco-facsism? Anyone can use environmentalism to justify their philosophy, don’t be so naive that anything pro-environment is a good thing.
Eco-terrorism is an act of violence which is committed in support of environmental causes, against people or property.[1][2]
Not sure that I count violence against property as valid. If destruction of material values are classified as violence and eco-terrorism, are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?
are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?
Objectively, no they are not by the definition you quoted. The definition stated the violence is for the environment; those people execute violence for capital against the environment. I’m sure there’s another definition that would cover those people and the whole they cause, but this one ain’t it.
I agree that they are missing a crucial motive for their actions, namely the cause of doing it for the environment. I still think my critique of the definition’s statement of “violence against property” is valid. It seems to be included in the definition because they want to brand certain acts as terrorism, even though destruction of property is a label they could themselves hold as much as their opponents.
I think that is also why some so called eco-terrorists feel themselves justified in acting out “violence against property”, since they may see it as an act of self defence against the originial portrayers of said “violence”. Ultimately however, I think a distinction should be made between physical violence and destruction of material values. Whether the material value is an entity’s legal property or not should also not matter in this case, in my opinion.
Is it terrorism in the law tho? Obviously keeping in mind who writes it and whose point of view is codified. That conversation may be more nuanced than you think. Especially if all other things we can call terrorism are considered.
I agree and I understand. However, we are talking about the collapse of humanity, the environment, most species, etc for the next 10 million years. So at this point, who are the real eco terrorists?
It’s a problem of perceiving terror as something having a negative connotation by itself. It is a tool. Like a gun, or a knife. And having a moral high ground (like there, or in many more controversial cases) doesn’t erase the fact it is perceived as or is an act of terror.
Guerilla warfare against occupational forces is terrorism. Political assasinations of opressors are too. Taking kneecaps of an oil baron who levels forests and poisons nature is it as well.
And, you name it, there are even more ways of terrorism you’d see as dumb, senseless, inhumane. Take wrapping a civilian child in explosives to blow up a guarded checkpoint. It’s fucked up, right? And it’s not the act of terror itself that makes you puke at a thought of it, but this tool used for insane reasons and how fucking far they took it. If it was a croatian jew taking nazis with themselfes, it would be portrayed as a heroic self-sacrificing act. As a bystander, you see these extreme acts of violence through your lenses and judge reasoning behind it first. That’s why eco-terrorism doesn’t ring any bells. It’s an attack that is rationally justified to you, usually pretty victimless. And it’s relativism at it’s extremes.
At some point you see you can’t escape but thinking of terrorist tactics to achieve that one goal, because nothing else seems as effective. It is muddy waters. It needs slow and thoughtful consideration. If it means saving natives’ land, would you consider torching building equipment, an office or shooting a corporate shithead in their face? You probably can. But would you? And would it be better than whatever comes to mind when you hear the T-word? Would you take all responsibility and all the consequences of what you did on yourself? Wouldn’t you regret it?
On Lemmy we can speak like we are all super based, and there are just causes. Talk is cheap. What matters is if you even feel yourself applauding such acts, you need to be double sure you aren’t a dumbass hypocrite and you really know what are you after. Not mirroring ‘they are killing my world, so they are to be killed’, yada-yada, because kids upvote that shit like crazy, but really meaning it if you say so, being responsible about it.
I feel like I’d end up on some lists for speaking that out loud lmao, but a lot of historical figures we adore are terrorists. Gaining independence of USA was that to brits, Robin Hood myths were that to crown, revolutionaires weren’t shy from actually calling their actions a targeted terrorism against the state. By learning about good and bad terrorism, you can see where you yourself put it and how you relate to it. Usually, as I said, it ends up in deciding if the goal justifies the means, in a dissociated machiavellian way of thinking. Usually. But you are to form your own framework to handle it, obv.
It’s just, I mumble, why eco-terrorism isn’t terrorism because it’s somehow just? And why it can’t be called a justified terrorism instead? What’s the point of whitewashing it besides wining a public support, likely lying about what it really is? Does it change anything but media coverage? Why would it matter in the end?
Everything is political as it seems, even mere existence of our trans fellas, because it’s either needs to be changed via politics or can get weaponized by bad faith actors as a populist take. Survival is sometimes political. And as an old soviet saying goes, if you aren’t that interested in politics, politics may become interested in you.
As resource extractors use politics as a vehicle to lobby their interests, fucking with them is indeed political, even if it’s a universally accepted cause like a survival of humankind.
It’s not terrorism if you’re trying to save the planet from those trying to destroy it.
It is terrorism if you do violent acts to push your political goals https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
Saving humanity from climate collapse is not political
"Saving humanity from the sins of the west and their ideological indoctrination is also not political. "
Just call it what it is then say it’s justified if you think it is. If you can dress this up as not terrorism then nothing is.
One is literally happening outside as we speak, one is based upon an extremist interpretation of a 2000 year old book. Can you spot the difference?
The existence of God is unfalsifiable, so you can’t say it’s untrue to the believer. Just make the rules and play by them. Also it’s more like 1500 years ago 🤓.
The idea of climate change and it’s causes IS falsifiable though, which is why taking actions related to that cause is a bit different than something that has no way to be proven.
🤷 Guess we’ll just have to let oil companies keep killing us all.
In which scenario do you think that you’re gonna live for longer and/or with a higher quality of life.
Think about the implications of each scenario and let me know.
I think you’re an idiot if you think it’s the status quo. Even if we stopped producing fossil fuels tomorrow its too late to undo what we’ve already set in motion anyway.
Lol hubris incarnate.
I mean its also not possible to save humanity from fossil fuel induced runaway climate catastrophe, I just applaud anyone willing to take extreme measures in that pursuit. No hubris whatsoever lol
Violence is a key word in that definition.
Violence: Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.
So, starving a group of people isn’t terrorism because you’re not exerting physical force.
Not easily stopping a fire when you know it’s going to spread towards an occupied house isn’t violence because you’re not exerting physical force.
Poisoning drinking water isn’t violence because you’re not exerting physical force.
Real question: what do you call those things? It can’t be defined as terrorism. What is it?
I don’t think “physical force” is a necesarry component of violence. Take, for example, domestic violence. The US DOJ gives these criteria for if an action is DV or not:
I think a more apt definition of violence would be “coercive behavior”
Coercive behavior doesn’t quite work though.
Yours is better than either of the ones posted, but I do think the physical force aspect is important to differentiate from other aspects.
I was going to attempt to make a point about how stopping terrorism that isn’t explicitly violent with violence isn’t the same thing.
Starving a population isn’t violence, but it is terrorism. Attempting to give that population food and being stopped by the state by legal means is terrorism.
The state is going to define things in specific ways to ensure that they’re considered correct.
I had written out a response to the person I replied to and then didn’t post after reading some of their other comments. They’re probably just a troll, or one of those people that’s legitimately kind of smart but hasn’t been around people that are incredibly smart, so hasn’t had a reason to adjust their opinions about things because they might be shallowly correct but are fundamentally wrong. Like Newton’s laws.
Kinda missed the point here. The other guy was saying that eco terrorism is not terrorism. I said nothing about if starving people is violence or not.
Have you not heard the terms eco-terrorism or eco-facsism? Anyone can use environmentalism to justify their philosophy, don’t be so naive that anything pro-environment is a good thing.
From your link on eco-terrorism:
Not sure that I count violence against property as valid. If destruction of material values are classified as violence and eco-terrorism, are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?
Objectively, no they are not by the definition you quoted. The definition stated the violence is for the environment; those people execute violence for capital against the environment. I’m sure there’s another definition that would cover those people and the whole they cause, but this one ain’t it.
I agree that they are missing a crucial motive for their actions, namely the cause of doing it for the environment. I still think my critique of the definition’s statement of “violence against property” is valid. It seems to be included in the definition because they want to brand certain acts as terrorism, even though destruction of property is a label they could themselves hold as much as their opponents.
I think that is also why some so called eco-terrorists feel themselves justified in acting out “violence against property”, since they may see it as an act of self defence against the originial portrayers of said “violence”. Ultimately however, I think a distinction should be made between physical violence and destruction of material values. Whether the material value is an entity’s legal property or not should also not matter in this case, in my opinion.
It’s not terrorism if you’re helping Allah slay the evil nonbelievers who are destroying the Earth!
Here’s a picture of Ronald Reagan meeting with Afghan mujahideen in the White House in 1983
Only difference is that Allah isn’t going to wipe us out with Century storms every other week and forest fires the size of countries.
Is it terrorism in the law tho? Obviously keeping in mind who writes it and whose point of view is codified. That conversation may be more nuanced than you think. Especially if all other things we can call terrorism are considered.
I agree and I understand. However, we are talking about the collapse of humanity, the environment, most species, etc for the next 10 million years. So at this point, who are the real eco terrorists?
It’s a problem of perceiving terror as something having a negative connotation by itself. It is a tool. Like a gun, or a knife. And having a moral high ground (like there, or in many more controversial cases) doesn’t erase the fact it is perceived as or is an act of terror.
Guerilla warfare against occupational forces is terrorism. Political assasinations of opressors are too. Taking kneecaps of an oil baron who levels forests and poisons nature is it as well.
And, you name it, there are even more ways of terrorism you’d see as dumb, senseless, inhumane. Take wrapping a civilian child in explosives to blow up a guarded checkpoint. It’s fucked up, right? And it’s not the act of terror itself that makes you puke at a thought of it, but this tool used for insane reasons and how fucking far they took it. If it was a croatian jew taking nazis with themselfes, it would be portrayed as a heroic self-sacrificing act. As a bystander, you see these extreme acts of violence through your lenses and judge reasoning behind it first. That’s why eco-terrorism doesn’t ring any bells. It’s an attack that is rationally justified to you, usually pretty victimless. And it’s relativism at it’s extremes.
At some point you see you can’t escape but thinking of terrorist tactics to achieve that one goal, because nothing else seems as effective. It is muddy waters. It needs slow and thoughtful consideration. If it means saving natives’ land, would you consider torching building equipment, an office or shooting a corporate shithead in their face? You probably can. But would you? And would it be better than whatever comes to mind when you hear the T-word? Would you take all responsibility and all the consequences of what you did on yourself? Wouldn’t you regret it?
On Lemmy we can speak like we are all super based, and there are just causes. Talk is cheap. What matters is if you even feel yourself applauding such acts, you need to be double sure you aren’t a dumbass hypocrite and you really know what are you after. Not mirroring ‘they are killing my world, so they are to be killed’, yada-yada, because kids upvote that shit like crazy, but really meaning it if you say so, being responsible about it.
I feel like I’d end up on some lists for speaking that out loud lmao, but a lot of historical figures we adore are terrorists. Gaining independence of USA was that to brits, Robin Hood myths were that to crown, revolutionaires weren’t shy from actually calling their actions a targeted terrorism against the state. By learning about good and bad terrorism, you can see where you yourself put it and how you relate to it. Usually, as I said, it ends up in deciding if the goal justifies the means, in a dissociated machiavellian way of thinking. Usually. But you are to form your own framework to handle it, obv.
It’s just, I mumble, why eco-terrorism isn’t terrorism because it’s somehow just? And why it can’t be called a justified terrorism instead? What’s the point of whitewashing it besides wining a public support, likely lying about what it really is? Does it change anything but media coverage? Why would it matter in the end?
I would posit the problem is more so “Is having a livable habitat for the earth’s inhabitants political?”
Everything is political as it seems, even mere existence of our trans fellas, because it’s either needs to be changed via politics or can get weaponized by bad faith actors as a populist take. Survival is sometimes political. And as an old soviet saying goes, if you aren’t that interested in politics, politics may become interested in you.
As resource extractors use politics as a vehicle to lobby their interests, fucking with them is indeed political, even if it’s a universally accepted cause like a survival of humankind.
Either way, we’re fucked, so not like it matters lol.
Where it comes from? I feel like I skipped a couple of your replies leading to that one.
Yeah me too lol, I’m new to posting on lemmy so my bad perhaps.