‘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.”
‘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.”