VoiceOfRa comments on Rationality Quotes Thread June 2015 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Gondolinian 31 May 2015 02:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (127)
Tags: quotes

Comments (127)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ike 14 June 2015 02:41:22PM *  7 points [-]

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?

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)

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 15 June 2015 11:36:13PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: ike 16 June 2015 12:45:11PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 June 2015 02:33:15PM 2 points [-]

The point is that there is no cluster in thingspace referred to by the word

This is debatable. I believe there is -- it's just that the word is so convenient for propaganda, it is routinely hijacked.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 17 June 2015 04:10:47AM *  0 points [-]

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".

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 June 2015 05:48:37PM *  3 points [-]

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit