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)
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.
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: