D&D and the rising pandemic

[Janx]

Legally or in the moral/ethical sense?

Legally, the US Code defines domestic terrorism as activities that...

• involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
• appear to be intended—
  1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
  3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

That's a pretty clear and classic definition, but a counter I'd seen to recent years is this:

Terrorism is what rich men call a poor man's tactics. because rich men can afford armies and bombs, and poor men can't. And calling it terrorism lets them incite the people against the poor men.

Now I don't think that makes it right, but I do keep that thought in mind. Because what else has the poor man got for an option in a war against a government? Especially when you consider what conditions might place yourself in making war against a perceived oppressor. Remember January 6th and what if they'd won.

 

[Umbran]

That's a pretty clear and classic definition, but a counter I'd seen to recent years is this:

Terrorism is what rich men call a poor man's tactics.

What part of, "Legally or in the moral/ethical sense?" failed to register?

 

[billd91]

What part of, "Legally or in the moral/ethical sense?" failed to register?

Rules of morality and ethics are generally a shield for the powerful because they keep the powerful from being targeted by tactics that are "unfair", "unchivalrous", "cowardly", basically anything that doesn't follow their own methods which leverage their own power advantage. This is why almost every group that fights a bigger power in asymmetric warfare is typically branded as terrorists.

Terrorism is pretty much always a loaded and politically controversial definition. Even the one you cite can be used to brand rioters targeting their oppressors or aiming to pressure the government as terrorists.

 

[Umbran]

Rules of morality and ethics are generally a shield for the powerful

There are so many points to unpack there - like conflating the rules themselves with the enforcement of same - and almost all of them are about politics, so... no thanks, I'm not biting.

Terrorism is pretty much always a loaded and politically controversial definition. Even the one you cite can be used to brand rioters targeting their oppressors or aiming to pressure the government as terrorists.

Yeah, well, let us not pretend that it is possible to design systems that cannot be abused. Furthermore, let us not blame the system for what are, ultimately, abuses by people.

I mean, you're a gamer - we have a term "rules lawyer" for a reason.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Rules of morality and ethics are generally a shield for the powerful because they keep the powerful from being targeted by tactics that are "unfair", "unchivalrous", "cowardly", basically anything that doesn't follow their own methods which leverage their own power advantage. This is why almost every group that fights a bigger power in asymmetric warfare is typically branded as terrorists.

Terrorism is pretty much always a loaded and politically controversial definition. Even the one you cite can be used to brand rioters targeting their oppressors or aiming to pressure the government as terrorists.

So, you're saying that "might makes right", are you not?

 

[billd91]

So, you're saying that "might makes right", are you not?

In many cases, it does because might makes the rules, passes the laws, and is most capable of enforcing them (and then, somehow denies that they break their own rules whenever it suits them). It's no surprise that social standards of behavior are put in place by powerful people and that adhering to those standards keeps the powerful in their place. You see it everywhere from patriarchal dress codes in schools to pressure to not talk about salaries at work to rules of warfare.

Ultimately, it's complex. But if you want to fight power, you probably need to get dirty because you lack the power to fight them at the same level.
And that's more than enough politics for one day.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

In many cases, it does because might makes the rules, passes the laws, and is most capable of enforcing them (and then, somehow denies that they break their own rules whenever it suits them). It's no surprise that social standards of behavior are put in place by powerful people and that adhering to those standards keeps the powerful in their place. You see it everywhere from patriarchal dress codes in schools to pressure to not talk about salaries at work to rules of warfare.

Ultimately, it's complex. But if you want to fight power, you probably need to get dirty because you lack the power to fight them at the same level.
And that's more than enough politics for one day.

So, this would imply that these powerful people are justified in using whatever tactics they have at their disposal to enact their will. As long as you accept that, given what I've seen you say, no one can ever use a moral justification. If you say that "No, powerful people aren't justified in using whatever tactics they want" you'd need to explain why you're able to suss out this distinction, but when someone tries to suss out a distinction between morally permissible and morally impermissible violence THAT distinction is conveniently just an artifact of an unjust power structure.

 

[billd91]

So, this would imply that these powerful people are justified in using whatever tactics they have at their disposal to enact their will. As long as you accept that, given what I've seen you say, no one can ever use a moral justification.

They always feel they're justified. Whether or not people agree with that is a different question. What people are going to do about it if they feel they are not justified is yet another. The universe doesn't care who's right.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

They always feel they're justified. Whether or not people agree with that is a different question. What people are going to do about it if they feel they are not justified is yet another. The universe doesn't care who's right.

No, according to you they are justified - because might makes right, as you've already said. Either it's a metaphysical principle, in which case it would always hold for everything; OR it's just a practical fact of life. The latter of course would mean that you would have to reneg on your earlier position that the weak are not bound to act in morally permissible ways.

 

[BookTenTiger]

If this is too political, please let me know!

I've been reading articles about "red Covid" (Covid deaths are much higher now in Republican-voting states and counties) and it makes me think about how we as a country treat inequality. For example, there is supposed to be intervention when there is, say, lead in the drinking water. I wonder if we are going to have to develop a new concept of "information inequality" in order to solve this problem.