Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6868989" data-attributes="member: 4937">First, it was the essayist that wrote: " I have no way of knowing whether the person with whom I’m gaming is safe or the person who wants to...", and the rest censored out.  So yes, as a white male, she puts the burden on me to prove I'm safe and not what she now (perhaps understandably) first assumes of all white men she is with.  And likewise, yes, the article is a call to assume the worst of all white men until they prove otherwise that they are "safe".  And many in this conversation have read or treated it as such, even going so far as to assert that denial was proof of guilt.  I tend to be very conservative with regards to how I use the word 'terrorist' (surprise, surprise) in that the word has been very broadly misused over the last 15 years or so as the word has been more and more in the national conversation (for better or worse).  I don't think 20 years ago, anyone would have accepted the idea that simply terrorizing someone made you a terrorist nor do I think she would have reached for that word.  While nailing down a definition of terrorism everyone is willing to agree to is always hard, certainly that casual loose usage of the word wouldn't have been accepted in the national security or geo-political community.I strongly prefer that the word terrorism be confined to a military tactic that involves making total war against the weakest members of your opponent in order to convince them that the costs of waging war with you will be too high, or to otherwise engage in asymmetrical warfare against a superior foe by attacking those foes least able to resist you.  This can then be understood in the framework of Westphalian nation states and challenges to them, as well as Clauswitzian escalation of force (and depravity), and we can then have a meaningful conversation about what is normally called terrorism rather than labeling virtually all violence and threats of violence (uselessly) terrorism to the point the word loses any specific meaning.Comparison of people to terrorists has become as lazy as comparing people to Hitler.   It both trivializes an issue that should be serious, and obscures and muddles the conversation, both about sexism (in this case) and terrorism.  Since terrorism refers to a deliberate act of war, to suggest that her abusers are terrorists is to suggest that the proper and reasonable response to their acts of terror is to make war on them using actual military force.  Bad as the abuse she has received is, and as terrorizing as it may be to her or in its intent, I don't think terrorism is the right paradigm to put it under.  And even to the extent that you don't agree with that definition of terrorism, the fact that the definition of terrorism is itself so controversial and such a hot button issue, suggests invoking it is not very useful to your cause.</blockquote>

Verification