Terrorism is absolutely a socially constructed idea. The current idea of the charge is based on the moral concept that violence in pursuit of religious or political goals is unacceptable. (You don’t have to accept that but we absolutely teach it in American school so most people just reflexively believe it)
Terrorism as it’s original idea was violence against civilians to terrify them into acting in a certain way. Like the KKK burning a cross in someone’s yard to warn them or a lynching where the entire town attends and takes pictures.
That said a single assassination where the shooter disappears afterwards, leaves no calling cards, makes no announcement, no demands, doesn’t really fit the profile of actual terrorism. They’re charging terrorism because it fits the letter of the law and it’s automatically discrediting to many Americans. Not because it’s actually Terrorism.
Excellently explained, the OP screenshots are the insane babblings of a mad woman
Calling him a terrorist is supposed to make people afraid to support him otherwise they might be stripped of their rights and tortured in gitmo.
It’s like a terrorism reverse uno card. Use the charge of terrorism to cause terror and prevent people from organizing against the greedy, insatiable monsters that run this country by greasing each other’s hands.
Can you explain to me the term “socially constructed “, and why it is so relevant here? Isn’t all of law, and the rules we live by, socially constructed?
To an extent yes they are. Things like speeding, where and who you can have sex with, are really good examples of social constructs. Things like murder are things we intrinsically understand as wrong, even without laws. It’s instinctual.
The fact that it is a social construct is important because society can decide to change it. It’s not actually part of our core programming the way murder is. Look at the number of people saying this is self defense. That’s society discussing how the terrorism label is used because survival is also a core human instinct. This is why it’s really hard to hold your breath until you pass out or purposely attempt to breathe water.
In classical ethics and philosophy this conflict falls under the Harm Principal. At what point does the CEO’s conduct pose an existential danger to those around them? Thus permitting the act of murder as a method of survival.
Throwing the social construct of Terrorism in there confuses that core question because it reminds us that we’ve all been taught that using violence to achieve your goals is wrong, unless society says it’s right. (Like declaring war)
So now we face a bunch of questions. Is this actually terrorism? Or is this a moment of society approving the use of violence?
The idea that murder is some kind of part of our human instinct needs a reference. Institutionalised murder has been a part of human civilisation throughout history. Think war, holocaust, death penalty, cannibalism, gladiator games, witch trials, ritual sacrifice etc etc.
As humans our defining feature is our cultural variety. Almost all rules one could think of have at some point been tried by a civilisation. Core programming only affects the very basics of requiring sustenance and reproduction.
leaves no calling cards
I think the engravings on the bullets were intended as a message. It seemed like he expected to be caught with his “manifesto” as well. Not saying that’s sufficient to call it terrorism, but it does show a bit of intent beyond anger/revenge.
The bullets could also easily just be passion though. Calling cards are usually unmistakable. Like their name sake where actual cards are left on victims. A terroristic manifesto generally also has a warning, something meant to inspire fear or obedience. Osama Bin Laden for example had one demand, that western governments leave the middle east.
You could be right though, he could just be a terrorist with a bad PR sense.
