Nevoic

I get some people have immense faith in capitalist rule, that you genuinely believe that the reason it's normalized to not discuss salaries or politics is for your own good. Some people don't believe in class antagonisms. This used to be a purely fascist position, but liberals adopted it in the mid 20th century because of how effective it is at driving complacency.

Politics used to be common in the workplace. Not necessarily electoral politics, but organizational politics, which is far more important and impactful, and also much more regulated by capitalists and the petite bourgeoise. I've talked to my boss about electoral politics before, and it didn't cause issues. If I brought up unions with him I'd be fired within a month (based on how other union organizers were let go).

Yup, just like it's employment 101 to not discuss salaries.

Lack of communication and organization is a fantastic way to keep workers in line. Genuinely all it takes are a handful of socialists in an environment of heavily exploited workers to get a union going. They can all feel the material harm capitalism is causing, but lack the language and means to express and resist that harm.

When socialists provide it (via politics in the workplace), that harms companies. When communication takes place (salary sharing, organization tactics, etc.) you place a strain on the bourgeoise to behave more inline with worker expectations. This isn't what capitalists want.

Yeah, that was my point. I can't believe I didn't see what my own point was until you cleared it up for me. It wasn't about how "terrorist was a loaded word" even though that's what I said.

I'm glad you're here to clear up the difference between what I said and what I meant, otherwise I'd be genuinely lost.

Keep it coming.

Oh wow, I didn't get it until this message, fuck I'm an idiot. All comparisons are always fallacious. Thanks for helping me out, friend.

Yup, you can also make comparisons to irrelevant things. Not all comparisons are fallacious.

The way the CIA/IDF behave compared to other "terrorist" organizations is relevant to the etymology of the word. I don't see how the Grand Canyon relates to any point you or I made.

Exactly. And saying "what about" isn't always a fallacy. That's like thinking anyone says a natural fact they're committing a naturalistic fallacy.

Yeah no need to get this hostile.

The word "terrorist" was used, and getting into the etymology of the word is best exemplified by how large "non-terrorist" organizations operate exactly like large terrorist organizations.

Calling this whataboutism is like responding to the claim "people have a biological urge to reproduce" as a naturalistic fallacy.

You're using the word in sorta the right ballpark (I did make a comparison, e.g a "what about"), however not every time someone says "what about X" are they committing a fallacy.

My entire point was how terrorist is a loaded word, that we only use it to describe one side (the side not in power), even though the technical definition obviously fits organizations in power. Making a comparison to demonstrate my literal only point isn't fallacious.

There were native american terror groups, yet the U.S government that literally genocided millions of native Americans isn't a terror organization, despite their use of terror and violence to achieve political goals. It's a word with clear problematic etymology.

This misses the point. If we're being technical, Hamas/MOVE is obviously a terrorist organization. Trying to convince me that they are isn't going to change my position, because I already believe that.

It's just that in-so-far as Hamas/MOVE etc. are terrorist organizations, the CIA/IDF are far larger ones. They inflict terror and use violence for political gain, the only difference is they're the ones in power so they decide who is a terrorist.

That's the problem with the word. The IDF and Hamas are both violent terror groups that shouldn't exist, but Hamas only exists as a result of the IDF's genocidal campaign, and yet we only call Hamas a terror group. It's deeply problematic.

I wish Israel would give a shit about Palestinians and disband. It's an illegitimate apartheid government, which on its founding year kick-started with a massive ethnic cleansing. If Israel disbands, there's no need for a resistance group.

We can all sit here and ask for unrealistic things, but that won't really do much. Protest to get companies/governments to divest from the genocidal state of Israel, and hope for the best.

Terrorist is just a loaded word. Like Hamas is a "terrorist organization" but the state of Israel isn't.

Terrorism often boils down to "enacting violence against systems of oppression". Is the IDF a terrorist organization? What about the DoD? These organizations use violence to perpetuate existing systems of oppression, causing vastly more harm than any domestic "terrorist" organization ever will.

While these 11 people were being killed by the state for being "terrorists", the CIA was backing fascists (contras) to overthrow democratically elected socialists in Nicaragua. Is the CIA a terrorist organization?

Are you making a descriptive or normative claim in your first paragraph?