Comment Deleted

0

America has deeply rooted problems, but in no world was 9/11 a good thing. That is genuinely disgusting of you to say and not representative of what actual leftists think. No one in the world, including innocent civilians in the Middle East, deserves to experience that sort of terroristic event.

0

Anonymous OP 1d

Oh yeah, because hating American institutions means you should want more innocent people to die. Go fuck yourself!

6

Anonymous #1 1d

I mean, charlie was an actual terrorist as well though. they were terrorists in different ways, but both terrorists nonetheless

-2

Anonymous #2 1d

I moreso viewed him as a shitty influencer, but could you explain?

3

Anonymous #1 1d

he was both a white supremacist and a Christian nationalist, and a propagandist for white supremacists nationwide, even cofounding turning point USA. he has been fundamental to the revitalization of white supremacy, and the rise of the sitting fascist regime. he was a terrorist, but a domestic terrorist working to destabilize the nation from within

1

Anonymous #1 1d

but I also agree though, he was definitely a shitty influencer

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I agree with your overall analysis of him, but I don’t think he fits the definition of a terrorist. This reads to me like the same logic the administration uses to denounce leftists as terrorists. However, I do believe he inspired others to commit terroristic acts of violence, and he was by no means a good person

1

Anonymous #1 1d

I mean I’m classifying him a terrorist by nature of being a white supremacist, and intentionally scheming to further the overreach of white supremacy in the United States; which is an inherently violent ideology and course of action in and of itself I see what you mean in the comparison, but the only reason I disagree with it is because he was an inherently violent person. he may have his it behind a guise of civility, but his ideals were inherently violent towards specific demographics yk?

0

Anonymous #2 1d

like holding ideologies and their followers such as those (meaning ideologies that inherently rely on the promise of violence towards others) responsible or accountable (even by means of systemic suppression), is fundamentally different from the systemic targeting and suppression of all political dissidence, but I also recognize how easily weaponizable such a concept is (being the attempt to systemically prevent violent ideologies from spreading)

0

Anonymous #2 1d

I see what you mean, and yes he was a white supremacist, but my working definition of a terrorist is someone who commits violence on civilians to perpetuate a political agenda. I think it’s important not to fudge the terms, otherwise they lose meaning. White supremacy in and of itself is a disgusting and hateful ideology, and I think he very much fits that label

1

Anonymous #1 1d

that’s a very good point in all honesty, and while I do hold the perspective that the term itself, “terrorist”, is normally one that is entirely used as a means of a state exerting its power over its citizens (which relates back to the topic of Donald Trump classifying dissidents as terrorists, that you originally mentioned), traditionally it aligns with what you described above.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

in hindsight, if we were to examine the term itself solely in the context of the United States and taking into consideration how normalized white supremacy has been for the majority of this country’s lifetime, I’d argue the systemic foundations of this nation contribute as indirect supporting evidence to your point as well

0