/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

u wut m8

>>486421
The state is currently doing more than you are to bring about communism btw

Terrorism charge is INSANE!

https://x.com/Gritty20202/status/1869566464510066900
Employee stabs company president during staff meeting

>>486421
>THE STATE CALLS ITS VIOLENCE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL LAW AND THAT OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE STATE CRIME!
I would consider this a partially correct analysis. Or on the way towards a correct analysis. Perhaps we should begin with: you ought not conceptualize the state as a unitary thing. There are lots of different parts to a state/law. Modern states are suppressing clan-society bullshit like honor-killings and blood-feuds. That's a good thing.
But modern states are also getting infiltrated by mafia organizations that are trying to legitimize their thuggery and make the state do what used to be done by goon-squats.

Think about copyright and patents in the context of the health-care industry. It's basically an ideological veneer for big and powerful mafia organizations declaring healing with medicines as their turf and taking a cut. But unlike street-mafias they're not fighting these turf wars with gang-violence, they are manipulating the state apparatus to do it with state violence.

The street-mafias also manipulate the state, usually via bribery and blackmail directed against functionaries of the state. So even in the embryonic stages the pattern already exists in some forms. Many small time mafiosi have aspirations to "go legit" and that can mean conforming their mafia-activities to what is considered "reputable business practices". However quite often they don't mean to change what they do, they mean to change the state and the law. They seek to conform the conception of legitimacy not their activities. When they succeed you get these absurd situations where what used to be a crime is redefined into enforcement.

When for example a street-gang raids/destroys the make-shift laboratory for "biologically active substances" of a rival gang, we call that gang-wars and talk about crime-syndicates. But when the exact same turf-struggle happens on a larger scale all the words change. It will get described as pharmaceutical company "suing one another one for patent infringement" and it's law enforcement shutting down the production of infringerínos or what ever the "correct" jargon is.

Obviously many people are harmed and killed because of what those gangs do and that's why it's considered organized crime. But the body count of the corporate sector dwarfs that by an order of magnitude, but somehow they're not considered organized crime. The difference is a mafia that got big enough to manipulate the state and the law.

By the way the economic mechanisms that produce the mafia structures are the same for copyright/patents and prohibited narcotics. Artificial scarcity increases the profit margins a lot and like always there's people willing to do terrible things to take a cut. To bring this full circle. Delaying or denying health-care is also a way for creating this artificial scarcity, that causes all this crime.

So perhaps a better way to look at this is to consider a dichotomy between
<legal crimes and illegal crimes

and add some new categories like:
<legislative crimes
meaning powerful groups manipulating the state/law in ways that legalizes inflicting harm on powerless people.

Copyrights/patents ought to be considered legislative crimes since it leads to people not getting medications causing preventable harm or death. Those laws that enables the delay and deny schemes probably are another candidate for a legislative crime.

this time it's in the correct thread

>>486421
The state's violence is against the entire working class, not just the individual. This is why individual instances of violence do nothing.

>>486421
>>486427
I will be accepting apologies on behalf of all left communists in this thread.

>>486444
Holy fuck lmao

Look at the fucking nerd. Being a pedant is fucking GAY.

The law enforcement are criminals defending racketeering schemes to rob the population. They should be in jail.

Even just finding a clear definition of what a "racket" is is hard on google search, because they're burying it and someone's shutting down pages that give a clear definition.

>Racketeering originally got its name in 1927 from the Employers’ Association of Chicago. It defined a “racket” as a business that creates its own demand–something that would not be needed otherwise, such as the classic “protection racket,” in which gangsters coerce payment from business owners to keep their businesses safe from crime.

https://www.getlegal.com/what-is-racketeering-meaning-examples-rico-charges/

Banks (loan sharks in the modern era, not real banks that securely store things) create demand for loans by giving loans for necessary and scarce commodities, which removes the purchaser from price negotiation since they have to buy it no matter the cost. After the prices have inflated beyond what people can afford, they are forced to get a loan to acquire necessities. So "banks", loan sharks, manipulate prices with loans to force everyone to get loans from them.

Landlords purchase housing in areas with housing scarcity (or orchestrate mass immigration to create housing scarcity) which then forces people to pay for their service. You can take any city people need to live in for work and create housing scarcity through your purchases and force them to rent from you. Landlording is a racket. Temporary housing is called a hotel, and it doesn't take residential properties off the market.

Health insurers demand a 90% discount from doctors and hospitals (using mafia and threats) to raise prices 1,000% on everyone else, forcing everyone to buy health insurance from them. They create the demand for the service they're providing.

These are all really obvious fake businesses, rackets, that coerce people to pay someone for nothing, they create demand for the service that otherwise wouldn't be needed.

All the law enforcement that have been carrying out evictions for landlords and defending them have been engaging in racketeering schemes to rob the entire country. Instead of arresting the criminals, they terrorize the population into paying the criminals. The law enforcement in the USA defending the racketeers are the criminals that need to be arrested, they're criminals that infiltrated law enforcement and subverted it for criminal activity.

Where possible, the racketeers have changed the laws to make them toothless and make racketeering "legal", despite their way of changing the laws being illegal. R.I.C.O. law for instance has become mostly toothless, because the FBI waited to arrest the racketeers so long they were able to change the laws to defend themselves from prosecution. But the economy still collapsed, the people are still dying, and humorously all these criminals in law enforcement are getting ripped off and having their families ruined by the very racketeers they've been keeping out of jail.

Is it worth it to defend criminal trash and then lose your life savings or die from some simple ailment when the con man health insurer YOU KEPT OUT OF JAIL denies your claims?

>>486462
Well said!

>>486453
This is why your "movement" will never get anywhere. You support actions like these which the masses do not agree with. Killing should only be done in defense of our class.

>>486468
Stop pretending that nobody agrees with it, just because your pearl clutching karen ass doesn't lol

Stoke is really important here. Luigi gave people some optimism (best christmas gift on a while for me tbh) and little things like him getting his hair cut by inmates creates massive amounts of stoke that all communists should keep fueling.

Social chads know how to do this intuatively, get people to have fun and follow them into doing a thing.

>>486468
lmfao millions of people agree with it retard what do you mean? Did you get lost or something?

>>486468
But the masses do agree with it and killing porkies is, in itself, absolutely in defense of the working class even in the cases where it's accidentally so.

>>486482
About where the popular consciousness is at:

I think many see people like that CEO as having "elevated" them selves above the law, where they're murdering (all be it indirectly) with impunity. I think the general sentiment is that their "above the law status" makes them "fair game" where they don't deserve protection from the law either.

However that sentiment very likely does not extend to all capitalists, most of which are not above the law and the bourgeois legal system will go after them if they cause deaths. So the masses only agree with "killing specific porkies"

You could lament the lack of advanced consciousness, however it's not a bad sign because it's still punching up.

>>486483
I have no idea where you are getting this weird belief from but everyone including the media agrees that people like him for killing A CEO of a multibillion dollar health insurance scam company.

>>486486
No they don't, that's why that McDonald's worker turned him.

>>486492
Because of a money bribe, which they bullshitted her out of due to "technicalities".

>>486495
You're talking to a fed, anon.

>>486495
That fucking mcdonalds worker should have their ass beat. Do we have a name on them?

>>486486
>everyone including the media agrees that people like him for killing A CEO of a multibillion dollar health insurance scam company.
That's true.

However it's probably not the entire story. The reaction people had was like somebody killed the evil sorcerer who was tormenting the village.

>>486497
Could be.
Sure looks like somebody trying to steer the anger away from CEOs towards workers.

>>486504
Oh yes, for sure, I am not implying that the revolution is around the corner, but, I think that it's pretty much agreed that people support Luigi over the CEO especially outside the boomer black hole.

>>486526
>but, I think that it's pretty much agreed that people support Luigi over the CEO
Sure.

Btw Luigi plead not guilty.
Now I'm wondering whether he got framed.

The other reason to doubt, is because they also accused him of terrorism, which it obviously wasn't, and makes this hole thing look hinky.

>>486527
I was curious as to if possibly he got framed. I am not 100% convinced that they can assume he is the guy in the pictures, but, the manifesto and such are kind of smoking guns. My guess is he plead not guilty for tactical reasons rather than he is truly not guilty Like he probably has a real shot a jury nullification here.

>>486531
>I am not 100% convinced that they can assume he is the guy in the pictures,
that and they could've faked a pictures

>but, the manifesto and such are kind of smoking guns
Why ? he can't write a rant while somebody else shoots the guy and the 2 things aren't related ?

>>486536
>the could have faked the pictures

Unless you are illuding to a skitzo belief in a false flag or something then it's not viable also the witness accounts.

>He can't write a rant while somebody else shoots the guy
It's not really that he can't do those things it's that they are very unlikely that they will happen. If you are looking at this like a jury would which is unbiased and objectively then I think you are kind of fooling yourself if you think this isn't the guy.

>>486541
The chances that the guy who shot the CEO got away, likely are higher than you are assuming.

It's very likely that if the actual shooter got away, that the ruling class would choose to frame some guy rather than let people realize they're vulnerable. Even if that CEO probably is the lowest rung of what can be considered ruling class.

It's possible to manipulate pictures and to coerce witnesses. And given the political incentives, it's not that unlikely. I reject a concept of objectivity that ignores ruling classes playing dirty.

When powerful or wealthy people get attacked, a guilty party is found and punished in virtually all cases. That is a statistical discrepancy, even when accounting for greater efforts being made, there should still be more unresolved cases. That means some of the guilty parties are innocent.

So you can't rule out the possibility that this guy is being framed.

>>486564
Holy fuck dude. I am not surprised by this at all but I am still incredibly enraged.

>>486564
We need more copycats. We can't be afraid, look at luigi. He is gonna get off extremely easy.

0 (zero) copycats in a month and the bourg ramping up their paranoia (ie. that one lady getting 15 years in prison for saying that luigi is based on the phone) pretty much demonstrate why adventurism is worthless for class consciousness even if I personally clapped

>>486592
Why is your metric how many copycats quickly pop up?
It probably took whoever shot Brian Thompson longer than a month just to plan it. Most people don't just randomly happen to know where a CEO will be walking at a given time.

>(ie. that one lady getting 15 years in prison for saying that luigi is based on the phone)
Which has generated disgust among the general public.

>pretty much demonstrate why adventurism is worthless for class consciousness
Class consciousness is the general response of approval from the public transcending contrived political lines, which happened very noticeably, not a race to see how many people rapidly imitate a specific incident without preparing.

>>486602
How come nobody on the left has any ideas for what should be done next? All they can do is criticize other people's actions. I don't see any organizations making the news trying to do anything at all. Not even a failed attempt. If everything is ineffective, what is the point of leftism? If the plan is to let the public figure things out for themselves, what was the point of reading all of that fancy theory?

>>486604
What do you mean? A: The guy had valid critisms of that post and B: At the end of the day terrorism is not productive. It's good for propoganda, some times, but it also makes us look like nutcases. Even marx said this.

>>486639
I'm not saying terrorism is the way forward, I am asking, if not terrorism, then what? I haven't heard any modern leftist theorist propose any kind of concrete action that, say 1000 people can organize and take part in.

To me it seems like one mans act of violence just stirred up something in America that dwarfs the effects of all of the theory reading and protest-going done by leftist organizations in the last decade.

I'm not asking for some complete battle plan, the internet isn't the place for that, but I think leftism should at some point do more than study and I think we should be talking about that.

>>486642
Anon, if you don't know what the game plan is now I hate to tell you, but, I have a bridge to sell you….The game plan is to organize the working masses into a cohesive body and over throw the established capitalist order.

Now…..getting there….that is a different story.

>>486592
>0 (zero) copycats in a month
Feels like you're complaining that the next episode hasn't aired yet.

>pretty much demonstrate why adventurism is worthless for class consciousness
Well the guy directed the violence at somebody who probably deserved it, rather than random people in a shopping center or a school. So it could've been worse.

>>486602
>Why is your metric how many copycats quickly pop up?
You have a point here, if this becomes a political trend or something, it likely would be something that unfolds very slowly.

>>486604
>How come nobody on the left has any ideas for what should be done next? All they can do is criticize other people's actions. I don't see any organizations making the news trying to do anything at all. Not even a failed attempt
That's not fair socialists have been trying to get public healthcare installed for the better part of a century.

>>486639
>At the end of the day terrorism is not productive
That's certainly true, but that guy did a murder not a terrorism.
Why would you participate in the erosion of words until they have no meaning anymore ?

>>486642
>I'm not saying terrorism is the way forward, I am asking, if not terrorism, then what?
Why would you accept the premise that what this guy did was terrorism, rather than murder ?

I'm feeling a little spooked here, like a narrative is trying to break in.

>>486648
We can argue semantics till the cows come home, but, the government has defined it as terrorism and, whether we want to accept it or not, he killed the guy with the intention to spread propoganda of the deed which is more what marx ment when he defined terrorism and that is what I ment. I don't necessarily believe he did it to strike fear into the hearts of rich ceos, but, ….did he not? Terrorism having negative connotations says nothing about it actually objectively and ethically.

I'm not trying to be a dick but the one "eroding words" here is you.

>>486674
>We can argue semantics till the cows come home,
I don't see any wiggle room, what that guy has done fits the definition of murder not terrorism, there is no ambiguity, it's really clear.

>the government has defined it as terrorism
That's not how definitions work. Definitions are general not specific to persons or events. The word you are looking for is declarations.

There certainly are individuals who try to declare specific persons or specific events as terror(ist/ism), but all declarations can be is expressions of opinions. If said individuals try to impose their opinions on institutions, they're committing the crime of abusing official powers that they were conditionally granted by the people, and hence are voiding their legitimate claim to said powers. If they try to grant them selves more powers than they can be given by the people that is called a legislative crime.

Basically nobody can point a finger and just declare somebody else as "the villain" in any official capacity. That's the basis of all modern legal systems. The government by definition does not do that, and who ever does that is by definition not the government. If no government exists that upholds this, it's a breakdown of the rule of law. The UK government had such a break-down of the rule of law recently when a violent pro-Zionist gang assaulted journalists under false anti-terror pretext

>he killed the guy with the intention to spread propoganda of the deed which is more what marx ment when he defined terrorism and that is what I ment
I don't remember reading anything from Marx that defined terrorism. The only marxist definition about Terrorism i ever read was Lenin's, and he said the objective of terrorism is to terrorize. People weren't terrorized by this, because people see this CEO as a hardcore criminal who killed people by the thousands.

Not that this matters because Marxists don't do arguments from authority fallacies. The bottom line is that they accuse him of terrorism because they want to make an example out of him, that's not governance, that's petty tyranny.

>I'm not trying to be a dick but the one "eroding words" here is you.
<No-you
You lack perspective. I haven't so far, but i could. One could proclaim that terrorism is when civil liberties are violated, the US had a legally dubious legislation that tramples many civil liberties , it was called the patriot act, that could be re-framed as a terrorist manifesto. You could say everybody has a right to health-care and hence denying health-care can be re-framed as logistical-terrorism. If we dial up the spin to eleven that CEO-shooting could be lionized as a "adhoc democratic anti-terror enforcement neutralizing a logistical-terror threat". It's not that i wouldn't be able to play this retarded battle of words game. I just choose not to.

>>486679
I don't see any wiggle room, what that guy has done fits the definition of murder not terrorism, there is no ambiguity, it's really clear.

Maybe if you have your blinders on and you want to ignore reality unless it confirms your bias.

?That's not how definitions work. Definitions are general not specific to persons or events. The word you are looking for is declarations.

It literally is. That is how all lanugage works words do not have a concrete definition and change and morph over time. I agree that the definition the FBI gave to terrorism after 9/11 was bullshit, but, he deff kill a man with the intent to influence the behavior of fucking ceos of health insurance companies. That is what he did. Your copium about him being an angle because you want to graph your identity on him doesn't change that. No one is saying he is a bad person I support luigi but we have to be realistic and you are just being a fan boy.

And yes Marx was against acts of terrorism, or, propoganda of the deed because it turns normal people against us. Read Marx some time.

>>486639
>At the end of the day terrorism is not productive.
Getting rid of literal State-enabled mobsters is terrorism now? Are you fucking kidding me?
Do you understand what you're saying? You're saying the current order is legitimate and the CEO of a literal criminal organizations did nothing wrong because it has ties to the state, you're legitimizing the bourgeoisie and the plutocratic order as hard as you possibly can.
>It's good for propoganda, some times, but it also makes us look like nutcases.
HAHAHA, no anon, you're another one of those worthless armchair pundits who're more concerned with moral victories and doing your pseudointellectual peacock wheel that doesn't concern anyone outside of your impotent and worthless kind.
Your inability to rise to action is what makes you look like a nutcase (and a worthless idiot), people like Stalin, Tito or Pol Pot are what makes you look like a nutcase, your kind is why the so called global "Left" failed utterly and completely and got ran over by plutocrats very quickly past WW2, none of you actually care about the workers or injustice, you only care about making some pointless moral grandstanding.
The working class around the entire fucking world hails Luigi as a hero even if the porkies tries to silence it, this isn't terrorism, this is a desperate call to action by people who have been trampled by state enabled mafia, and also betrayed and abandoned by worthless pundits like you who love to talk "theory" but have no balls to actually do anything because of your crippling narcissism.
The workers are voting rightwing parties because people like you refuse to fucking do anything and cower behind your theory and the ghost of Marx, you play your little wargames (which you're losing big time) in your mind theorycrafting shit while real people out there are working three different jobs to make ends meet and probably won't even be able to have a real pension after all that, let alone actual healthcare.

I have no fucking idea how people like you still exist in 2025 and dare call themselves part of left, let alone socialist/communist.

>>486682
>I agree that the definition the FBI gave to terrorism after 9/11 was bullshit, but, he deff kill a man with the intent to influence the behavior of fucking ceos of health insurance companies.
If using violence to influence behavior is terrorism, than all types of enforcement would be terrorism too. For example a heavily armed police squat that busts a human trafficking ring, they usually end up killing a bunch of people too. Most people think this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but it definitely is violence as a means to influence behavior. Many people are ok with this CEO getting shot because they see him as an organized crime boss, that murdered a lot of people. Somebody shooting a crime boss is murder but it's not terrorism.

Keep in mind that not all forms of violence is physical, there also is psychological violence and systemic violence, and all these types of violence can and do kill people in large numbers, and they do influence behavior too. By your logic that too would have to be categorized as terrorism. It's perfectly sufficient to categorize these as crimes. We do not need "legalistic terror-inflation".

The terrorism charge is nothing more than powerful people trying to make an example out of him. It's not legitimate. They could have pursued a murder charge and there would not have been a reason to cry foul, but the terror charge, that's clearly politically motivated persecution.

>And yes Marx was against acts of terrorism, or, propoganda of the deed because it turns normal people against us
I agree with you on this. But this discussion is not about methods of struggle and political strategy for achieving socialism. That's not what this is about.

What we are debating here is whether legal processes and rights can be circumvented via the "terrorism-card".

The threshold for legit terror accusations is very high, like somebody who tries to hijack a plane, blowing up a metro-station/pipeline/… , military combat operations that target civilians on purpose and the drastic intimidation against journalists that entails assault and abductions. You know the extra heinous stuff, where it's proportional.

I see the loose terrorism accusations as the path to a society like it was in the dark ages, where all sorts of accusations could dehumanize people, like the which-hunts, the exorcisms , the religious heresy persecutions and red-scare McCarthyism.

>>486686
>If using violence to influence behavior is terrorism, than all types of enforcement would be terrorism too.


Exactly. Now you are getting it.

The state calls its acts of violence law but that of the individual crime

I never said the state also wasn't a bunch of terrorists but they have a legal monopoly on doing it. We don't even disagree my only qualm here is that I think you are being a quivering little pussy. Just accept it because they are going to always paint us as the bad guy no matter what. He commited an act of terrorism. A bunch of mental gymnastics and what about ism will not change that.

>>486692
>Just accept
<the ideological terror narrative
no

when the bum gets shot, it's murder
when the prostitute gets shot, it's murder
when the truck driver gets shot, it's murder
when the convenience-store clerk gets shot, it's murder
when the plumber gets shot, it's murder
when the construction worker gets shot, it's murder
when the assembly line worker gets shot, it's murder
when the teacher gets shot, it's murder
when the nurse gets shot, it's murder
when the surgeon gets shot, it's murder
when the rocket scientist gets shot, it's murder
when the ceo gets shot, it's also just murder

that ceo ran his business like the mafia and he died like the mafia, stop trying to make him into royalty, he's never gonna be a fallen prince

you can't terror-crucify Luigi (who could be innocent for all we know). People already see him as Saint Lugui, patron saint of the health-care-industry victims. It'll just ruin the reputation of the justice system.

> stop trying to make him into royalty, he's never gonna be a fallen prince

Stop involving your feelings in your analysis of situations that you experience vicariously over the internet.

Killing the CEO of the largest health insurance company in the united states is not the same as killing a random mcdonalds worker.

You are deifying luigi. I am simply stating facts of the situation.

>>486692
>He commited
Nope.
>an act of terrorism.
If I write a thesis about how my ex-girlfriend is a bitch who does bitchy things, and then I kill her because I think she's a bitch and I want her to stop doing bitchy things to people, is that terrorism? Of course not.
Now, imagine she's rich and I do exactly the same thing, and people react positively because they also think she's a bitch and she's done bitchy things to them. That's still not terrorism.

For contrast, Dylann Roof, who explicitly wanted to use his attack as the political spark of a race war, was not charged with terrorism, although he killed more people, and the killing was entirely motivated by the racial political goal and not by anything those specific people did. You can't claim that with Brian Thompson, it was a killing of strangers to scare the public, it was a killing of a specific guy for specific reasons related to his actions as the CEO of a major company, and the positive response to it began before any "manifesto" was ever released. Comparing the CEO killing to the terror of the state, which is also known to hit random people to intimidate general populations for political gain, is dishonest. The "terror" charge has purely been cooked up to intimidate the public, who reacted positively, and it has little to do with the actual content of the killing itself.

>>486692
>I never said the state also wasn't a bunch of terrorists but they have a legal monopoly on doing it.
So, all you're saying is that we should bend over and accept it like the slaves we are because they're the ones writing law books?
Why are you even here, really? Gramsci is spinning in his grave so hard they're probably building a particle accelerator over it as we speak to not let all that free kinetic energy go to waste.

>>486701
That's not what I said at all you are putting words in my mouth like a little asshurt faggot. Your vicarious relationship with a well tuned Italian man doesn't change reality. This is what is wrong with our society and why the left will always remain irrelevant because the left has been infiltrated by literal feds like this who if you don't completely agree with the party line they slander you and throw you to the wolves.

>>486700

As defined by the current way we typically define terrorism killing a ceo of a health insurance company, stalking him for weeks on end, writing a manifesto about why he did the killing and "why he had it coming anyways" Is an act of terrorism ment to intimidate the bourgeois class. I don't understand why you faggots are so fucking hung up on this pathetic fact "nooo noo our guy is good and a saint and can't do anything wrong at all and everything i don't like is evilll!! EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE IN THE WORLD!@!" You're such a sniveling faggot. Getting called a terrorist in 2024 is basically like cruse control for cool.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with this, but, you are delusional if you think this wasn't an act of terrorism especially according the the definition of the state.

>>486702
>Literally tries to convince everyone else in this thread that the murder of a notorious company's CEO by the hands of one of the many victims is literal terrorism
>And even if it wasn't terrorism it still is because the state said it is so I'm right and you're wrong
>Calls other people feds when they point out the circular logic
You're the only one who's reinforcing the party line here too, the left remains irrelevant precisely because of people like you who keep bending the knee to everything and trying to make everything a matter of moral victories.
Protip: Nobody sane cares about that shit, this isn't even a matter of heroism or martyrdom, it's a matter of understanding just how far state brainwashing and rhetorics go and how dangerous it is to enable them.
Resistance to tyranny and oppression is not terrorism to anyone outside of the tyrants who fear the loss of power, by the same token then any party in the opposition is a terrorist party because they have programs and manifesto, it doesn't work that way, the red brigades were terrorists (who were also fighting against american funded right wing terrorists, for the records), a lone man killing a single porky and writing about it isn't, even if it scares the other porkies big time.

"Terrorism" is a bullshit made-up Orwellian concept in the first place. It has always been used ambiguously with a massive double standard. When the ruling class is threatened by something? Oh, that's terrorism. When a bomb goes off in a civilian area and the state uses that to invoke expanded powers? Oh, that's terrorism. When the state strikes a wedding with a drone with the unmistakable outcome of invoking terror in its victims? Not terrorism.

"Murder". "Assassination". These are real words with unmistakable meaning behind them. Use those words when applicable. But "terrorism" is just an excuse to bring the power of the state against its enemies.

>>486705
>"Terrorism" is a bullshit made-up Orwellian concept in the first place.

Congratulations you have officially stated the obvious do you feel special?

>It has always been used ambiguously with a massive double standard. When the ruling class is threatened by something? Oh, that's terrorism.

Congratulation you have stated the obvious you will be awarded a cookie and a hand job for your fragile ego need constant reinforcement of your intellectual capabilities. You are a special little snow flake, you did it!

>When the state strikes a wedding with a drone with the unmistakable outcome of invoking terror in its victims? Not terrorism.

Holy fuck if you were in front of me I would literally assault you right now. I said this was terrorism and I agreed it was terrorism. JUST BECAUSE THE STATE USES THE WORD IN A BIAS MANNER DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING YOU ARE DERAILING THE FUCKING THREAD WITH YOU PEDANTIC CIRCLE JERK YOU FUCKING HOMOSEXUAL FUCKING AUTISTIC FAGGOT FUCKING KILL YOURSELF.

>>486704
>Protip: Nobody sane cares about that shit, this isn't even a matter of heroism or martyrdom, it's a matter of understanding just how far state brainwashing and rhetorics go and how dangerous it is to enable them.

You obviously do due to the fact you cannot seem to let this very minute and tiny detail go because to you and your narcissistic fucking ego you need to force everyone to think exactly like you do:

1. He killed a ceo in broad day light

2. He planned this attack for months and even wrote a short hand manifesto after the fact.

3. He did this with the explicit desire to change society by intimidating the ruling class

These are all facts and weather you like it or not that is definitively terrorism. At absolutely no point did I say what he did was bad. It wasn't. I don't care about a fucking ceo, but, holy fucking shit you are a fucking child you cannot accept the reality of what is going on because you need a coloring book version of events where everything is wrapped up in a nice little neat bow where there's good guys and bad guys well THAT ISN'T HOW THE WORLD WORKS YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

>>486706
The word doesn't mean anything and shouldn't be used at all. It requires the user to live inside the mind of the subject and make huge assumptions about the vulnerability of third parties. Much like the word "troll" on web forums, the word primarily exists to selectively shore up the power of the already powerful.

>>486709
>should, would, ought

The world doesn't give a fuck about you and your gay desires and moral delemias. He is going to get called a terrorist either way. In my opinion what he did consitutes the objective unbias definition of terrorism.Rather than begging the oligarchs not to call him a terrorist you might as well EMBRACE IT and accept it.

The dude committed a based act of terrorism for propaganda of the deed. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you are going to step over the line then you need to accept everything that comes with it. You are a mealy mouthed little faggot pussy who probably hasn't so much as stolen a kitkat from your local walmart. You fucking faggot you know absolutely nothing sitting in your fucking college dorm room ivory tower fucking uyghur kys.

>>486708
>1. He killed a ceo in broad day light
Yep, that's murder.
>2. He planned this attack for months and even wrote a short hand manifesto after the fact.
That makes it premeditated murder.
>3. He did this with the explicit desire to change society by intimidating the ruling class
So is a hypothetical judge who gives the death penalty to a CEO after months of trials due to finding them guilty of fucking over thousands of people…oh wait nvm the judge is part of the State (but citizens somehow aren't!) so it doesn't count as terrorism in that case despite being exactly what you just described, amirite?
If you weren't foaming at your mouth over meaningless state praxis you'd see how ridiculous your own argument is and how it does nothing but enforce statist bullshit by kneeling to its own perverse logic.

Again. this has nothing to do with Thompson's case in particular, it's a matter of principles or lack thereof, the USA is an actual, literal terrorist state but nobody says this due to political pressure, Thompson's murder was an extremely isolated case that is only classified as "terrorism" by either porkies who are currently engaging in actual terrorism or people like you who are completely subservient to the praxis of a morbid regime, in more civil times and places this could be at best defined as a spark for riots, because that's what it fundamentally is, an isolated case of a metaphorical landmine that went off.
And even by bending the knee to the state it's hard to call it terrorism in any way or shape because actual terrorism like again, the red brigades, were ongoing activities, that claimed the lives of hundreds of people, were actually orchestrated by multiple parties with their own political agendas and deeply shaped politics of their times, this is the same kind of shit as your average monthly school shooting, except in that case the porkies don't give a shit about some dude shooting random kids and jannies because they believe they're far above the plebs, the mechanics are the same exact things you listed even, but nobody calls it terrorism (wouldn't want to make the NRA angry after all, gotta sell those guns and keep the industry healthy).

But yeah anon, it's totally other people who're sitting in their ivory towers, which is why the people like you who are the self appointed party leaders are wondering where their voters went and why they keep losing elections around the world.

>>486711
>Because the united states doesn't get the terrorism label applied to it nobody who I like can do terrorism.

This is literally the take you have.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>486712
Calling the USA a terrorist state because it routinely meddles with other nations' affairs through either shameless open violence or internal sabotage, both of which involve direct killing on top of indirect killing, is an objective statement supported by facts that have nothing to do with feelings, it is documented history.
The USA is an imperialist, terrorist state that openly bullies the rest of the world by "sending messages" to their leaders, when it's not downright killing them or bombing their populace, this is undeniable terrorism, just like what human scum like Netanyahu is doing is not merely terrorism but the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing regardless of how you feel about the palestinians.

One lone dude with no affiliations who kills one filthy rich (and morally reprehensible) guy due to personal depression and dissatisfaction with the government is not a terrorist, it's a murderer, it has nothing to do with my feelings either though it certainly does have a lot to do with the porkies' since those are the only people who care to label it as such in a vague effort to wave their metaphorical scepters at the proletariat to show them who's boss.
Calling him a terrorist, regardless of your personal opinion on whether what he did was right or not, entails accepting a morally bankrupt mentality as your own even if only by virtue of passivity and not true conviction, it means bending the knee and accepting to play a morbid game nobody should take part in, if Luigi is a terrorist then I guess America is a nation of cryptoterrorists given how many people get shot in similar scenarios but don't get branded as such for whatever reason.

>>486699
>Killing the CEO of the largest health insurance company in the united states is not the same as killing a random mcdonalds worker.
<CEO lives matter more than burger-flipper lives
not legally
certainly not ethically

If you tell people their lives are worth less than that of others ahead in the line, it's rational for them to cheer for the demise of whoever's existence cheapens the value of their own life.

Attributing equal value to every life is a very practicle way to make a society work, other-wise it becomes " you take what you kill " and Luigi is now entitled to that CEO position. (If he actually did it)

>>486714
I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU FUCKING RETARDED FAGGOT holy fuck. You are a god damn reddit clone with your fucking blinders on. I never said their lives matter more. But killing a fucking king and killing a peasant in the midevil ages are going to have two different outcomes in society because of how society is. Stating this fact again is not tantamount to a death sentence you fucking ultra leftist retard. You are the fucking kind of person that would literally argue in the middle of a war zone.

You literally just keep putting words in my mouth.

>>486713
>The guy isn't a terrorist cause…well…BECAUSE HE'S NOT OK?!

You are a fucking retard kill yourself.

I agreeded with you about the united states being a terrorist state. I have been completely fucking honest here, but, you are such a fucking faggot you cannot let this shit go.

>One lone dude with no affiliations who kills one filthy rich (and morally reprehensible) guy due to personal depression and dissatisfaction with the government is not a terrorist, it's a murderer,


I love the implication that the two are mutually exclusive like you cannot be a murdered and a terrorist in your magic little santaclause world where morality is black and white.

He killed a fucking ceo to intemidate the whole bourgious class and it worked. That is terrorism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism

>terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

He did exactly that to scare the bourgeoisie class. Cope seethe and dial8
>Calling him a terrorist, regardless of your personal opinion on whether what he did was right or not, entails accepting a morally bankrupt mentality as your own even if only by virtue of passivity and not true conviction, it means bending the knee and accepting to play a morbid game nobody should take part in, if Luigi is a terrorist then I guess America is a nation of cryptoterrorists given how many people get shot in similar scenarios but don't get branded as such for whatever reason.


No you fucking retard. Do you think ISIS gives a shit that anyone calls them a terrorist? They don't give a fuck. They are doing the right thing in their minds. The only difference is you are a faggot pussy who is to scared to accept any responsibility for anything. You want your cake and you want to eat it too.

What is morally bank rupt is that you want to position yourself as morally superior to your college peers while not accepting the dirty undertones of real revolutionary acts. You're a two faced little faggot who would get his ass beat where I come from.

How many CEO have been murdered int he last 50 years because of the business they partake in specifically?

>>486715
>I never said their lives matter more
>You literally just keep putting words in my mouth.
my bad
in my defense, what you wrote could easily be interpreted that way.

>But killing a fucking king and killing a peasant in the midevil ages are going to have two different outcomes in society because of how society is
If we are being pedantic here there never were "Kings", there were violent thugs that terrorized societies and imposed their will on it by force. They gave them selves silly titles. Many of these were eventually sentenced to death by the people for their crimes against the people.

The sub-text i read into this that you want people to accept absurd "terror-politics" because you imagine people once accepted absurd aristocratic privileges. People didn't accept it, it wasn't "the way society was". It was never more than a violent imposition. That's one of the reasons we call it the dark age. Maybe future historians will look at our time as another mini dark age because of the violence and political repression that has been committed under the pretext of "countering terror threats" There is some irony too because when you look at what the self-declared "kings" did to accumulate power, like plundering the neighboring villages, that probably would be considered terrorism today and "killing the king" would be considered legitimate self-defense.

>You are the fucking kind of person that would literally argue in the middle of a war zone.
I admit i don't understand this expression, obviously people still argue during wars. But it's giving me an idea. Because you juxtaposed war and arguing. Putting arguing over war is basically what diplomacy is.
We could invert it thusly:
<You are the fucking kind of person that would literally conduct battle operation in the middle of a diplomacy zone.

Anyway the meta argument we're having boils down to this:
No we don't accept an authority that just declares somebody as a terrorist by decree because that isn't compatible with democratic principles. If somebody does that anyway we're just going to file that as all sorts of abuse of power crimes. You can only get legit power when people give it to you, you can't circumvent this by invoking terrorism.

>>486716
>terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
The population wasn't subjected to a climate of fear as a result of that CEO getting shot. So by that definition Luigi or whoever else killed that CEO wasn't terroristing.

>Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.
This part of the definition has a bunch of ideological loopholes.

For example by creating a dichotomy of political left/right terrorism it kinda implies an exemption for politically centrist terrorism.
It also neglects counter-revolutionary terrorism, which has been like 90% of all terrorism historically. Also transnational terrorism is omitted, for example that would be corporations that hire mercenaries to drive subsistence farmers off their land for the purpose of land grabbing.

They get credit for including the possibility that terrorism can be caused by "state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police." Most definitions you find omit that.

I have seen way worse definitions, but this one still isn't viable. You can still use this for
<it's not terrorism when we do it, it's terrorism when they do it.

>>486716
>He did exactly that to scare the bourgeoisie class.
I'm not sure i understand, terrorism is defined by bourgeois fears ? Sorry but that seems like an insane definition.

> Do you think ISIS gives a shit that anyone calls them a terrorist? They don't give a fuck. They are doing the right thing in their minds.
I don't think ISIS is a good blue-print for much of anything. 3/4 of the time they act as mercenary fighters that get funded by larger powers for proxy wars. Why on earth would you imply people should look towards isis for inspiration ?

>What is morally bank rupt is that you want to position yourself as morally superior to your college peers while not accepting the dirty undertones of real revolutionary acts.
This feels like you're trying to give marketing advice for a revolution.

I'm not sure what you are aiming for, but i do kinda want to see people trying to create a political party, that is called the "terrorism party" It would short-circuit so many propaganda smear campaigns.

>terrorism
Funny enough, Dimitri Lascaris just did a video on this. In the context of state-proscribed "terrorist" organizations now controlling Syria.

>>486720
>I'm not sure i understand, terrorism is defined by bourgeois fears ? Sorry but that seems like an insane definition.

No you retard words are defined by humans objective of your political disposition.

>I don't think ISIS is a good blue-print for much of anything. 3/4 of the time they act as mercenary fighters that get funded by larger powers for proxy wars. Why on earth would you imply people should look towards isis for inspiration ?


I don't think you have the fucking brain capacity to be having a conversation at this level, frankly and I think that you need to fuck off because holy fuck you are annoying as piss and dumb as a sack of potatoes.

>This feels like you're trying to give marketing advice for a revolution.

I'm not sure what you are aiming for, but i do kinda want to see people trying to create a political party, that is called the "terrorism party" It would short-circuit so many propaganda smear campaigns.



And we have just totally lost the plot of the conversation/

>>486721
>Another ultra leftist retard shows up to interject a painfully obvious opinion to his peers

This place is fucking so lame. there's literally zero interesting conversation just the same 4 people echoing the same 3 talking points back and forth to one another.