Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
> isn't there
> already enough actually substantively problematic about new social
> movements that it's unnecessary to resort to the right-wing tactic of
> comparing everything we don't like to terrorists?
>
Leaving aside questions of the 'sincerity' of this rightist ploy (do they believe their own rhetoric), another example the habit of reducing everything one does not like to a single "Xism" is the leftist habit of reducing everything bad to "fascism."
Incidentally, is "Terrorism" an independent "ism" (like liberalism, marxism, royalism, etc.) or is a mode of action which adherents of almost any ism can choose? And if the latter, how useful (or not) is it to lump racist terrorists, state terrorists, leftist terrorists, islamist terrorists, etc. into the same category?
And as a mode of action, does it include window smashing as well as dropping a-bombs on Nagasaki? I've had my windows smashed, and for a split-second or so after it happens it's hard to distinguish from a rifle shot. The first time at least it certainly created some momentary terror.
Carrol
> j