posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 04:04 PM
Massacres as in Vegas always test the intentions of the hot take merchants who appear at every crime scene to say if something is or isn’t
“terrorism.“ Those who insist that the “lone white male shooter” is not a terrorist should be asked: Is there a meaningful difference
between a murderer who kills for an imaginary caliphate and one who kills for his own bloodlust? And those who pop up always to remind us that yes,
white men can be terrorists, should be asked: Is there a reason to extend the “terror” designation that isn’t purely out of spite?
After shootings and stabbings and bombings, we rehearse this strange ritual of debating the semantics of “terrorism.” But terrorism isn’t just
semantic; it’s a purely political construct. It adds nothing to our understanding of crime except to muddle our thinking, to exaggerate our
threats, and to pitch everything in terms of existential conflict. In that way, the word functions like how “communist” used to. Its primary
effect is to give jobs to a whole industry of quack experts on “radicalization,” and to turn mosques and schools and social media into a network
of informants. And if it’s not the mosque, then it’s the church or the therapist or the gun retailer; before too long, court records and
financial statements, too. I think that deep down, both liberals and conservatives share a secret wish to live in a police state.