[nightcracker]

I know they exist, and my comment was tongue in cheek, not to be taken literally.

But in every joke there is a core of truth. People use language to disparage minorities or downplay the transgressions of the majority all the time.

E.g. nationalist extremist violent acts are done by "lone wolfs" or "mentally ill" people while the exact same atrocities by other groups are done by "terrorists".

[Grustaf]

I’ve heard that lone wolf vs terrorist meme so many times, are there actually any studies on this, or even examples?

I’m also not sure if being a “mentally ill” mass murderer is much better than a “terrorist” mass murderer.

[romwell]

If you are not sure, consider the same notions without mass murder attached to them.

They are socially (and legally) in different leagues.

>are there actually any studies on this, or even examples?

Yes, there specifically are[1][2][3][4][...].

I'd suggest [1] as a start, and then Google is your friend.

[1]https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/when-do-peo...

[2]https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-48477-001

[3]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03050629.2018.15...

[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/18/...

[Grustaf]

The conclusion in 1 seems to be "These findings indicate that stereotypes are not the only force at work when someone is labeled either mentally ill or a terrorist.", which is highlighted in a large font. I thought you were arguing the opposite?

And in 2, the question they examine is "whether people with negative attitudes toward Muslims perceive Muslim mass shooters as less mentally ill than non-Muslim shooters". That seems like a very biased group to ask, to say the least...

[Grustaf]

Thanks for the links, I’ll have a look.

If you remove the “murder” part from terrorist you basically just have a disgruntled crackpot, but one with political motivations.

I know that I’d rather be a theoretical, non violent terrorist than just mentally ill.

[romwell]

An unsuccessful (victimless) terrorist is still a terrorist (e.g. someone who blows up a building, but nobody dies, or the bomb doesn't go off), not merely a disgruntled crackpot.

On the other hand, Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, but very far from being mentally ill. His Letter to America[1] clearly outlines the intent and consequence of his actions.

Terrorists are, by definition, a threat -- but mentally ill people are victims (of mental illness, of society, etc); one is fare more likely to feel sympathy for an ill person vs. someone who is deliberately inflicting terror (as a means to an end or otherwise).

Terrorists can be affiliated to a group, but 'mentally ill' is not a group.

And that's a part of the reason why the labels get attached. 'All ____ are terrorists' is a trope where many will easily fill the blank with <group du jour>. But that won't work with 'All _____ are mentally ill'. A mentally ill person is a one-off, an accident. We don't have to solve that problem because there is no systemic problem. It just happens. The best we could do is think how we could help those people, how we could catch them before they slip.

But terrorism, that's warfare, and we respond to warfare with warfare.

That's the connotation. If you are not seeing it - well, the articles discuss this. Overall it's a part of a greater pattern of how politics shapes language, and language shapes thinking. Orwell had it down back in the 50's [2], and not much has changed since.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

[2]https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...

[Grustaf]

I do know the difference, I'm just not convinced that it is much worse to be politically motivated in your killing rather than just crazy.