| > In what way is terrorism [...] and violent extremists [...] the same? Why are you conflating them? I have cut out the insertion of your meta-narrative. Terrorism as a method is the use of deliberate violence in pursuit of political or ideological goals, and is a tool of choice for violent extremists. > I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement. No, you actually connected both concepts with an "and", making your statement ambivalent ... but it's not a hill I care to die on. From a purely ethical point of view, there is nothing upsetting about this issue. It was well chewed over decades ago. > I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither. [...] my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake. We must separate the moral question from the political question. We can discuss ethics with rigor and eventually come to a position of clarity. With politics, it's all procedural and fuzzy. In your last part you assert several positions: 1. rejection of their methods (twice) 2. sympathy (and later: empathy) is politically wrong 3. rejection of their belief system (moral superiority, victimhood) 4. recognition is a mistake. 1. and 3. are probably trivial and I won't argue against them. We're both clearly not on their team, so we don't like their methods or their narrative. I'd disagree with 2. and 4. I get a lot out of reading and thinking about all kinds of fringe groups. It clearly gratifies many readers intellectual curiosity. Those who shun intellectual curiosity are also bad - or at least misguided. |