>A few days ago I was unable to get an Uber out of Hyderabad airport because of a "strike". "Strike" might be the euphemism of the year - it refers to angry taxi drivers/autowales striking Uber drivers who continue to drive.

Nope. The Uber and Ola drivers are themselves striking against the two companies.

"The drivers have also demanded that no new cabs be licensed until existing drivers are guaranteed a minimum of daily bookings.

"The managements should give us at least 12 guaranteed bookings during peak hours for the first five years of each cab,” the association said in an earlier statement."" [0]

[0] http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/ground-report-hyderabad...

I was told by the person I was visiting in Hyderabad that those who didn't go along with the strike were attacked. However I cannot find independent corroboration of this via Google (then again I don't speak or read Telugu). So I may be mistaken on this and I concede that the anecdote may be badly chosen.

That said, in other cities the luddites have become violent: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/mumbai-taxi-d... https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.hindustantimes.com/india/ub... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/26/uber-back...

Violence an intimidation towards "scabs" has a long history.

>I was told by the person I was visiting in Hyderabad that those who didn't go along with the strike were attacked.

That is common in any strike in India. Previously, when auto drivers went on strike for any reason, if one of them broke the strike, they would be beaten up.

> French politicians similarly surrendered to the terrorists.

How do you feel calling someone striking a terrorist?

Why are my feelings relevant?

If you must know the answer, I feel like a person who's read a dictionary and knows that terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation to achieve their political goals.

I assume you're from the U.S.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f

"(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

Rough words for a few Uber drives in France.

I know it's confusing when white people are called "terrorist", but the definition clearly fits. If it helps you to understand, think about the Pune/Bombay examples I linked to above (where the perpetrators and victims are all brown).

I believe the strikers, not the uber taxi drivers, are the ones that are called 'terrorists' here.

Any army that ever participated in a war fit this.

I think there some "terror" missing from this definition. Anyway, it is a word that should just not be used today. There is no context where it clarifies anything anymore. The GP is correct in distrusting people that use it, and I add that some loss of trust should be automatic.

Yes, I left out the requirement of being a non-state actor in my comment. I don't think my comment was misleading at all. My use of the word "terrorist" fit both my definition and chinathrow's.

Since you seem to think I'm being misleading, what do you think I'm misleading people about?

Not sure about what the OP is referring to, but striking may very well be seen as "terrorist" behavior if it turns violent. I.e. They're trying to "intimidate" and "scare" using violence against innocent people.

I worry about the consequences of labeling a large group of assembled people as "terrorists" based on the (real or perceived) actions or rhetoric of a few.

E.g., if a large group of angry protesters is staring down a national guard and shots are fired on the crowd, officials need only claim that the crowd fired first and thus the slaughter of "terrorists" might be justified.

I bet they feel pretty good. It's the internet, after all. Isn't the whole point for a lot of people that there's no consequences for their words?