I think a lot of the desire for specificity in terminology that you’re seeing demanded is stemming from a desire for people to see organizations step in that truly have the resources, investigative experience, and political will to accomplish progress in this arena — for example certain offices of the FBI.
Political will results in the opposite.
So I believe we are in agreement, once terms are fully understood on all sides.
It’s important to me that we not dilute the meaning of important phrases by assuming they add up to no more than the sum of their discrete elements — it coarsens discussion and incites unnecessary rhetoric.
Please do not be confused by the word "political" within the phrase "political will". A brief crash-course: "political" does not equal "partisan", it equals "of or concerning to the sphere of politics". You are conflating political with partisan -- this exact error is the root of a vast percentage of the needless rhetoric and policy misapprehensions that so confuse our current national conversation.
To be plain: I would like the most effective LEO working under the absolute-least-partisan-influence possible. That is to say: effective law enforcement agents who cut through the bullshit on all sides.
Given your misunderstanding of the above, while assuming you're responding in good faith (and not intentionally confusing the issue), I must conclude that your vocabulary in this particular arena does not quite match your passion.
I would urge you in the future, when confronted with a definition that differs from that you intuit, to ensure that you truly grok what's being said, rather than assuming naivety/partisan pearl-clutching.
Again, it's important to have a shared basis from which compromise can be achieved -- it is perhaps the most fundamental requirement of society.
If I've learned anything being terminally online it's that it's always better to wait until some basic evidence comes out rather than to speculate and get into flame wars over it.
A decent write up of the legal issues here: https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-dom...
Quote: The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.
Edit: you're literally correct that there isn't specific domestic terrorism statute but there are numerous terrorism task forces, antiterrorism programs and escalations of other charges based the category terrorist.
A simpler example of how this works: make a throwaway Twitter account or two, and start posting about how Trump, Biden, or both are committing treason. Die a little inside as you notice the subsequent discussions are mirror images of each other and contain about the same logical and rhetorical fallacies.
That sounds to me like something we would call terrorism if it happened internationally will now also be called terrorism if it happens domestically.
There is a rising alt-right extremist movement that is attempting to demonize LGBTQ and drag as pedophiles and groomers.
Their methods are only getting more extreme [1].
They have very clear goals that are absolutely fall under the definition of terrorisms: They are attempting to terrorize a specific subset of civilian population into going back into the closet, under the threat of violence.
They are organized, and they are motivated. That's why it's important to call it terrorism - because there are networks of extremists that continue on their mission even if the specific individuals can be identified that commit individual crimes. There is a movement behind them to continue on the mission.
[0] https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1599464591196491777?cxt=...
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9a/libsoftiktok-trans-ch...
I mean, you understand the types of people being discussed here, right? (that posted openly about this on fb, mind you).
Proud Boys confronted/harrassed/intimidated people at a drag show in a city not far east from there just recently and then some people (probably some the same people) put some effort into preventing this drag show from happening prior to this situation.
https://twitter.com/PotrzebieSystem/status/15995193382805463...
Is your claim that the Moore County sheriff was ... in on it?
That is not an outlandish perspective, over and over, there are instances of the police not lifting a finger to protect trans or drag events while groups like Patriot Front or Proud Boys harass and intimidate them with shows of force/violence.
Is that not obvious? Did you pay attention AT ALL during Jan 6?
In any "not very large city," this should always be considered as a possibility.
For the average folks with horrid (or biased) memories, do you really no remember post-911? We screamed "terrorists" over and over and how American interests would not be scared off by terror tactics.
Theyre suppressing expression. They have openly fascist intents. Theyre successfully shutting down other shows due to fears of violence.
In what world do you think this increasingly frequent type of targetted violence should not be talked about? Or just when its barely related to a social issue you have opinions about...?
For many Americans, the word "terrorist" conjures an image of, e.g. a Muslim foreigner.
Data and experience suggests that the above is very not likely, and also, that domestic terrorism is likely more of an issue.
In other words, you get clarity, which reduces fear at best, and helps people more accurately threat model at worst.
There are so many ways to describe the world. This is being described as a “[premeditated] attack”. Is there some ulterior motive I’m missing?
Sorry to seem to ranty over this, but it seems like an extremely forced meme at this point. I’m usually arguing for the importance of words, but on this specific criticism, genuinely, I beg the question, who effing cares?