Title : What's the difference?
link : What's the difference?
What's the difference?
It's interesting, the differences that matter to people, the endless quest to distinguish alligators from crocodiles and psychopaths from sociopaths, but what I wanted to know was the difference between vandalism and terrorism.
I'm reading "Madison anti-abortion headquarters hit by apparent Molotov cocktail, vandalism, graffiti" in the Wisconsin State Journal: "Vandals set a fire inside the Madison headquarters of the anti-abortion group...."What is the word "vandalism" doing in that headline, which specifies 2 things — Molotov cocktail and graffiti? Is there some additional thing that was done that justifies putting "vandalism" in that sequence of words? A firebombing is more than vandalism, and the graffiti says "If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either," so there was a specific intent to terrorize people over their political beliefs and actions.
I blogged that article last night — here — and I didn't say much, but I did shift to the word "terrorists" after quoting the newspaper's word "vandalism." (I wrote "The terrorists left graffiti....")
To say "vandalism" is to minimize the seriousness of this crime. Ironically, it also elevates the target, since the older meanings of "vandalism" highlight the destruction of things that are "beautiful, venerable, or worthy of preservation" (OED).
This morning, I'm seeing that The New York Times is using the word "vandalism" (the headline — "Anti-Abortion Group in Wisconsin Is Hit by Arson, Authorities Say" — uses the word "arson"):
The headquarters of an anti-abortion group in Madison, Wis., was set on fire on Sunday morning in an act of vandalism that included the attempted use of a Molotov cocktail and graffiti that read “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either,” according to the police.
Why call it "an act of vandalism"? That seems to ascribe a motivation to whoever did this — a motivation of either random destruction or irreverence. But, based on the graffiti, the motive was to terrorize. If you hesitate to say "terrorism," refrain from talking about the motive. Don't downgrade it by calling it "vandalism."
And ask yourself, NYT, if a pro-abortion group were firebombed and graffiti'd with an equivalent threat, would you not easily and comfortably go to the strong word "terrorism"?
It's interesting, the differences that matter to people, the endless quest to distinguish alligators from crocodiles and psychopaths from sociopaths, but what I wanted to know was the difference between vandalism and terrorism.
I'm reading "Madison anti-abortion headquarters hit by apparent Molotov cocktail, vandalism, graffiti" in the Wisconsin State Journal: "Vandals set a fire inside the Madison headquarters of the anti-abortion group...."What is the word "vandalism" doing in that headline, which specifies 2 things — Molotov cocktail and graffiti? Is there some additional thing that was done that justifies putting "vandalism" in that sequence of words? A firebombing is more than vandalism, and the graffiti says "If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either," so there was a specific intent to terrorize people over their political beliefs and actions.
I blogged that article last night — here — and I didn't say much, but I did shift to the word "terrorists" after quoting the newspaper's word "vandalism." (I wrote "The terrorists left graffiti....")
To say "vandalism" is to minimize the seriousness of this crime. Ironically, it also elevates the target, since the older meanings of "vandalism" highlight the destruction of things that are "beautiful, venerable, or worthy of preservation" (OED).
This morning, I'm seeing that The New York Times is using the word "vandalism" (the headline — "Anti-Abortion Group in Wisconsin Is Hit by Arson, Authorities Say" — uses the word "arson"):
The headquarters of an anti-abortion group in Madison, Wis., was set on fire on Sunday morning in an act of vandalism that included the attempted use of a Molotov cocktail and graffiti that read “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either,” according to the police.
Why call it "an act of vandalism"? That seems to ascribe a motivation to whoever did this — a motivation of either random destruction or irreverence. But, based on the graffiti, the motive was to terrorize. If you hesitate to say "terrorism," refrain from talking about the motive. Don't downgrade it by calling it "vandalism."
And ask yourself, NYT, if a pro-abortion group were firebombed and graffiti'd with an equivalent threat, would you not easily and comfortably go to the strong word "terrorism"?
Thus articles What's the difference?
You now read the article What's the difference? with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2022/05/whats-difference.html
0 Response to "What's the difference?"
Post a Comment