![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseThere’s V for Vendetta wank, courtesy of Fandom Wank at the moment. Mostly the issue is over whether or not V qualifies as a terrorist and surprisingly the semantic wankery gets fairly dull rather quickly.
Someone does bring up one of my favourite points to shovel into an argument if I possibly can, namely that Luke Skywalker also counts as a terrorist for using violent means against the governing regime. I like to use that one to illustrate that particularly piece of semantics or so I say: maybe I just like having an excuse to say ‘rebel scum’. I probably made pretty liberal use of that phrase when it came to The Matrix too.
Either way, I suspect that the debate just loses its sparkle once you accept that the terms are pretty much interchangeable depending on your point of view. Depending on the propaganda, everyone involved is terrorist/rebel/partisan/freedom-fighter; it just depends on which ideology you ascribe to.
Words may have layers of connotations but at the end of the day a good portion of them boil down to the same thing. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter after all. The only clear-cut thing in that definition is that they’re attacking a ruling regime though destructive means.
Also, apropos nothing, I hate anachronistic language in period pieces. Would it kill people to do just a little bit of research or even, oh noes, use a little common sense? Of course common sense perhaps has become one of those unfashionable things these days, when everyone would rather foam-pad the world rather than take a little personal responsibility.
Sir Darwin, I do believe that your Chainsaw of Natural Selection has stalled.
"There are no whole truths; all truths are half- truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil."
- Alfred North Whitehead
Someone does bring up one of my favourite points to shovel into an argument if I possibly can, namely that Luke Skywalker also counts as a terrorist for using violent means against the governing regime. I like to use that one to illustrate that particularly piece of semantics or so I say: maybe I just like having an excuse to say ‘rebel scum’. I probably made pretty liberal use of that phrase when it came to The Matrix too.
Either way, I suspect that the debate just loses its sparkle once you accept that the terms are pretty much interchangeable depending on your point of view. Depending on the propaganda, everyone involved is terrorist/rebel/partisan/freedom-fighter; it just depends on which ideology you ascribe to.
Words may have layers of connotations but at the end of the day a good portion of them boil down to the same thing. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter after all. The only clear-cut thing in that definition is that they’re attacking a ruling regime though destructive means.
Also, apropos nothing, I hate anachronistic language in period pieces. Would it kill people to do just a little bit of research or even, oh noes, use a little common sense? Of course common sense perhaps has become one of those unfashionable things these days, when everyone would rather foam-pad the world rather than take a little personal responsibility.
Sir Darwin, I do believe that your Chainsaw of Natural Selection has stalled.
"There are no whole truths; all truths are half- truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil."
- Alfred North Whitehead
