• AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I don’t think you can say either one is it isn’t universally. Terrorism is using threats or violence to achieve a political goal. If a kid goes to school with a gun and kills a teacher he doesn’t like, or if someone kills a CEO because the CEO is a bad person, that’s not terrorism. Intent matters for the definition. If, say, a CEO is killed to make a statement about CEOs or to get that kind of business, then it could be. It’s harder to see how the word applies to school shootings.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 hours ago

    This is a video that seems to make no point except to clarify that CEO shooting is terrorism while school shootings are not. The voices have no sarcasm and there is no punchline, just dolls giving legal definitions with goofy effects.

    • mostNONheinous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Seems to be the point is making people think about the duality of it, and the whole concept of one being terrorism and the other not is a fucking joke in its own right, no need to add another.

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Because shooting plebes serves to keep them scared and more pliable. Thus the school shooters play an important part for maintaining the system.