…in that colonizers use the term to justify their continued brutalization of people fighting back against oppression. It was probably on 
where I first heard the argument that it’s a fairly useless term mainly used to describe any militant enemies of the west, but it occurs to me now and seems so obvious that the term “terrorist” is just a direct replacement for “savage”.
It’s a very racialized term masquerading as a neutral one, with a “definition” that is secondary to its actual meaning, which is to liken to a character of the Terrorist who is like a Halloween monster. It dehumanizes its target into a completely irrational monster, who you can then say did any nonsensical evil thing you can come up with and people will believe you.
I’ve known new athiests that call Muslims in general uncivilised and of a lesser culture
at some point mark my words someone is going to start up colonial mission trips for new athiesm
you just lost your lathe privileges
Ask him:
"Oh really? Does that include Andrew Tate? Perhaps also a sizable portion of US republicans
Watch him short-circuit.
no he doesn’t like them either
requisite
cliphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiqnN6EU3Q0
terrorism is acceptable when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
“Thug” goes in the middle somewhere
Any time someone says “terrorists” I just stop listening to them. It’s an incredible cudgel for them to wield though. Look how easy it is for even a dope like Santos to just keep ringing that bell to completely shut down discussion.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Yes but to be clear it’s been like that for at least 50 years.
Similarly, the west uses “democratic” like they used to use “civilized”, although they never really stopped doing that one either
Has been a buzzword since the 2000s
