> I know your entire comment is rhetorical questions, but I'm going to answer them. The difference is intent. Political violence is violence against your political enemies to silence them and discourage their allies.
Sure, that's a good answer. I think that means I wasn't asking the right question though, so let me try again: does it matter if the violence is political? Is it worth using the phrase?
I'm not, this time, just trolling about semantics, but trying to reach some kind of actual point about how we use language to describe things. Every time someone is shot, at some level, it's one person, with a gun, shooting at another person, because they want that person to be dead.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of the shooter's intent being relevant during a trial, right, it seems reasonable that someone who is trying to terrify a nation/group/etc via the violence receives different consequences than someone who thought that shooting was the only way to save their own life, but does that mean we also have to then judge if they were correct about what they were thinking?
What I'm sort of groping towards is at what point is shooting someone like charlie kirk considered self defence?
Here is a hypothetical which, if you consider it, I believe isn't actually as extreme as it sounds:
If you were a person next to literal Adolf Hitler in 1945, would it be morally good to shoot him to death?
Assuming you're onboard with the idea that Hitler's crimes deserve death (either in the punishment or the prevent future crimes sense), what if we then change the year to 1944? Or 1940? Or 1935?
Sure, that's a good answer. I think that means I wasn't asking the right question though, so let me try again: does it matter if the violence is political? Is it worth using the phrase?
I'm not, this time, just trolling about semantics, but trying to reach some kind of actual point about how we use language to describe things. Every time someone is shot, at some level, it's one person, with a gun, shooting at another person, because they want that person to be dead.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of the shooter's intent being relevant during a trial, right, it seems reasonable that someone who is trying to terrify a nation/group/etc via the violence receives different consequences than someone who thought that shooting was the only way to save their own life, but does that mean we also have to then judge if they were correct about what they were thinking?
What I'm sort of groping towards is at what point is shooting someone like charlie kirk considered self defence?
Here is a hypothetical which, if you consider it, I believe isn't actually as extreme as it sounds:
If you were a person next to literal Adolf Hitler in 1945, would it be morally good to shoot him to death?
Assuming you're onboard with the idea that Hitler's crimes deserve death (either in the punishment or the prevent future crimes sense), what if we then change the year to 1944? Or 1940? Or 1935?