[Ed. – This is seriously moronic. Starting with the fact that it’s foolishly wrong about what it means to speak of “terrorism.” The point of terrorism is not whether a protester is willing to die; it’s whether an attacker is willing to kill people. Very typical of the left to get the concepts mixed up, and think one is about the other.]
Some wags have skewered the terrorist label by rechristening the men Vanilla ISIS and Y’all Qaida, or pronouncing them upholders of “Shania law.” (Our zeal to apply Southern-inspired terms to non-Southerners seems slightly icky, as if all lower-income white people hailed from the same 11 states, and all bumpkins spoke with a country twang.) Other commentators prefer generically dismissive insults: nudniks, chumps, goobers, and jamokes. Wringing our hands over how to describe these guys might seem frivolous, but at stake here are questions philosophical as well as semantic: Is it better—more correct, more politically responsible—to use a loaded and powerful term to summon the maximum amount of condemnation for bad behavior? Or should we be lobbying for sillier words that may not carry the same moral force, but undermine the targets through humor?
Advocating for jamoke, the Concourse argues that “when you call these horse’s asses ‘terrorists,’ you are not only dignifying their ridiculous, impotent actions,” but also “doing them the biggest favor for which they can hope”: postponing their confrontation with reality. …
That Ammon Bundy and his comrades-in-arms harnessed the threat of bloodshed to intimidate the government—“I came here to die,” said one of the activists, though to date no one in the standoff has been harmed—would seem to qualify them as “domestic terrorists” (albeit not very effective ones).