A lot of heated rhetoric surrounding the Austin bomber--who thankfully won't be hurting anyone anymore--and whether or not he was a terrorist. I teach classes on terrorism, and here's a thread why it's unclear (based on what we know now) and why the classification matters. 1/x
-
-
but, thanks for sharing this thread. Very informative and the class sound really interesting. Lotsa themes overlap with my teaching on serial killers & mass shooters. Would love to chop it up some day about overlapping interests.
-
That'd be really interesting for me too. I know much more about terrorists than I do about serial killers.
-
ditto--i know more about gangs, mass shooters, serial killers than terrorists. Maybe a collabo some day! =)
-
Sounds good to me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yea, most definitely. I'd also push back a little on the characterization of gang violence as "personal", as academics often think of gang shootings can be done for the goal of expanding drug territory or even "sending a message"...and aren't all done for personal revenge.
-
That's personal in the sense that it's aiming for personal enrichment, glory, turf, etc. They're not trying to reshape society.
-
Hmm, they're trying to reshape their neighborhoods and the balance of power b/w rival gangs. I see a lot of gang conflict as a micro-political struggle. Of course vendettas matter & so do personal gains, but "set allegiance" in some ways is not that different from radicalization
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.