It's not "my designated" definition. It's the one in the dictionary. And my implication was that even when I or you agree with the goals of an organization, when what they're doing is "terrorizing" people, then they are terrorists.
I know it's uncomfortable to think that we might side with the terrorists, god knows we've been conditioned by countless hours in counter-strike to think they're the bad guys, but sometimes that's what we feel, and we should make peace with that. It's OK to agree with the goals, but disagree with the means.
Literally no one uses the dictionary, including for the word “literally”
Also you’re trying to normalize the government definition. That’s not going to happen.
Instead, you’re going to take the side of the “terrorosts”. You’re going to define them as a military instead of a terrorist group. You’re going to see their actions on October 7 and elsewhere as legitimate military tactics, since that’s what they are.
Everybody else in the world does. I would suggest you catch up.
Please don't comment in the flamewar style on Hacker news. We want HN to be a place where people can discuss difficult topics, but that requires people to heed the guidelines and comment respectfully. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Wouldn't that definition then include, say, riot police at any protest, or USA in the Iraq war, or say, Israel when they bomb homes in Gaza? That's a definition that seems like it would fit an incredible number of uses of violence.
