Let's not pretend Altman is a random innocent bystander.

We may object to someone trying to get him to a state of incandescence as an act of unjustified violence, but Altman is definitely a member of the tech elite, something as close to aristocracy as we have in our times.

How the future will have written the current events, I cannot say.

There's no consensus on the definition of terrorism though, and it's so broad that you could use it for calling any kind of violent protest as terrorism.

A thing to keep in mind: when people feel they have no voice they inevitably will resort to violence for their political aims. It's just a fact that terrorism, in its broadest sense, will happen if powerless people don't see any other possible avenue for their political opinions to be taken into account.

Let's look up the dictionary definition of terror, shall we?

> violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

> especially : violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror

Now, this could apply to, say, US actions in the Middle East, Iranian actions in the Middle East, MAGA riots, these protesters, the anti-Nazi Resistance and Yugoslav Partisans, pro-Nazi violence in pre-Anschluss Austria, the Suffragettes, etc etc.

Which one you cart out the scary label for is merely a reflection of your ideological biases. Amongst the same notes, the radicalization you see in others can be read as a reflection of what has already become normalized in your mind.

For my understanding: aren't "terrorists" meant those who target random bystanders to make a point? In this particular case Altman is no bystander (but his family is).

The reactionary right needs no more feeding, its belly is already full.

I studied history in a state that used to be part of the Nazi empire. I know how they rose to power. The key factor was von Papen, a weak conservative who enabled them, vaguely the equivalent of establishment Republicans today.

I can also tell you that the pre-Weimar warnings ring a bit hollow when we already have some post-Weimar circumstances, like far-right paramilitaries patrolling cities and shooting dissenters.

Political Violence has already undermined law and democracy. Right now, ICE goons are brutalizing a Latino family somewhere. Right now, a war with no democratic backing rages on - a war that has already seen a school bombed.

Why is it that one dude bombing a CEO's house is worthy of so much more condemnation than the above? That, to me, feels like a more interesting question to answer, because of what it says about the ruling ideology and how it's normalized its own violence.

Far left radicalization is necessary to counteract right wing radicalization that directly caused it. The right wing radicalized first and right wing millionaires put a lot of money into supporting that radicalization.

Left wing is just starting to react.