174
Stochastic Terrorism
(r.50501.chat)
I'm sharing this, as this is a new label to me, and it is good to have a label for what many MAGA influencers are doing.
Stochastic Terrorism refers to public figures using hateful or dehumanizing language to incite violence. They don't give direct instructions, but their words create a dangerous environment in which violence becomes likely.
Graphic source: Noah Chinn
Originally Posted By u/Mondo-Shawan At 2025-09-14 10:55:05 AM | Source
Being concerned about government overreach, you're right, I was out of my mind there, what was I thinking.
The post says “recognize it” not “ban it “
Is your argument here “stop noticing it people!!! That’s what the bad guys want!!! Just ignore the problem!!!”
Because that’s a pretty sketchy argument.
Lol, not at all, and we already noticed this thing for decades and used words and phrases to call it out, this isn't new by any means. You should rightfully call it out. What's new is attaching the word "terrorism" to it and an effort to get people to accept that definition. That has massive legal ramifications. People trying to keep the Dakota Access Pipeline (which has leaked and poisoned the land several times now) from being run through native land, could tell you the ramifications of being labeled an "eco-terrorist", or the people protesting Cop City being built near Atlanta could tell you about being pursued by the government criminally as "domestic terrorists" .
As a person who’s a fan of words I completely disagree.
Using fear as a means of coercion is terrorism by definition.
That’s just how words work.
If you’d like to change how we prosecute different forms of terrorism that’s definitely a talk we should have but the word itself isn’t the issue.
The mob boss who says “it’d be a shame if something happened to your shop” is terrorizing the shop owner.
So is someone threatening to chain themself to a tree but to an obviously less horrific extent.
The words aren’t the problem and attempting to eliminate words is also a tool of fascism.
We need specific terms to describe specific things. This words describes vague threats that we all understand but give some deniability.
You gave an example of a threat. We're talking about encouraging violence from others. All communication is intended to be persuasive. You're arguing semantics in favor of the option that is maximally punative to the little guy. Find an even stronger term to oppose what Kirk stood for, call it evil, call it deserving of violence even, but don't accept this stochastic terrorism phrase. It is already being used against people with no power by the powerful.
The mafia is also “the little guy” btw most gangs as well. The form thru oppression of opportunities.
Little doesn’t mean good
That’s the word. The word “human” is being applied to the little guy and the rich as well. Why? Because it’s the word for it.
My examples were terroristic threats but if you need a 1/1 comparison I go back to the one I used in my other comment “it would be a shame if he had an accident “ everyone knows what the mob boss means. He’s encouraging his henchmen to do violence so he can extort someone.
Same with saying all the stuff Kirk would say, or yes some little guys can be terroristic.
In fact I’ve got some very startling news for you… most terrorist are individual nobodies. They are always the little guy. Isis is awful but they aren’t the “big” guy by anyone’s definition. Little doesn’t mean innocent.
But again my main argument is “sorry that’s what the word means. Sorry if it makes you double plus sad.
You've completely lost the plot of my points, willfully misinterpreted what people colloquially know to be meant as "the little guy" in order to make this about something other than my valid concerns. Take care.
You twisted ops post to make your point. I’m only pointing out this post is fine and good. That’s the plot.
It’s good advice to call people out if they are talking like the post describes.
No twisting on my part, and for the third, fourth time? I agree on calling out bad behavior. My point is specifically about the specific terminology being endorsed and why it is a bad thing to be accustomed to given examples I have already cited.
I don’t like that palm trees aren’t trees. They are a wood like herb. It sucks but that’s what they are. I’m sorry this falls into the definition of the words as described in the dictionary.
They do tho. It’s the word for it.