Anonymous #4 2d

Stochastic terrorism is the public demonization of a person or group through hateful, hyperbolic rhetoric, often via media, that makes violent acts statistically probable but individually unpredictable. It is protected by the First Amendment here in America, but does that make it moral or justifiable?

11

Anonymous #2 2d

Theres nothing inherently immoral about criticism. If you criticize republican political commentators, and Charlie Kirk gets shot, you are not responsible for his death and it doesn’t mean that your criticism is immoral or unjustified.

-3

Anonymous #2 2d

Even immoral or unjust criticism deserves legal protection. Free speech means nothing if it only protects popular speech. And if you let the state decide which speech is acceptable, it will inevitably define morality differently than you do, and almost certainly abuse that power.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

-3

Anonymous #4 2d

notice how it says “hateful, hyperbolic, and demonizing,” there’s a difference between simple criticism and these adjectives that you’re purposefully overlooking

7

Anonymous #4 2d

I agree with this which is why I said it was legal and asked to if it’s morally justifiable instead, the state should not censor speech, but that doesn’t mean all speech is morally justifiable or should be allowed in a basic social setting

7

Anonymous #2 2d

Who decides what is “hateful, hyperbolic, and demonizing”?

-2

Anonymous #4 2d

what would you say fits that criteria? what statements would make you say "that was hateful, hyperbolic, and/or demonizing?

4

Anonymous #4 2d

it’s usually pretty clear For example, how is “Blacks prowling our cities looking for white people to rob and kill” — Charlie Kirk not hateful, hyperbolic, and demonizing?

6

Anonymous #2 2d

Not all opinions are morally justifiable. All opinions should be legally protected. No opinion is terrorism. Labeling opinions as terrorism is Orwellian and implicitly authoritarian.

-3

Anonymous #4 2d

it’s simply a term to describe hateful rhetoric that can encourage lone wolf acts of ideological violence it’s still protected under the First Amendment it doesn’t mean it’s morally justifiable to say shit like, “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America” It is hyperbolic, based on disinformation, and actively demonizes an entire religious group, how does this possibly accomplish anything positive?

1

Anonymous #4 2d

It’s merely a term used to describe certain types of speech describing the harm it can have on minority groups, if Renee Good can be called a “domestic terrorist,” then Charlie Kirk def can be too 😭

0

Anonymous #2 2d

Labeling either of them as domestic terrorists is dangerous and authoritarian.

0

Anonymous #4 2d

Stochastic terrorism is an academic term for speech that promotes violence against targeted groups. It’s not a legal definition and should not be treated as such

6

Anonymous OP 2d

“Stochastic terrorism” is used to label criticism broadly, not just calls to violence. It’s an inherently Orwellian, pro-authoritarian concept, whether it’s used by academics, politicians, or yikyak users.

-5

Anonymous #4 2d

Except that’s just not true lol, anyone using that term for merely criticism is using it wrong as that is not its actual definition

6

Anonymous #2 2d

The definition you provided is so vague and subjective it could apply to any public criticism. Who decides what counts as ‘hateful,’ ‘hyperbolic,’ or ‘demonization’? Can you give an example of public criticism this definition couldn’t be stretched to cover?

-3

Anonymous #4 2d

there is no “authority” to determine it, it’s merely an academic term, but if you literally cannot picture criticism that isn’t hateful, hyperbolic, and demonizing, perhaps constructive truthful criticism that avoids demonizing entire ethnic or religious groups, then I don’t know what to tell you 😭

3

Anonymous #2 2d

Academic terms can still be Orwellian, but let’s be honest, it’s not strictly an academic term. It’s a highly political term that has repeatedly been weaponized by politicians, political commentators, and activists to justify authoritarianism and advocate for the suppression of free speech.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

-2

Anonymous #4 2d

youve said orwellian like 4 times yet you cant say what would make you say "thats hateful, hyperbolic, and/or demonizing" ill propose one to you: if someone said that a specific group of people (jewish people, for instance) have a deliberate plot to undermine and quietly genocide the white populations of the world via targeted mass immigration and replacement and propaganda telling white people to not have kids, would you say that fits this criteria?

8

Anonymous #4 2d

I do think it’s a bad idea to let the state censor speech bc they will inevitably take advantage of that power, but I also think in an ideal world racist and bigoted speech should be illegal The only reason I’m pro-free speech is bc I don’t trust the government, but hateful speech does legitimately harm marginalized groups

0

Anonymous #5 2d

Hateful opinions are not terrorism. I’m not denying that people can say hateful things.

-3

Anonymous #4 2d

no but hateful speech can motivate people to commit acts of terrorism, that’s the entire point of the definition, it can motivate people to commit acts of terrorism by using disinformation as propaganda

10

Anonymous #4 2d

not what i asked. engage with good faith or shut the fuck up

16

Anonymous #2 2d

The people who commit acts of violence are 100% responsible, not those who engage in hateful but fully legal criticism. If the definition exists to shift blame for violence onto people for their opinions, that is Orwellian and authoritarian.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

-2

Anonymous #5 2d

If you can’t figure out what my answer to your question is, thats on you. I’m under no obligation to answer your questions anyways.

-2

Anonymous #4 2d

openly engaging in bad faith. literally having a conversation with a dumpster fire cosplaying as a worthwhile person. nothing you say matters because its deliberately misinterpreting, misrepresenting, ignoring, and misleading when it suits you.

11

Anonymous #4 2d

There’s nothing “Orwellian” about saying people who intentionally convince others to do violence are doing a bad thing and share fault for that violence. That’s just common sense. Orwell would despise you.

12

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2d

orwell would ignore him because theres no reason to acknowledge someone who deliberately obfuscates at every available opportunity

10

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2d

Calls to violence are illegal. Convincing someone to do violence is illegal. Thats very clearly not what “stochastic terrorism” refers to.

-2

Anonymous #4 2d

bad faith, yet again

6

Anonymous #5 2d

Please learn what bad faith means.

-1

Anonymous #4 2d

i explained it numb nuts, but go have a party since you revel in your own bad faith so much

6

Anonymous #4 2d

That is LITERALLY what stochastic terrorism refers to: facially nonviolent speech that is intended to persuade others to commit violence.

5

Anonymous #4 2d

Have you ever heard of the phrase “plausible deniability”? Do you think sometimes people use it in bad faith to communicate an intent without saying it outright and thereby creating liability for themselves?

5

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2d

man im trying to give the hint please stop engaging with this walnut he quite literally does not deserve what little you even care to give

5

Anonymous #5 2d

Yes I’m aware that’s your perspective, and I’m not saying any of this for his benefit. On the off chance people see this thread and read some of it I want to make sure that their tactics don’t go unanswered. Kirk proved how easily influenced college kids can be by confidence and bad logic so I don’t want this guy to get to go unchecked if he finds an audience here at all.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2d

eh fair enough but there is a point of diminishing returns

4

Anonymous #5 2d

That’s valid

3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2d

If someone is encouraging violence while keeping plausible deniability, call it what it is: veiled incitement to violence. Stochastic terrorism, as used in the popular definition that #2 cited, doesn’t require intent, not even veiled intent. It focuses only on effects and statistical risk. That’s exactly why the term gets stretched to cover mere criticism. “might make violence more likely” is unfalsifiable, so it becomes a catch-all smear for any speech you want to delegitimize.

-2

Anonymous #4 2d

The Nazi Party had their own designated propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, who was a large part of their success. People like Kirk’s modern day fascist and nationalistic rhetoric eerily mimics that same sentiment. And shockingly enough, violence has been carried out because of it.

6

Anonymous #8 2d

Which violent act did kirk incite?

-2