- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Stochastic Terrorism
Posted on 12/15/22 at 11:17 am
Posted on 12/15/22 at 11:17 am
Are y’all familiar with the term “stochastic terrorism”? I was not until I came across a twitter thread by James Lindsay today (yes I’ve brought his work to this board multiple times before but I think he’s brilliant).
I will post a link to his Twitter thread and the substack article he references at the bottom of this. But stochastic terrorism can be summed up in the pic below (screenshot from a quote in the article):
Lindsay is stating that tRegime is using rhetoric (and drag shows and whatnot) to incite violence against the LGBT community as a means to stop Elon and regain control of twitter and the narrative - and I’m sure other nefarious means.
I think a lot of posters on this board are generally aware that they are using rhetoric to incite violence, but I wasn’t aware there was a term for it. The substack article is a long read, but a good one. It goes into detail about the history of the term and the game the communists play with their rhetoric. It seems to me that this is how they can get away with calling Antifa just an idea - they incite violence through their rhetoric but it is not a clearly defined organization.
Just wanted to bring further enlightenment on this subject to anyone unaware of it.
Here is a link to his thread:
Twitter
Here is a direct link to the substack article he is referencing:
Substack
I will post a link to his Twitter thread and the substack article he references at the bottom of this. But stochastic terrorism can be summed up in the pic below (screenshot from a quote in the article):
Lindsay is stating that tRegime is using rhetoric (and drag shows and whatnot) to incite violence against the LGBT community as a means to stop Elon and regain control of twitter and the narrative - and I’m sure other nefarious means.
I think a lot of posters on this board are generally aware that they are using rhetoric to incite violence, but I wasn’t aware there was a term for it. The substack article is a long read, but a good one. It goes into detail about the history of the term and the game the communists play with their rhetoric. It seems to me that this is how they can get away with calling Antifa just an idea - they incite violence through their rhetoric but it is not a clearly defined organization.
Just wanted to bring further enlightenment on this subject to anyone unaware of it.
Here is a link to his thread:
Here is a direct link to the substack article he is referencing:
Substack
Posted on 12/15/22 at 11:18 am to FortyCreek
AOC has been using this lately to sound smart.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 11:19 am to FortyCreek
Basically every Democrat in the Summer of 2020...
Posted on 12/15/22 at 11:21 am to FortyCreek
quote:
This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a
video
quote:
This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly,
Hannity, and others do.
I'm sure this is limited to terrorists and conservatives right?
Posted on 12/15/22 at 11:23 am to FortyCreek
And I suppose the solution is to suppress free speech.
Because radical ideas might cause someone to go off.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 11:24 am to aTmTexas Dillo
Basically. The article talks about the asymmetry of it all
Posted on 12/15/22 at 11:27 am to FortyCreek
Thats what the FBI does
Posted on 12/15/22 at 2:45 pm to FortyCreek
Here is a good piece on "stochastic" terrorism.
"I browsed the news recently only to discover that, according to a popular science magazine, I was responsible for the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi, husband to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
In an opinion piece for Scientific American, writer Bryn Nelson insinuated that my factual reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour was an example of “stochastic terrorism,” which he defines as “ideologically driven hate speech” that increases the likelihood of unpredictable acts of violence. On the night of the attack, Nelson argued, I had appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss my reporting, and, hours later, the alleged attacker, David DePape, radicalized by “QAnon” conspiracy theories about “Democratic, Satan-worshipping pedophiles,” broke into the Pelosi residence and attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer.
This is a bizarre claim that, for a magazine supposedly dedicated to “science,” hardly meets a scientific standard of cause and effect. There is no evidence that DePape watched or was motivated by Tucker Carlson’s program; moreover, nothing in my reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour encourages violence or mentions Nancy Pelosi, QAnon, or Satan-worshipping pedophiles. My appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and DePape’s attack against Paul Pelosi are, in reality, two unrelated incidents in a large and complex universe. And Nelson, a microbiologist specializing in human excrement, is full of it.
But Nelson isn’t trying to prove anything in a scientific sense. Under the concept of “stochastic terrorism,” logic, evidence, and causality are irrelevant. Any incident of violence can be politicized and attributed to any ideological opponent, regardless of facts.
The scheme works like this: left-wing media, activists, and officials designate a subject of discourse, such as Drag Queen Story Hour, off-limits; they treat any reporting on that subject as an expression of “hate speech”; and finally, if an incident of violence emerges that is related, even tangentially, to that subject, they assign guilt to their political opponents and call for the suppression of speech. The statistical concept of “stochasticity,” which means “randomly determined,” functions as a catch-all: the activists don’t have to prove causality—they simply assert it with a sophisticated turn of phrase and a vague appeal to probability.
Though framed in scientific terms, this gambit is a crude political weapon. In practice, left-wing media, activists, and officials apply the “stochastic terrorism” designation only in one direction: rightward. They never attribute fire-bombings against pro-life pregnancy centers, arson attacks against Christian churches, or the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice to mere argumentation of left-wing activists, such as, say, opposition to the Court’s decision in Dobbs. In those cases, the Left correctly adopts the principle that it is incitement, rather than opinion, that constitutes a crime—but conveniently forgets that standard as soon as the debate shifts to the movement’s conservative opponents.
In recent years, the Left has not only monopolized the concept of “stochastic terrorism” but also built a growing apparatus for enforcing it. Last year, left-wing organizations and the Department of Justice collaborated on a campaign to suppress parents who oppose critical race theory, under the false claim that sometimes-heated school-board protests were incidents of “domestic terrorism.” Earlier this year, left-wing activists and medical associations called on social media companies and the Department of Justice to censor, investigate, and prosecute journalists who question the orthodoxy of radical gender theory. The obvious goal is to suppress speech and intimidate political opponents. “Stochastic terrorism” could serve as a magic term for summoning the power of the state.
If this process is left unchecked, the consequences will be disastrous. Left-wing NGOs, social media companies, and federal security apparatchiks will gain unprecedented power to police speech and criminalize political opposition. Conservatives and old-line liberals who still care about civil liberties must expose the scheme and work to dismantle the apparatus that supports it. The line of argument is simple: speech is not violence; statistical abstraction is not a substitute for evidence; and free-association fantasies cannot determine guilt. But the politics of fighting back are more complex. It will require dislodging a network of professionals who see the concept of “stochastic terror” as a path to power.
That concept is built on a lie. It deserves to be exposed and discredited.
"I browsed the news recently only to discover that, according to a popular science magazine, I was responsible for the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi, husband to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
In an opinion piece for Scientific American, writer Bryn Nelson insinuated that my factual reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour was an example of “stochastic terrorism,” which he defines as “ideologically driven hate speech” that increases the likelihood of unpredictable acts of violence. On the night of the attack, Nelson argued, I had appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss my reporting, and, hours later, the alleged attacker, David DePape, radicalized by “QAnon” conspiracy theories about “Democratic, Satan-worshipping pedophiles,” broke into the Pelosi residence and attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer.
This is a bizarre claim that, for a magazine supposedly dedicated to “science,” hardly meets a scientific standard of cause and effect. There is no evidence that DePape watched or was motivated by Tucker Carlson’s program; moreover, nothing in my reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour encourages violence or mentions Nancy Pelosi, QAnon, or Satan-worshipping pedophiles. My appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and DePape’s attack against Paul Pelosi are, in reality, two unrelated incidents in a large and complex universe. And Nelson, a microbiologist specializing in human excrement, is full of it.
But Nelson isn’t trying to prove anything in a scientific sense. Under the concept of “stochastic terrorism,” logic, evidence, and causality are irrelevant. Any incident of violence can be politicized and attributed to any ideological opponent, regardless of facts.
The scheme works like this: left-wing media, activists, and officials designate a subject of discourse, such as Drag Queen Story Hour, off-limits; they treat any reporting on that subject as an expression of “hate speech”; and finally, if an incident of violence emerges that is related, even tangentially, to that subject, they assign guilt to their political opponents and call for the suppression of speech. The statistical concept of “stochasticity,” which means “randomly determined,” functions as a catch-all: the activists don’t have to prove causality—they simply assert it with a sophisticated turn of phrase and a vague appeal to probability.
Though framed in scientific terms, this gambit is a crude political weapon. In practice, left-wing media, activists, and officials apply the “stochastic terrorism” designation only in one direction: rightward. They never attribute fire-bombings against pro-life pregnancy centers, arson attacks against Christian churches, or the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice to mere argumentation of left-wing activists, such as, say, opposition to the Court’s decision in Dobbs. In those cases, the Left correctly adopts the principle that it is incitement, rather than opinion, that constitutes a crime—but conveniently forgets that standard as soon as the debate shifts to the movement’s conservative opponents.
In recent years, the Left has not only monopolized the concept of “stochastic terrorism” but also built a growing apparatus for enforcing it. Last year, left-wing organizations and the Department of Justice collaborated on a campaign to suppress parents who oppose critical race theory, under the false claim that sometimes-heated school-board protests were incidents of “domestic terrorism.” Earlier this year, left-wing activists and medical associations called on social media companies and the Department of Justice to censor, investigate, and prosecute journalists who question the orthodoxy of radical gender theory. The obvious goal is to suppress speech and intimidate political opponents. “Stochastic terrorism” could serve as a magic term for summoning the power of the state.
If this process is left unchecked, the consequences will be disastrous. Left-wing NGOs, social media companies, and federal security apparatchiks will gain unprecedented power to police speech and criminalize political opposition. Conservatives and old-line liberals who still care about civil liberties must expose the scheme and work to dismantle the apparatus that supports it. The line of argument is simple: speech is not violence; statistical abstraction is not a substitute for evidence; and free-association fantasies cannot determine guilt. But the politics of fighting back are more complex. It will require dislodging a network of professionals who see the concept of “stochastic terror” as a path to power.
That concept is built on a lie. It deserves to be exposed and discredited.
Posted on 12/15/22 at 2:51 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
AOC, smart
Two words that shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
This post was edited on 12/15/22 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 12/15/22 at 2:54 pm to FortyCreek
"stochastic" infers inclusion of things occurring in the past, that compound with recent occurrences.
It is a math analysis term to me.
But this is exactly what leftist media and politicians are doing. I hear a news report on radio just yesterday that was a repeat of a trial of an attack on a drag queen show.
It attempts to drag the past into the present. So in no way a matter of clarification, but is instead a shaping of the leftists narrative instead. Retroactively with its emphasis.
It is a communist tactic used by our current usurper administration.
President Trump laying out the free speech suite of proposed actions appears to be attached to the kinds of activities and the bullying of the communists.
These are trained marxists that must be stopped
every day. every word. They have already exposed themselves as not having the first bit of interest in doing good for Americans
fits
It is a math analysis term to me.
But this is exactly what leftist media and politicians are doing. I hear a news report on radio just yesterday that was a repeat of a trial of an attack on a drag queen show.
It attempts to drag the past into the present. So in no way a matter of clarification, but is instead a shaping of the leftists narrative instead. Retroactively with its emphasis.
It is a communist tactic used by our current usurper administration.
President Trump laying out the free speech suite of proposed actions appears to be attached to the kinds of activities and the bullying of the communists.
These are trained marxists that must be stopped
every day. every word. They have already exposed themselves as not having the first bit of interest in doing good for Americans
fits
Posted on 12/15/22 at 2:57 pm to JJJimmyJimJames
and how do we know that DePape was not a MAGA terrorist (besides there are not ANY SUCH THING)?
The complicit media - and they depend on the media to be apparatchiks - has not mentioned anything about it for 9 or 10 weeks now
They are doing the same thing with CRT
The complicit media - and they depend on the media to be apparatchiks - has not mentioned anything about it for 9 or 10 weeks now
They are doing the same thing with CRT
Posted on 12/15/22 at 2:58 pm to FortyCreek
It has been the liberal word of the week now for a few weeks. It's funny seeing them cram it into posts left and right, clearly parroting talking points when they all have the same vocabulary.
It's like reading employee reviews of your company. Low rating low rating low rating low rating FIVE STARS. And when you read it, they use terms that your HR department uses in all their useless chatter.
It's like reading employee reviews of your company. Low rating low rating low rating low rating FIVE STARS. And when you read it, they use terms that your HR department uses in all their useless chatter.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News