Should "stochastic terrorism" be recognized as a serious cause for concern?

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Trump-Vance lies stigmatizing the Haitian community may be a passing news story for the vast majority of us, and it's almost inconceivable to me that some insist MAGA hate speech plays no role in spurring such developments as ...

Axios: Ohio city at center of pet eating rumor receives bomb threats​

Springfield City Hall in Ohio was evacuated Thursday in response to a bomb threat as the city is at the center of a conspiracy theory accusing Haitian migrants of eating pets that former President Trump and others shared.​

​

The big picture: Trump shared the rumor on national television during Tuesday's presidential debate, but it had gained traction online via social media posts from right-wing influencers and GOP vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio).​

• A bomb threat was issued to "multiple facilities throughout Springfield," the city said in a social media statement. It's unclear whether the threats are connected to the conspiracy theory.
• Local officials have said there is no evidence or reports of anyone eating pets, and Vance acknowledged in his post on X that "it's possible" the rumors will turn out to be false.

The hoopla will soon die down. We'll move on to discussing the news focus of the day.

The men, women, and children in the Haitian community will not have that option. That's a problem.

But it's not the only problem. Equally serious, if not more so, is that hate speech is becoming increasingly normalized, while subsequent heinous, far reaching acts are too often dismissed as coincidental -- the response du jour being some form of "correlation causation."

Wikipedia defines Stochastic terrorism as:

Stochastic terrorism is political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric which is directed at a group or an individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, stochastic terrorism is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.[1] A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric.[2] [source]​

In November 2022, an opinion piece in Scientific American noted:

Dehumanizing and vilifying a person or group of people can provoke what scholars and law enforcement officials call stochastic terrorism, in which ideologically driven hate speech increases the likelihood that people will violently and unpredictably attack the targets of vicious claims.​

​

At its core, stochastic terrorism exploits one of our strongest and most complicated emotions: disgust. [source]​

It takes a special kind of sycophant to deny that Trump is weaponizing disgust. Still, I wonder how seriously people take this phenomenon of stochastic terrorism.

Please note that the poll asks a binary question. Please vote, and feel free to add your "yes, but" or "no, and" commentary as you wish.

 

[Pogo]

The Trump-Vance lies stigmatizing the Haitian community may be a passing news story for the vast majority of us, and it's almost inconceivable to me that some insist MAGA hate speech plays no role in spurring such developments as ...

Axios: Ohio city at center of pet eating rumor receives bomb threats​

Springfield City Hall in Ohio was evacuated Thursday in response to a bomb threat as the city is at the center of a conspiracy theory accusing Haitian migrants of eating pets that former President Trump and others shared.​

​

The big picture: Trump shared the rumor on national television during Tuesday's presidential debate, but it had gained traction online via social media posts from right-wing influencers and GOP vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio).​

• A bomb threat was issued to "multiple facilities throughout Springfield," the city said in a social media statement. It's unclear whether the threats are connected to the conspiracy theory.
• Local officials have said there is no evidence or reports of anyone eating pets, and Vance acknowledged in his post on X that "it's possible" the rumors will turn out to be false.

The hoopla will soon die down. We'll move on to discussing the news focus of the day.

The men, women, and children in the Haitian community will not have that option. That's a problem.

But it's not the only problem. Equally serious, if not more so, is that hate speech is becoming increasingly normalized, while subsequent heinous, far reaching acts are too often dismissed as coincidental -- the response du jour being some form of "correlation causation."

Wikipedia defines Stochastic terrorism as:

Stochastic terrorism is political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric which is directed at a group or an individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, stochastic terrorism is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.[1] A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric.[2] [source]​

In November 2022, an opinion piece in Scientific American noted:

Dehumanizing and vilifying a person or group of people can provoke what scholars and law enforcement officials call stochastic terrorism, in which ideologically driven hate speech increases the likelihood that people will violently and unpredictably attack the targets of vicious claims.​

​

At its core, stochastic terrorism exploits one of our strongest and most complicated emotions: disgust. [source]​

It takes a special kind of sycophant to deny that Trump is weaponizing disgust. Still, I wonder how seriously people take this phenomenon of stochastic terrorism.

Please note that the poll asks a binary question. Please vote, and feel free to add your "yes, but" or "no, and" commentary as you wish.

Yes and the practice always has been a serious cause for concern, it is just the name that is new.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'd rather see things sorted on a case by case basis. Void of allegations and self conclusion.

 

[Augustus]

It there is such a thing as “Stochastic terrorism” then I’d say the rhetoric from the anti Trump faction must certainly also qualify (and someone has tried to assassinate him).

If he is indeed a fascist and an existential threat to democracy this is far worse than “eating the cats” and far more worthy of violent actions to prevent.

I can’t see how one side is guilty of ST, but the other side isn’t.

Same with something like the Israel Palestine conflict. It’s just bitter polarisation.

I agree bitter polarisation may lead to violence on both sides, but find the concept of ST to not really add anything of value beyond that basic truth.

Also very concept of ST arguably legitimises violence against the “terrorists”, so itself becomes a form of ST.

 

[Pogo]

Also very concept of ST arguably legitimises violence against the “terrorists”, so itself becomes a form of ST.

I think you misunderstood the point of what Stochastic terrorism is. It is the indirect incitement to violence.
"Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome prince" IIRC

 

[Twilight Hue]

It there is such a thing as “Stochastic terrorism” then I’d say the rhetoric from the anti Trump faction must certainly also qualify (and someone has tried to assassinate him).

If he is indeed a fascist and an existential threat to democracy this is far worse than “eating the cats” and far more worthy of violent actions to prevent.

I can’t see how one side is guilty of ST, but the other side isn’t.

Same with something like the Israel Palestine conflict. It’s just bitter polarisation.

I agree bitter polarisation may lead to violence on both sides, but find the concept of ST to not really add anything of value beyond that basic truth.

Also very concept of ST arguably legitimises violence against the “terrorists”, so itself becomes a form of ST.

I'd say a fair number of the left wing isn't really that bright enough to realize that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It there is such a thing as “Stochastic terrorism” then I’d say the rhetoric from the anti Trump faction must certainly also qualify (and someone has tried to assassinate him).

If he is indeed a fascist and an existential threat to democracy this is far worse than “eating the cats” and far more worthy of violent actions to prevent.

I can’t see how one side is guilty of ST, but the other side isn’t.

Would it be "stochastic terrorism" if it were accurate, though? Would it be "stochastic terrorism" to say that Putin is a warmonger and violent dictator? That description may inspire a lot of hatred and anger against him—and it already has—but if it's accurate, can it be fairly put in the same category as something like unevidenced rumors that stir up hatred and threats against, say, a community of a given religious or ethnic group?

Same with something like the Israel Palestine conflict. It’s just bitter polarisation.

I think the bitter polarization in that case is mainly a symptom rather than a cause of the existent issues. There's also bitter polarization surrounding many aspects of pretty much any war or conflict, but that often doesn't entail that some people's positions on many or most of those aspects, despite being polarized, won't still be either more valid or less valid than others', as in the case of the Russo-Ukrainian war, among many others, hence the example I asked about above regarding Putin.

It seems to me that polarization per se only reveals that someone is highly dedicated to a position, sometimes to the point of extreme zeal and tribalism, but it doesn't necessarily say anything about the validity of that position—and I suspect that the question of validity would probably be a major factor in determining whether an expression of contempt could qualify as "stochastic terrorism."

Not that I believe the term is helpful or use it myself; I'm just trying to follow the reasoning behind it and push that logic to its conclusion. I see it as having a flawed premise (that certain expressions of hatred should be called "terrorism" in the first place, "stochastic" or not), but if one somehow grants or accepts that premise, the logic seems to me to flow mostly coherently afterward.

I agree bitter polarisation may lead to violence on both sides, but find the concept of ST to not really add anything of value beyond that basic truth.

Also very concept of ST arguably legitimises violence against the “terrorists”, so itself becomes a form of ST.

I agree the term doesn't add anything of value, and I think it can be especially susceptible to abuse because, among other things, it would be easy to draw a fallacious but simple straight line from someone's expression of contempt for a person to blaming the critic if the target of their contempt got physically threatened or attacked. I think laws against incitement and hate speech already cover the grounds that "stochastic terrorism" as a term supposedly covers.

 

[PureX]

I think we need to educate our young people to recognize these kinds of informational manipulations. And to be willing to 'call it out' when they see it. Although, to be honest, I think the youngsters are probably far more savvy about it than older people that did not grow up with all the internet and media hyperbole.

Speaking freely is important, but thinking freely is far more important.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not heard the term used this way before. As it is usually used to describe a random dispersed distribution or pattern...
But used to describe this particular distribution of terrorism, it is both appropriate and very dangerous.
Trump uses this method to both separate himself from, but instigate and encourage his followers in to criminal action. It should be recognised by law makers and enforcers for what it Is. Laws should be revised to make it punishable in the same way as direct instigators of crime.

 

[Secret Chief]

I should hope that it is a serious cause for concern. The problem of course lies within a defining feauture of it: deniability.

Hey, I didn't mean actual bullets, I meant word bullets.

Yeah, sure you did.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The Trump-Vance lies stigmatizing the Haitian community may be a passing news story for the vast majority of us, and it's almost inconceivable to me that some insist MAGA hate speech plays no role in spurring such developments as ...

Axios: Ohio city at center of pet eating rumor receives bomb threats​

Springfield City Hall in Ohio was evacuated Thursday in response to a bomb threat as the city is at the center of a conspiracy theory accusing Haitian migrants of eating pets that former President Trump and others shared.​

​

The big picture: Trump shared the rumor on national television during Tuesday's presidential debate, but it had gained traction online via social media posts from right-wing influencers and GOP vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio).​

• A bomb threat was issued to "multiple facilities throughout Springfield," the city said in a social media statement. It's unclear whether the threats are connected to the conspiracy theory.
• Local officials have said there is no evidence or reports of anyone eating pets, and Vance acknowledged in his post on X that "it's possible" the rumors will turn out to be false.

The hoopla will soon die down. We'll move on to discussing the news focus of the day.

The men, women, and children in the Haitian community will not have that option. That's a problem.

But it's not the only problem. Equally serious, if not more so, is that hate speech is becoming increasingly normalized, while subsequent heinous, far reaching acts are too often dismissed as coincidental -- the response du jour being some form of "correlation causation."

Wikipedia defines Stochastic terrorism as:

Stochastic terrorism is political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric which is directed at a group or an individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, stochastic terrorism is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.[1] A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric.[2] [source]​

In November 2022, an opinion piece in Scientific American noted:

Dehumanizing and vilifying a person or group of people can provoke what scholars and law enforcement officials call stochastic terrorism, in which ideologically driven hate speech increases the likelihood that people will violently and unpredictably attack the targets of vicious claims.​

​

At its core, stochastic terrorism exploits one of our strongest and most complicated emotions: disgust. [source]​

It takes a special kind of sycophant to deny that Trump is weaponizing disgust. Still, I wonder how seriously people take this phenomenon of stochastic terrorism.

Please note that the poll asks a binary question. Please vote, and feel free to add your "yes, but" or "no, and" commentary as you wish.

I think that what is typically called "stochastic terrorism," which is dehumanization and vilification contributing to threats or violence against a person or people, is a serious cause for concern, but I disagree with calling it "stochastic terorrism" rather than "hate speech," "incitement," or any other term that may apply to a given case. If it is "stochastic," it is not terrorism. If it is terrorism, it is deliberate, specific, and unambiguous enough not to be stochastic.

Furthermore, establishing a causal link between an expression of contempt, even a dehumanizing one, and a crime can be quite difficult, and I don't think it would help society at all if it became normalized to call people "terrorists," even with the "stochastic" prefix, based not necessarily on a well-evidenced link but their own opinion or assertion that such a link exists. I'm partially looking at this through the lens of being familiar with certain countries where "blasphemy" is treated as "incitement against public order"—where a "blasphemer" may be blamed for the actions of a violent mob attacking people or vandalizing property in outrage. I think the term "terrorism" is extremely powerful and should be used with immense caution.

I votes "Yes," and "Other" would have been a much more fitting choice for my opinion on this.

 

[Augustus]

Would it be "stochastic terrorism" if it were accurate, though? Would it be "stochastic terrorism" to say that Putin is a warmonger and violent dictator? That description may inspire a lot of hatred and anger against him—and it already has—but if it's accurate, can it be fairly put in the same category as something like unevidenced rumors that stir up hatred and threats against, say, a community of a given religious or ethnic group?

A lot of stuff isn’t objectively accurate though, it is subjective evaluation that may be based on some degree of fact but tends towards the hyperbolic.

I would not say it is a fact that Trump is a “fascist” for example, and it’s still common for people to claim he praised Nazis as fine people (which is not true).

Another example topical to eating the cats.

The Daily Mail years ago had a headline that was something like “Gypsy immigrants kill and eat the Queen’s swans”.

iirc, there were photos, they were Gypsies and technically all swans in Britain are property of the monarch. As such it was true.

Would that framing make it ST though?

I agree the term doesn't add anything of value, and I think it can be especially susceptible to abuse because, among other things, it would be easy to draw a fallacious but simple straight line from someone's expression of contempt for a person to blaming the critic if the target of their contempt got physically threatened or attacked. I think laws against incitement and hate speech already cover the grounds that "stochastic terrorism" as a term supposedly covers.

The “words are violence” type arguments are often made by people who consider themselves “on the right side of history”.

For me they are just further examples of the overall trend they claim to be critiquing from outside.

“It’s ok when we do it because we are right!” can be a very dangerous logic.

 

[Heyo]

The Trump-Vance lies stigmatizing the Haitian community may be a passing news story for the vast majority of us, and it's almost inconceivable to me that some insist MAGA hate speech plays no role in spurring such developments as ...

Axios: Ohio city at center of pet eating rumor receives bomb threats​

Springfield City Hall in Ohio was evacuated Thursday in response to a bomb threat as the city is at the center of a conspiracy theory accusing Haitian migrants of eating pets that former President Trump and others shared.​

​

The big picture: Trump shared the rumor on national television during Tuesday's presidential debate, but it had gained traction online via social media posts from right-wing influencers and GOP vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio).​

• A bomb threat was issued to "multiple facilities throughout Springfield," the city said in a social media statement. It's unclear whether the threats are connected to the conspiracy theory.
• Local officials have said there is no evidence or reports of anyone eating pets, and Vance acknowledged in his post on X that "it's possible" the rumors will turn out to be false.

The hoopla will soon die down. We'll move on to discussing the news focus of the day.

The men, women, and children in the Haitian community will not have that option. That's a problem.

But it's not the only problem. Equally serious, if not more so, is that hate speech is becoming increasingly normalized, while subsequent heinous, far reaching acts are too often dismissed as coincidental -- the response du jour being some form of "correlation causation."

Wikipedia defines Stochastic terrorism as:

Stochastic terrorism is political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric which is directed at a group or an individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, stochastic terrorism is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.[1] A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric.[2] [source]​

In November 2022, an opinion piece in Scientific American noted:

Dehumanizing and vilifying a person or group of people can provoke what scholars and law enforcement officials call stochastic terrorism, in which ideologically driven hate speech increases the likelihood that people will violently and unpredictably attack the targets of vicious claims.​

​

At its core, stochastic terrorism exploits one of our strongest and most complicated emotions: disgust. [source]​

It takes a special kind of sycophant to deny that Trump is weaponizing disgust. Still, I wonder how seriously people take this phenomenon of stochastic terrorism.

Please note that the poll asks a binary question. Please vote, and feel free to add your "yes, but" or "no, and" commentary as you wish.

It should be a serious cause of concern, especially, as @PureX and @Secret Chief have pointed out, it is a serious threat to freedom of speech, if we overreact. It's in the nature of stochastic terrorism that it can't be easily litigated, like incitement of violence can be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In India, freedom of speech does not go that far. The creators of such rumors are punishable by law, promoting hatred between groups of people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There was another bomb threat that closed the school for a second day so, yes, it is a concern.

 

[Augustus]

I think you misunderstood the point of what Stochastic terrorism is. It is the indirect incitement to violence.
"Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome prince" IIRC

Yes, that’s exactly the point.

What constitutes an “indirect incitement to violence” (and it need not be intentional to be ST)?

Saying “person X is trying to get us/folk we identify with killed” can be seen as justifying reciprocal violent action against person X in a way that calling them say an ignorant bigot does not.

You cannot call someone a stochastic terrorist without potentially “indirectly inciting violence” against them.

What better legitimises violence against a person than the idea they are trying to kill others?

 

[Pogo]

There was another bomb threat that closed the school for a second day so, yes, it is a concern.

See more evidence for Trump that Haitians are destroying our country.

Think he will do anything about it.
No, not his responsibility, that lousy Senator Brown should have done something when tRump wanted to end the protected status of Haitians.
Now the problem will be solved when we have another

Joseph N. Welch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

to ask If we have a sense of decency.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In the UK using social media to rile up and encourage criminal behaviour has been successfully prosecuted in court with fairly long prison sentences given. It is no different to doing the same encouragement in person. However the result can be different as the person doing the actual act can be entirely random and unknown to the instigator.

It is much the same as that the accomplice or instigator to a murder is also guilty of that murder and carries the same sentence.

 

[Tomef]

I'd rather see things sorted on a case by case basis. Void of allegations and self conclusion.

Trump’s appeals to stupidity are designed to overwhelm any kind of reasonable response. Similar to his tactic of not paying contractors, knowing they can’t afford the protracted legal pursuit of due payments.

 

[Secret Chief]

In the UK using social media to rile up and encourage criminal behaviour has been successfully prosecuted in court with fairly long prison sentences given. It is no different to doing the same encouragement in person. However the result can be different as the person doing the actual act can be entirely random and unknown to the instigator.

It is much the same as that the accomplice or instigator to a murder is also guilty of that murder and carries the same sentence.

Click the "Online offences" tab:

Who are the rioters and what jail sentences have they received?

"The violence, in towns and cities across England and in Northern Ireland, was fuelled by misinformation online"