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
You must log in or # to comment.
Charlie Kirk comitted suicide by proxy through fomenting stochastic terrorism. His words directly led to his death.
It’s the old mafia movie trope
“Be a shame if an accident should befall him”
“Understood boss “
And much like that vague mafia way of speaking… no one is confused about the meaning. The boss can say “hey! I didn’t say kill him!”
Yeah you did. You don’t say the exact words but the meaning was perfectly clear to you and everyone else who hears it.
Complete and utter nonsense propaganda. This term is an invention of the state to facilitate censorship. At this very moment Trump and his regime, and the powers behind them , are working to get people banned off all social media permanently, arrested, and/or deported for saying hateful things about the Kirk death or things they feel contributed to the environment enabling the death, using THIS EXACT LINE OF REASONING.
Remember, the moment you accept words are violence, the ruling party will determine any words they don’t like are violence, and you will be oppressed. The Biden regime tried it too. Everyone has their pet cultural issues they want to see protected, but the grass roots leftists, get censored by both the big parties, so in general any victory for censorship will be a defeat for democracy and transparency.
If you push for the government or businesses to control speech, that same power will be used against you, if not by the current regime, then the next one. Freedoms once given up are incredibly hard to get back.
Is “the state” in the room with us right now?
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.
Can we utilize stochastic terror against Nazis? If anyone reading this is suicidal, first, please don’t do it. If you’re determined though, just saying, dead Nazis make the world a better place.
Can we not use the word stochastic here? This has nothing to do with random processes.
