I guess my question is: who has been advocating for violence against this church or churches like it? I’m not seeing the connection there. Stochastic terrorism is a very nebulous term that could include lots of relatively harmless behavior, so I think it’s only meaningful to criticize it if we can point to specific pro-violence statements aimed at specific groups. Maybe there is some narrative out there that connects the Palestinian liberation movement to this attack but if so I haven’t seen that connection.
Sure, but is that really a good example of stochastic terrorism? The guy blocked a road on a dam. What statements by public figures caused him to do this? And even if they did, blocking a road, though illegal, is a valid form of protest and civil disobedience. I don’t think it qualifies as terrorism—though I have not previously heard of this case so I only know what was in that article.
I’m wary of using this term overly broadly. Any criticism, no matter how mild or constructive could motivate a violent, unhinged person to behave in a violent or unhinged manner. I don’t want to see it spun around and used to silence legitimate criticisms of those in power. So I think it should be restricted to specific criticisms of specific statements. If you want to argue that this event was caused by stochastic terrorism, then I still would like to see which statements by which people you think caused it.
Probably nothing. She’s a crazy lady. But that’s what stochastic terrorism does- gets crazy people to commit violent acts.
I guess my question is: who has been advocating for violence against this church or churches like it? I’m not seeing the connection there. Stochastic terrorism is a very nebulous term that could include lots of relatively harmless behavior, so I think it’s only meaningful to criticize it if we can point to specific pro-violence statements aimed at specific groups. Maybe there is some narrative out there that connects the Palestinian liberation movement to this attack but if so I haven’t seen that connection.
Who advocated for a standoff at the Hoover Dam? No one. Because once you get your message out there, you can’t control what the crazy people who resonate with it will end up doing.
Sure, but is that really a good example of stochastic terrorism? The guy blocked a road on a dam. What statements by public figures caused him to do this? And even if they did, blocking a road, though illegal, is a valid form of protest and civil disobedience. I don’t think it qualifies as terrorism—though I have not previously heard of this case so I only know what was in that article.
I’m wary of using this term overly broadly. Any criticism, no matter how mild or constructive could motivate a violent, unhinged person to behave in a violent or unhinged manner. I don’t want to see it spun around and used to silence legitimate criticisms of those in power. So I think it should be restricted to specific criticisms of specific statements. If you want to argue that this event was caused by stochastic terrorism, then I still would like to see which statements by which people you think caused it.
Are you really that unfamiliar with QAnon? That’s what drove him to do it. QAnon is all about getting crazy people to do violent things.