"Stochastic terrorism" - a concept relevant to Trump?

Post Reply New Topic

Until now I was unfamiliar with what the term "stochastic terrorism" meant, so today I looked it up on Wikipedia. Terrorism is an extreme word, not often associated with the behaviour of politicians. Trump is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and it gave me a chill down my proverbial spine. I view Trump as a very dangerous man, without conscience or moral compass. From today I'll add "stochastic terrorist" to my concept of him..

PS.
Sorry, I can't cut and paste the Wikipedia page, laptop is old and inefficient now (rather like myself !

Yeah, it seems appropriate to describe some of his behaviour as such, although I'd associate it more with people like Chaya Raichik and other alt-right ghouls who are more directly involved in the business of peddling moral panics.

Sadly, stochastic terrorism has become the defining characteristic of American conservatism now.

Even convincing the GOP to return to their Bush-era platform would get you labeled a radical leftist.

Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism

I cannot take you seriously. I view your opinion as dangerous to humanity. But only based on facts.

For some people, 'if [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know' isn't stochastic terrorism, but any reporting regarding Trump's dictator-like behaviour most certainly is.

If calling your opponent a threat to America and democracy is stochastic terrorism, then American politicians have been engaging in stochastic terrorism since at least J. Q. Adams vs Andrew Jackson.

Honestly, stochastic terrorism in America predates Independence. If you read the works of people like Patrick Henry, they were not exactly advocating asking the British nicely. What irony that America owes its beloved independence to radicals stirring up public discontent.

In any case. Trump does not get to complain about the press portraying him badly when he has demonized the press since the start of his political career.

After a while, it gets hard to feel sympathy for someone who knowingly and intentionally says noxious, offensive things. It's like Charlie Hebdo viciously demonizing Muslims for years then demanding sympathy when someone shoots up their offices.
That's not even just me as a leftist talking: Trump antagonizes everyone who is not a loud supporter of him personally. Hell, what percentage of the US population DOESN'T have a reason to hate Trump based on things he's said about them? 20%? 10%?
It's like the school bully who constantly runs his mouth then demands sympathy when his smart mouth gets him a broken nose.

In my experience, no one advocates more strongly for civility and non-violence than a bully who just got what he had coming to him. The bullies as well as their spineless enablers. The enablers have to defend the bully, because if too many people decide the bully deserved it, then that is embarrassing for the enablers.
I should know. I once gave a bully what was coming to him, and not one advocate of civility gave a damn about civility until I fought back. This is an autistic forum, so I imagine some of you know whereof I speak.

What are these facts?

Alternative (to) facts ?

1. This fits Donald Trump to a "T" (no pun intended).

2. I had no problem copying the definition from Wikipedia and pasting it here.


 Link to Article 

Yes, although we're probably closer to that than it might seem, the main impediment to that is that the normie Democrats in their fetishization of bipartisanship have moved so far to the right, that there isn't a lot of space for the W style of GOP politician to stand. Or somebody that's actually in some sense moderate.

I hadn't realized it until somebody pointed it out on a different site that the McCarthyism only lasted for a few years before he fell from prominence. You can sort of see that that seems to be happening with Trump as he's having far more trouble filling venues than he did in his previous run and some portion of his 2016 and 2020 supporters seem to have lost faith after what happened on January 6th.

That does not mean that people should take the twin threats to our Democracy any less seriously, but Harris and Trump represent a massive problem, but one of them does represent an easier to explain threat than the other does.

I interpret Trump's twice repeated claim of "if I don't win, there's going to be a blood bath" was not a casual comment, but expressed his hope and intention to incite/encourage far more extreme violence than he did on Jan 6 2021.

Unfortunately the term will eventually be used to describe whatever politics people do not like

You cant play the "both sides game" with this.

Only the GOP is saying "inflamatory things", and are lying to do so. When the Dems say that Trump and his corrupt Supreme Court are a "threat to democracy" its like saying "water is wet". Its just a statement of fact...and it would be criminally negligent of the Dems to NOT say it.

But the two parties COULD still strike a deal.

The deal could go as such:

1)Trump renounces the lie, admits Biden won in 2020 fair and square, and agrees to abide by whichever results the 2024 election delivers (which he might win anyway).

2) In return for one the Dems will stop speaking the truth that "Trump is still a threat to democracy".

3) In return for two the GOP will stop spreading lies like "Haitians eat dogs" and "all immigrants are Hannibal Lector", and childless cat ladies etc.

Trump and Vance defamed Haitian people in Ohio in a very deliberate and inflammatory way and continued to do so long after the officials in Ohio gave assurances that Haitian people were not stealing/killing/eating cats and dogs from Ohio residents. Some Ohio troublemakers who believed the defamation caused/committed violence and made scary threats, which very probably terrorised the Haitians living in Ohio.

An example of Stochastic terrorism? I'm inclined to think so.

Based on this everyone from Sarah Palin, Kyle Rittenhouse, Enrique tarrio, Lauren Boebert, Charlottesville protestors, tucker Carlson and Nigel Farage are all stochastic terrorists. By extension, podcasters like Praeger U, Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Lauren Chen and other right wing apologists have contributed to this phenomena also.