Stochastic Terrorism and Edgelord Humour

[Butter!]

Opposition to people who want to kill millions of their fellow citizens isn’t “edgy”. It’s fundamental to a functioning society.

'k.

 

[Darat]

I don't read what these hate groups write. But how do they propose to kill millions? Are they planning to do it the original Nazi way with trains bringing the millions to gas chambers in concentration camps?

No idea, thankfully you often don't need to read extensively before their wants are revealed.

 

[luchog]

I think it gets even muddier because some people online really are just using edgy humor, while as others are propelled by more sinister motives. Personally, I have no desire to see humor policed. However, with the way things are these days, I find that I personally am less likely to give an edgelord the benefit of the doubt.

I find myself increasingly unable to give edgelords and edgelord humour the benefit of the doubt. At best, it's simply bullying. Disclaimer: I used to be a pretty big proponent of edgelord humour and free-speech extremism, and spent far too many years as a 4Chan /b/tard myself.

Racist, sexist, LGBTQ-phobic humour does not become any less racist, sexist, or LGBTQ-phobic just because someone announces they're "just trolling". It demands that we ask certain questions, ask why this form of humour is being used, what the point is, what the edgelord hopes to accomplish with it.

Three questions that need to be asked, but rarely are (even by those opposed to such):

1) What is the actual goal here? What is the purpose of edgelord humour? Not just the superficial surface purpose, but deeper down, what does it mean and what does it accomplish?

2) Who is the actual target of the edgelord humour? Why are they being targeted? What is it about the target that the edgelord finds objectionable?

3) Why is it necessary to use demeaning and marginalizing language against historically disadvantaged groups? Is there another tactic that would accomplish the ostensible goal without further marginalizing or "othering"? Or is that marginalization part of the point?

I generally find that the true answers to these questions are rarely the glib, dismissive answers that are often given. Almost always, the stated goal is "trolling the libtards". But that does not ring true. If the goal was to satirize or parody liberalism, why not attack liberalism directly? Why do so indirectly by attacking marginalized and oppressed groups? Unless, of course, attacking marginalized and oppressed groups is the point; unless they're as much the intended target as the ostensible "libtards".

And what is it about liberalism that is so objectionable? The desire to include everyone in society as equal participants, regardless of ethnic origin, sexual preference and gender identity, religious belief or lack thereof, and so on? The desire for everyone to have equal access to resources that will help them improve their physical, mental, and economic well-being? What exactly is the objection?

We know for the reactionary right, that the objection is exactly those things, they don't want everyone treated equally, they want to maintain an elitist social hierarchy where some have privileges that others do not, and do not believe in universal human rights. But what about the edgelords, do they also want to maintain that sort of social hierarchy?

It's also possible to be "edgy" without targeting historically marginalized and oppressed groups, it's just more difficult to do so.

 

[luchog]

I'm wary if the term "stochastic terrorism" in the same way I was wary of "fake news". And that was one of the few things I was right about around the time of the election.

"Stochastic terrorism" allows criticism and opposition to be cast as an act of violence.

Well, no, it doesn't. Go and read the actual definition and application of the term. Criticism isn't incitement; although incitement can be and often is couched as criticism. I think we're all familiar with the Just Asking Questions tactic, and the way that anti-Semitism is often disguised as criticism of Israel (which, admittedly, has opened itself up to a great deal of criticism by its recent administration's actions and policies).

But that's where the "plausible deniability" factor comes in. Whenever you hear the Far Right attacking and criticizing "George Soros", looking critically at the context and nature of the attacks will show that doing so is almost invariably an attack on Jews in general, the age-old "Jews running the world behind the scenes" in a new form, with a more deniable face.

If the term gains popularity, it will absolutely be of far most used by the disingenuous right wing to paint their critics as terrorists.

Except that the Right already does this with literally everything else. "Fake News", "political correctness", "media bias", "tolerance", "SJW", and so on. There is nothing that the reactionary right cannot or will not twist into an attack on their opponents. They're very good at that, as the current presidential administration has demonstrated. By refusing to use accurate terminology, and restricting the ability to discuss phenomena because of that, is to play right into their hands, to let them define the nature and scope of the discourse.

I don't read what these hate groups write. But how do they propose to kill millions?

They lay that out pretty clearly in their documentation, and it's the entire subject of this thread discussing stochastic terrorism. Refusal to educate yourself on their tactics and goals just plays their game, gives them the power to define the discourse, and hobbles opposition.

 

[jimbob]

I'm wary if the term "stochastic terrorism" in the same way I was wary of "fake news". And that was one of the few things I was right about around the time of the election.

"Stochastic terrorism" allows criticism and opposition to be cast as an act of violence. If the term gains popularity, it will absolutely be of far most used by the disingenuous right wing to paint their critics as terrorists.

That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Both highlight real strategies, and it's probably better to highlight it rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay people.. at some point the bathwater stops being just dirty and starts being radioactive and we have to at least consider whether or not the baby is worth it, horribleness of that metaphor aside.

 

[Butter!]

Okay people.. at some point the bathwater stops being just dirty and starts being radioactive and we have to at least consider whether or not the baby is worth it, horribleness of that metaphor aside.

Hahaha, oh man, Joe - you win the darkest analogy award.

 

[angrysoba]

But they never took any action.

Another one would be the author of the style guide "This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But that’s neither here nor there" just like he was say a member of ISIS saying the same thing.

I think if you can demonstrate intent then a person doesn’t need to actually have taken any action.

 

[angrysoba]

Okay people.. at some point the bathwater stops being just dirty and starts being radioactive and we have to at least consider whether or not the baby is worth it, horribleness of that metaphor aside.

You get a twofer if it’s baby Hitler.

 

[Vixen]

I don't read what these hate groups write. But how do they propose to kill millions? Are they planning to do it the original Nazi way with trains bringing the millions to gas chambers in concentration camps?

Charles Manson had the fun/edgy thing down to a tee. Murdering so that the killings would be blamed on Blacks who would then start a race war, whilst all the time larking about with Beatles lyrics, such as 'Helter Skelter' graffiti-ed on the walls.

There are people today who admire this stuff.

 

[Vixen]

Demagoguery and "whipping-up" rhetoric have been around forever. What's changed is that there is a better understanding of the psychology of communication, and that is being exploited by the demagogues to further their agenda while maintaining distance from it.

The really disturbing thing is that this is all heavily based in the psychology of marketing. The terrorists have learned how to advertise effectively, and make their calls to action indirect and implied, and thus more effective (along with being deniable).

If you look at the history of advertising, there has been a huge shift in how the communication works, how it's targeted, and how it's structured. The primary emphasis is on association, implication, and emotion rather than factual details. This has become especially true in the age of "viral marketing", where a small amount of effort on the part of the marketer to create "memes" shifts much of the effort off of the marketers themselves, and onto the targets of their marketing, who can be expected to self-market by sharing the memes. The use of humour in viral marketing is one of the most effective techniques for prompting a viral propagation of the advertisement.

This has been picked up on by the Right and Far Right, who have been increasingly effective at implementing this sort of "viral marketing" of their worldview and calls to action.




The Right has always been effective at marketing, because they understand it better than the Left, and their worldview is far more easily adapted to marketing than the Left's worldview.

They key components of the Right's messaging:

1) Abdication of responsibility for one's person circumstances. Despite paying lip service to "personal responsibility", the fundamental goal of the Right is to blame someone or something else for one's own failures and inabiliy to improve one's personal and/or financial status.

2) Scapegoating for social and economic problems. After abdicating responsibility, blame must be cast on another entity. Immigrants, certain ethnic groups (Jews and black people most commonly), homosexuals and transexuals, Muslims, and so on. There must be a convenient marginalized group to make the target of fear and focus of hatred to distract from the true nature and complexity of the problems.

3) Simple answers to complex questions. Humans do not like complexity, complexity is hard and takes considerable effort to understand. People prefer simple answers to the problems of social upheaval, economic instability, and their own sub-optimal life circumstances. Even better if these answers absolve the mainstream of responsibility for their circumstances, and put the blame on someone or something else, as noted in 1 and 2. The ultimate answer is always, "put your trust and support in a strong-man leader, and your problems will be fixed for you".

That is a very simple and easy message to market: It's not your fault, it's this other groups fault, vote for me and I'll punish them and reward you.

The message of the Progressive Left is considerably more complex, depends heavily on people being intelligent and introspective enough to take true responsibility for their circumstances, and understanding the complicated social forces that can stymie personal efforts to improve one's circumstances. It's very difficult to distill into quick-and-dirty sound bites and slogans; and therefore harder to market as effectively as the reactionary worldview.




That is because the Left fetishizes the concept of "tolerance" the same way that centrists and libertarians fetishize the concepts of "free speech" and "liberty" without truly understanding the nature and limitations of those concepts. I've posted this link a number of times, but it continues to be relevant and IMO very important to understand: Tolerance is not a moral precept. It's a peace treaty, not a suicide pact, and once the treaty has been broken by one side ,the other side is no longer obligated to abide by it. "Tolerance of the intolerant" is not a valid expression of the principle, and it is in fact diametrically opposed to the concept of tolerance, because the result is a lessening, not a growth, of tolerance.

It's also extremely boring. It is so mind-numbingly repetitive one goes into automatic heavy eyelid mode.

 

[Mumbles]

...I’ve said before that my favorite podcast has a game called “Guess the Race”, where the host reads news article and asks everyone to...well, guess the race of the people involved.

The key, of course, is the ultimate joke - everyone who plays is a racist. That’s when such jokes work, and don’t sound vindictive, you’re mocking yourself.

Anyway, thanks to luchog for the OP, and I’m wondering if you saw kat Blaque s last video, and faraday speaks’s response?

 

[Stankeye]

- snip-

For more in-depth details on this, I strongly recommend the following two videos, which provide a systematic exploration of the process of radicalization from normalization to direct violent action.

The PewDiePipeline: how edgy humor leads to violence
PewDiePipeline 2: How to Shut it Down
-end snip-

Why do I need to listen to an anarcho-communists who makes videos on how anarchy is going work (who doesn't advocate violence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIn2xR--VYk ) telling me how PewdiePie's edgy humor leads to violence.

This is weird. You were doing better using the FBI and Homeland resources for your research. Maybe with the government being filled with members of the Bourgeoisie they are lacking insight into these existential threats that these other sources seem far better at figuring out.

 

[luchog]

Why do I need to listen to an anarcho-communists who makes videos on how anarchy is going work (who doesn't advocate violence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIn2xR--VYk ) telling me how PewdiePie's edgy humor leads to violence.

This is weird.

No, this is an Ad Hominem Fallacy. Address the points, not the person. Are his points wrong, and if so, how, what evidence is there to contradict them?

You were doing better using the FBI and Homeland resources for your research. Maybe with the government being filled with members of the Bourgeoisie they are lacking insight into these existential threats that these other sources seem far better at figuring out.

My sources are the same as the ones used by the creator of the video, and anyone else doing serious research into the issue.

"The government" is not a monolithic entity, it is a collection of people. Prior to the Trump administration, the FBI took the threats of domestic terrorism as seriously as it did foreign terrorism, and still tries to. But since Trump took office, he and his hand-picked hatchet men have been steadily dismantling the domestic terrorism task forces and documentation. Not surprising to anyone who was paying attention to the campaign, Trump's bigotry, and his affinity for white supremacists and other bigots. He has also actively supported and praised those higher up in the radicalization pipeline, like Fox News pundits like Tucker Carlson, and worse, Breitbart officials like Steve Bannon (before Bannon committed the unpardonable sin of stealing Trump's spotlight).

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/trump-embraces-white-supremacy/579745/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-white-nationalists.html

Not to mention Trump appointing actual white supremacists to high government offices, like Jeff Sessions, a man found to be too racist to be a judge IN ALABAMA! (Yes, I stole that, it was too good not to.) And Michael Flynn, a flaming Islamophobe who openly praised queer neo-Nazi Milo Yiannopoulos. And Larry Kudlow, in tight with VDare owner Peter Brimelow. And Stephen Miller, who authored the racist travel ban and the government's policy of separation of refugee families (with thousands of children still in government custody, many of them kept in cages, treated like animals, and sexually abused, which Miller touts as a "success"), and has tried to get the administration to ban Chinese students from attending American universities. Even the sole black person in Trump's cabinet, Ben Carlson, has gotten into the spreading-white-supremacist-propaganda game on his Twitter.

Then there's Trump's re-tweeting of propaganda from white supremacist groups like Britain First, and White Genocide.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/trump-white-nationalism/568393/

Hell, Trump's own campaign slogans are ripped right out of white supremacist propaganda; such as "America First", which was originally the slogan of the American Nazi Party. And it's painfully obvious what he means by "Make America Great Again", as the polices and propaganda under that umbrella all idealize a period in history when black people and other minorities were violently excluded from mainstream society with the full force of law.

But it's not just Trump. The GOP has long been the party of white supremacists, and their actions pre-Trump are just as egregious, if not as well known. Reports from government agencies that only hinted at links between the increasingly radicalized conservative community, and white nationalist terrorist organizations, have been suppressed or condemned by Republicans. That is, when they're not openly espousing a white supremacist worldview like Iowa congresscritter Steve King.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...cist-terrorism-synagogue-mosque-shooting.html

Government officials are not "lacking insight", they're well aware of the links and the influences. They are also aware of who their base is, who supports and keeps them in office. They may disavow them publicly in occasionally unconvincing ways, but they recognize the power that white supremacists hold in conservative communities, and have at best made a deal with the devil to maintain their own power.

The problem isn't the source of the information, anyone who is doing serious research into the problem of domestic terrorism can easily come to the same conclusions, regardless of whether they're "anarcho-communists", "radical feminists", "libtards", "wishy-washy centrists", or whatever other boogeyman the reactionary-right blames for the ills of the nation. What matters is the validity of the sources and reporting. "Why do I need to listen to an anarcho-communists"? Because in this instance, they have extremely valid and important points to make about the state of racism and terrorism in this nation, and the world.

 

[luchog]

Anyway, thanks to luchog for the OP, and I’m wondering if you saw kat Blaque s last video, and faraday speaks’s response?

I have not, I've been at work with very limited time to watch videos (as opposed to reading news articles and editorials, which is much easier to do while I'm working). Would you happen to have a link handy?

 

[luchog]

Since the founding of America, free speech has seen off:
- Monarchists

Required multiple wars for that to happen, including the American Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812.

- Slavery

Required the American Civil War to abolish slavery politically, numerous violent and non-violent clashes with government forces, piles of legislation and activism. The fight against the attitudes that would like to re-establish slavery is still ongoing to this day.

- Imperialists

Required numerous wars in and outside of the US and still has not been fully accomplished. The US is still an imperialist power which directly or indirectly contributes to the oppression of minorities both domestically and worldwide.

- Nazis

Required a world war and millions of deaths to achieve. Their followers still exist and work to re-establish Nazi worldviews and regimes to this day.

- Communists

Required decades of the Cold War, propaganda efforts, and economic warfare. There are still oppressive communist regimes in the world, and those seeking to establish such regimes in the US to this day.

- Segregationists

See the above comments on Slavery. This is still an ongoing problem in the US, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights era, and continuing today. Attempting to end Segregation has required piles of legislation, and often violent force to enforce that legislation and prevent segregationist efforts. Efforts which are still taking place in much of the country, and still involve violent force.

But there’s no way it can see off internet edgelords. Farewell free speech, you had a good run but it’s time to retire and let ‘approved speakers and boundaries’ have a turn!

None of the problems you listed were "seen off" by "free speech". In each and every case it has been violent force, or the threat of it, often combined with enacting legislation backed with violent force, to address the problem. Which means that if you're insisting on treating edgelord propaganda the same as all of those other problems were treated, then anti-hate-speech legislation, prosecution, and forceful imprisonment would be proportionally justified. Yet you seem to think that proportionate equivalents to the tactics used to resolve or attempt to resolve those other problems don't apply in this specific case. Why is that, I wonder...

 

[Elagabalus]

We should not forget one of the great weapons of plausible deniability: the "rule of so," which enjoyed a short run here.

You need not take responsibility for much of anything if you declare that any conclusions or implications are an inherent fallacy.

There's another one threatening to take its place. I call it "the rule of so analogy."

 

[smartcooky]

Required multiple wars for that to happen, including the American Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812.

Required the American Civil War to abolish slavery politically, numerous violent and non-violent clashes with government forces, piles of legislation and activism. The fight against the attitudes that would like to re-establish slavery is still ongoing to this day.

Required numerous wars in and outside of the US and still has not been fully accomplished. The US is still an imperialist power which directly or indirectly contributes to the oppression of minorities both domestically and worldwide.

Required a world war and millions of deaths to achieve. Their followers still exist and work to re-establish Nazi worldviews and regimes to this day.

Required decades of the Cold War, propaganda efforts, and economic warfare. There are still oppressive communist regimes in the world, and those seeking to establish such regimes in the US to this day.

See the above comments on Slavery. This is still an ongoing problem in the US, from Jim Crow, to the Civil Rights era, and continuing today. Attempting to end Segregation has required piles of legislation, and often violent force to enforce that legislation and prevent segregationist efforts. Efforts which are still taking place in much of the country, and still involve violent force.

None of the problems you listed were "seen off" by "free speech". In each and every case it has been violent force, or the threat of it, often combined with enacting legislation backed with violent force, to address the problem. Which means that if you're insisting on treating edgelord propaganda the same as all of those other problems were treated, then anti-hate-speech legislation, prosecution, and forceful imprisonment would be proportionally justified. Yet you seem to think that proportionate equivalents to the tactics used to resolve or attempt to resolve those other problems don't apply in this specific case. Why is that, I wonder...

Ouch! Talk about blowing up someone's argument!

The term "hoisted by his own petard" comes to mind!

 

[Giz]

Ouch! Talk about blowing up someone's argument!

The term "hoisted by his own petard" comes to mind!

Sigh.

For those who are a bit slow:

Free speech in America was sufficient to rally the people against nazism. That a war was needed for America to stop nazism in a foreign country is hardly the point.

Free speech, in America, has won the debate and rallied a crucial mass on its side in each of the great moral challenges.

 

[luchog]

Sigh.

For those who are a bit slow:

Free speech in America was sufficient to rally the people against nazism. That a war was needed for America to stop nazism in a foreign country is hardly the point.

Free speech, in America, has won the debate and rallied a crucial mass on its side in each of the great moral challenges.

That's quite a feat of combined backpedaling and goalpost moving; you've turned it into an Olympic-level sport.

For a certain person who is ignoring the actual history of WWII: America did not "rally a crucial mass" to support the war in Europe against the Nazis. The war was exceedingly unpopular, the US still recovering from the aftermath of WWI and mired in the Great Depression. The overwhelming majority of the American public opposed getting involved in "another foreign war"; and many of them sympathized with Hitler's Antisemitism and white supremacism, including members of the federal government, and captains of industry like Henry Ford. There was even an American Nazi Party, whose slogan was "America First!" (Now why does that sound familiar...)

What got the American government (not people) involved in the war against the Nazis at all was direct, in-person pleading by Churchill to Roosevelt; who then made a backroom deal known as the Lend-Lease Program to provide vehicles, weapons, and ammunition to England and the Allies to help in the war-effort. All behind the backs of the American public.

America did not change their mind and enter the war fully and officially until the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. It was not "free speech" rallying a "crucial mass" in support of a "great moral challenge". It was, essentially, Japan walking up and sucker-punching us in the face, after which we got back up and proceeded to trade punches until we managed to get in the knockout blow. There was no debate, there was only anger at having been attacked, and the desire for retaliation on the part of the American public.

Attempting to paint this as a "triumph of free speech" is beyond-ludicrously ignorant of history.