Stochastic Terrorism and Edgelord Humour

[I Am The Scum]

In addition to Luchog's point, I'm really wondering what free speech has to do with the rise of Nazism in Germany. Suppose we could go back in time to the 30s and promote some kind of free speech principle to a greater degree. Would that have stopped Hitler's rise to power?

This would imply some kind of belief that, "If not for more people talking about X, then the Holocaust would have never happened," and I honestly cannot imagine what X needs to be for that sentence to be true.

 

[theprestige]

In addition to Luchog's point, I'm really wondering what free speech has to do with the rise of Nazism in Germany. Suppose we could go back in time to the 30s and promote some kind of free speech principle to a greater degree. Would that have stopped Hitler's rise to power?

This would imply some kind of belief that, "If not for more people talking about X, then the Holocaust would have never happened," and I honestly cannot imagine what X needs to be for that sentence to be true.

X = Nazi regime death vans for murdering the infirm to reduce healthcare costs.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

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...

I can see you have great respect for violent action. That does go a long ways towards explaining your belief system.

 

[Puppycow]

So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?

Surely the answer isn't throwing eggs or milkshakes at people?

 

[d4m10n]

So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?

That's what I was wondering.

I suppose the category is a bit too broad for a general answer...?

 

[smartcooky]

So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?

Lock them in their the parents' basements?

 

[Cavemonster]

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.

I think what weaponizes both concepts for use by Trump and his dishonest supporters is partly the catchphrase nature of the phrasing.

We can and absolutely should talk about the phenomena of "fake news" and "stochastic terrorism". But as punchy two word phrases, they become easy tools to dismiss and demonize reporting or to cast the speech of opposition as dangerous violence.

Yes, those are not honest readings of the original intent of the phrases.

Yes, even without those phrases, Trump and his supporters will find other things to spin.

But our thoughtful discussion of these things does not need to happen in catchy phrases. The terms are the bathwater. They're new, they're hardly essential and they're much more useful to the liars than they are to the legitimately concerned.

 

[Giz]

But our thoughtful discussion .

Oh, stop! Oh my aching sides!

 

[Cavemonster]

Oh, stop! Oh my aching sides!

You'll need to fill me in on the joke.

 

[Puppycow]

That's what I was wondering.

I suppose the category is a bit too broad for a general answer...?

To go back to one example from the OP, if we're talking about the Daily Stormer, yeah, probably more should be done to shut that guy down. At a minimum, no companies like Google, Facebook or others should do anything to enable him to get his message out. That means, banning him from using any of their services or resources. I assume that steps have already been taken in that direction though. I'm open to suggestions for other actions that could be taken to make life difficult for him.

 

[uke2se]

To go back to one example from the OP, if we're talking about the Daily Stormer, yeah, probably more should be done to shut that guy down. At a minimum, no companies like Google, Facebook or others should do anything to enable him to get his message out. That means, banning him from using any of their services or resources. I assume that steps have already been taken in that direction though. I'm open to suggestions for other actions that could be taken to make life difficult for him.

After Charlottesville, The Daily Stormer started having trouble finding hosts for their website. They jumped around, being constantly taken down until they found a service provider who was out of reach for Western tech companies.

But the Stormer is just one of many alt-right/Nazi sites. All of them should be treated the way we treated ISIS propaganda.

Preferably, the Nazis themselves should be treated the way we treated ISIS terrorists.

 

[Darat]

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

The quoted example above is in my view clear intent, especially when the context is taken into account.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Not really no. Hitler declaring war on the US is what got us there, even the previous U boat attacks on american shipping didn't do that. And it wasn't enough to give Anne Frank asylum. I know she didn't deserve it and we were right to tell Hitler that no we would not take his jews and he had to find his own solution to the jewish problem.


I get it you don't see the civil war as a violent action as you seem to think that we got rid of slavery with out violence but in reality it was actually pretty violent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?

Surely the answer isn't throwing eggs or milkshakes at people?

The goal is to treat it like the racism(ect.) it is, not write off racism as just "edgelord humor". I know trolling the libs by chanting "6 million more" at a holocaust remembrance event is really really funny and can not be truly shown to come from an antisemitic place but is just basic trolling but still we should treat it as antisemitic.

 

[Mumbles]

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.

It's really more of a "Group X are our enemies and someone should do something about them!" than any criticism. Dolt 45 screeching that the press is "THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!", as one example, is stochastic terrorism, not criticism.

 

[Cavemonster]

It's really more of a "Group X are our enemies and someone should do something about them!" than any criticism. Dolt 45 screeching that the press is "THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!", as one example, is stochastic terrorism, not criticism.

It's not a question of what the term is meant to convey, but how it is likely to be used.

The things they call "Fake news" don't fit the original intended definition either, but the term has been far more effective at rallying Trump supporters and dismissing journalism than it has been as a tool to discuss and warn about actual fake news. In fact, it's use as the former has made it practically useless for the latter.

We would have been better off if original coverage of intentionally misleading stories masquerading as news hadn't been labeled with a two word catchphrase. Going forward, we'd be better off if we don't let a two word catchphrase trend as our way to discuss Trump's thinly veiled calls to violence.

 

[Stout]

Found some "Stochastic Terrorism"

Just dropped in my lap this morning.

Jo Brand told comedy panel show she fantasised about throwing battery acid

 

[luchog]

So what exactly should we do about "edgelord humor" that we aren't already doing?

More of what we are already doing. Deplatforming is an important part of controlling and expressing social disapproval of hate speech; but it isn't being done extensively or consistently enough. To prevent radicalization, it's necessary to break up the radicalization pipeline.

More needs to be done to address the activities of domestic terrorists (you know, the ones that Trump and the bulk of the GOP refused to admit are terrorists), to prosecute them for their hate crimes and incitement to commit hate crimes.

What we aren't already doing, at least not to any significant extent, is addressing the root causes of radicalization, the deeply-ingrained social and governmental structures and worldviews that enable and encourage hate and bigotry.

Surely the answer isn't throwing eggs or milkshakes at people?

It's a valid tactic if they're spewing their hatred and incitement in a public forum without appropriate actions being taken by authorities.

I think that last part is what certain people are failing to understand (possibly deliberately). This is an example of the failure of the system to address deeply ingrained problems of hatred and bigotry, because the system itself is mired in institutionalized hatred and bigotry. When the system fails, it's the onus of the people to address the problem directly, out of simple self-defense if nothing else. Minimalist actions like egging are a way to do that, to express clear social censure without resorting to outright street brawling like the authorities tend to do.

 

[luchog]

We can and absolutely should talk about the phenomena of "fake news" and "stochastic terrorism". But as punchy two word phrases, they become easy tools to dismiss and demonize reporting or to cast the speech of opposition as dangerous violence.

That's a pointless truism, though. Any phrase/slogan/sound bite can be spun and distorted, just like any symbol can be.

The problem is, humans like easy-to-grasp explanations. Describe something in a one or two word term, you have their attention. That's why we have so many words for things, complex concepts referenced quickly and easily. The moment you have to construct a small paragraph to explain what you're talking about, you're going to rapidly lose listeners. The more complex your language, the less effective it is in mass communication. That's a lesson that the Right has learned very well, and the Left has yet to (it doesn't help that the worldview of the Right is much more easily expressed in simple terms, than the worldview of the Left).

That said, it's extremely unlikely that a term like "stochastic" would ever become a popular sound bite for the Right. It's too obscure and intellectual a word. "Fake News" is simple, clear, and uses commonplace words that everyone is familiar with. "Stochastic" is not on that level, and I can guarantee that very few people outside academia would be at all familiar with it and what it means. It would simply fail to resonate with anyone outside of a tiny handful of intellectuals.

Unfortunately, that also plays against it being a good sound bite for the Left as well; but it's better than having to deliver a huge paragraph-long explanation of the concept every time one wants to address it.

 

[Mumbles]

It's not a question of what the term is meant to convey, but how it is likely to be used.

The things they call "Fake news" don't fit the original intended definition either, but the term has been far more effective at rallying Trump supporters and dismissing journalism than it has been as a tool to discuss and warn about actual fake news. In fact, it's use as the former has made it practically useless for the latter.

We would have been better off if original coverage of intentionally misleading stories masquerading as news hadn't been labeled with a two word catchphrase. Going forward, we'd be better off if we don't let a two word catchphrase trend as our way to discuss Trump's thinly veiled calls to violence.

Other examples include:

Jordan Peterson's freakout over trans people being added to Canada's nondiscrimination law.

Gamergate's freakout over Anita Saarkesian's videos (they're mad that the newest Animal Crossing let's you select a skin color now);

"Guys, don't do that.";

A majority of "reporting" at Breitbart, Townhall, WorldnetDaily, etc.;

the wild misunderstanding of the following words: "triggered", "safe space", "Intersectionality" or "whiteness" - and the insistence that "students" are being "indoctrinated" to hate cis straight white men;

Most videos by youtubers like Chris Ray Gun, Sargon of Akkad, Thequartering, Steve Crowder, Paul Joseph Watson, and so forth.

Yes, we know, they have an industry centered around telling lonely and angry young white men that "the left" hates them and is out to destroy them. That's exactly the point, they do it regardless if they can. And part of the problem is that "edgelord" humor, often little more than spewing insults and slurs, plays a major role is this remarkably aggrieved and oversensitive group, and looks at what that role is and how to counter it.