Stochastic Terrorism and Edgelord Humour

[luchog]

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;

And that's the problem with any terminology, the "other side" will always try to appropriate and mis-use it. There is literally nothing that is not vulnerable to that, regardless of what it is. Stuff like "triggered" and "safe space" is more vulnerable, just because of their simplicity, which means that they're easier for the target audience to misuse.

 

[bruto]

And that's the problem with any terminology, the "other side" will always try to appropriate and mis-use it. There is literally nothing that is not vulnerable to that, regardless of what it is. Stuff like "triggered" and "safe space" is more vulnerable, just because of their simplicity, which means that they're easier for the target audience to misuse.

All you really have to do is to label a thing as bad, and it's bad even if it's good. Charitable to the wrong people? Just a do-gooder! Fight for civil rights and equality for the wrong people? Just another SJW! Speak out against the wrong evil? Nothing but a "virtue signaler." Of course that only applies to you, and not to me. My motives are pure and my acts admirable. If you shoot me, I'm a martyr. If I shoot you, you're just a crisis actor. When you lie, it's just a despicable falsehood. When I lie, my statement has a lot of moving parts that need to be unpacked or unwrapped.

I'm reminded of my old history of philosophy. When C.S. Peirce invented the term "pragmatism," it was co-opted by others, including William James, who expanded it in ways Peirce did not approve of. Peirce changed his theory to "pragmaticism," on the grounds that the term was ugly enough to be safe from hijacking.

 

[luchog]

A When I lie, my statement has a lot of moving parts that need to be unpacked or unwrapped.

"Alternative Facts"

I'm reminded of my old history of philosophy. When C.S. Peirce invented the term "pragmatism," it was co-opted by others, including William James, who expanded it in ways Peirce did not approve of. Peirce changed his theory to "pragmaticism," on the grounds that the term was ugly enough to be safe from hijacking.

Which is part of the reason I'm sure "stochastic terrorism" is safe from the fascist-wannabes. They have no problem labeling anyone on the left as a plain-and-simple terrorist already (Leftists are the True Terrorists, just like White People are the True Victims), and adding fancy words to that would just confuse their audience.

 

[arthwollipot]

Found some "Stochastic Terrorism"

Just dropped in my lap this morning.

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

That strikes me more on the "Edgelord Humour" end rather than the "Stochastic Terrorism" end.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

"Alternative Facts"




Which is part of the reason I'm sure "stochastic terrorism" is safe from the fascist-wannabes. They have no problem labeling anyone on the left as a plain-and-simple terrorist already (Leftists are the True Terrorists, just like White People are the True Victims), and adding fancy words to that would just confuse their audience.

It’s interesting that you believe that stochastic terrorism would never be used intentionally by the right but why would stochastic terrorism be safe from appropriation on the right? You see the same tactics being used—disseminate a simple message that the bad things in your life aren’t your fault and deflecting the blame for them onto some other boogie man coming from the left all the time.

We see this in action time and time again when it comes to Muslim extremists—blame the west for the failings of Islamic culture which then inspires the “lone wolf” who has nothing to lose by blowing himself up. Sure, there is a lot of organized Islamic bloodshed but this stochastic terrorism is behind many seemingly random attacks. Stochastic terrorism is also a good explanation for all these disgruntled minority mass shootings that have become so popular lately. People like the al sharp tons and Jessie Jacksons of the world telling non whites that there’s nothing wrong with their work ethic or their lack of education. They aren’t the reason they don’t succeed n life. It’s racism and bigotry from the white man that keeps them from achieveing. Black people hear this often enough and some of them get triggered into reacting violently.

Yes, it is a problem but your proposed solution—shutting down BLM and other domestic terrorist organizations and keeping people who promote anti white hatred from having a voice is going to end up shutting down all speech that doesn’t conform to some boring middle ground.

 

[Stout]

That strikes me more on the "Edgelord Humour" end rather than the "Stochastic Terrorism" end.

I agree however this is the UK which has rather enthusiastic laws against such humour. Now Brand is in the same category as Count Dankula and it'll be interesting to see if she actually gets arrested and convicted due to the complaints to police about her humour.

 

[Darat]

I agree however this is the UK which has rather enthusiastic laws against such humour. Now Brand is in the same category as Count Dankula and it'll be interesting to see if she actually gets arrested and convicted due to the complaints to police about her humour.

Have we?

 

[Stout]

Have we?

What yes, yes you do. The fact that Jo Brand is being investigated by the police should be a strong indication of that. Now given that acid attacks in London have increased six-fold in the past 6 years we might just have us a case of that stochastic terrorism that this thread is about.

 

[sphenisc]

Brand needs to realise that it doesn’t have to be high-level for politicians to feel under siege in somewhere like the House of Commons. Actually, for politicians if you’re constantly being harassed, even in a small way, that builds up and that wears you down.

 

[Darat]

What yes, yes you do. The fact that Jo Brand is being investigated by the police should be a strong indication of that. Now given that acid attacks in London have increased six-fold in the past 6 years we might just have us a case of that stochastic terrorism that this thread is about.

Can you point out these laws?

Regarding the police a number of complaints were made, given the high public awareness of this the police pretty much have to look into it. That is one of their major functions I.e. to investigate if a crime has been committed.

Given what was said there isn't any grounds for a hate speech prosecution. It may be there are grounds for it being treated as incitement however given the context I doubt that would be the case.

 

[bruto]

It’s interesting that you believe that stochastic terrorism would never be used intentionally by the right but why would stochastic terrorism be safe from appropriation on the right? You see the same tactics being used—disseminate a simple message that the bad things in your life aren’t your fault and deflecting the blame for them onto some other boogie man coming from the left all the time.

We see this in action time and time again when it comes to Muslim extremists—blame the west for the failings of Islamic culture which then inspires the “lone wolf” who has nothing to lose by blowing himself up. Sure, there is a lot of organized Islamic bloodshed but this stochastic terrorism is behind many seemingly random attacks. Stochastic terrorism is also a good explanation for all these disgruntled minority mass shootings that have become so popular lately. People like the al sharp tons and Jessie Jacksons of the world telling non whites that there’s nothing wrong with their work ethic or their lack of education. They aren’t the reason they don’t succeed n life. It’s racism and bigotry from the white man that keeps them from achieveing. Black people hear this often enough and some of them get triggered into reacting violently.

Yes, it is a problem but your proposed solution—shutting down BLM and other domestic terrorist organizations and keeping people who promote anti white hatred from having a voice is going to end up shutting down all speech that doesn’t conform to some boring middle ground.

I think what luchog is saying is that the term "stochastic terrorism" would not be used by the right, which certainly and repeatedly uses the thing itself.

 

[theprestige]

Can you point out these laws?

You're asking for evidence of laws against disseminating certain ideas?

 

[Darat]

Two more Nazis successfully prosecuted. BBC News - Teenage neo-Nazis jailed over terror offences
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48672929

Interesting read in regards to the topic of this thread as there is some decription of how they used the Internet and social media to promote their ideology.

 

[angrysoba]

Two more Nazis successfully prosecuted. BBC News - Teenage neo-Nazis jailed over terror offences
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48672929

Interesting read in regards to the topic of this thread as there is some decription of how they used the Internet and social media to promote their ideology.

Again, I agree that if you can demonstrate intent then it is fine to prosecute these types of offences, and as with the other example, it seems that the intent has been established and admitted:

Prosecutor Naomi Parsons, opening the case earlier in the hearing, told the court: "This isn't a keyboard organisation. It is intent on action."

She read from the group's mission statement, which declared: "Will you rise up and take the chance or will you sit back and do nothing… Hail victory, and Heil Hitler!"

In April, Szewczuk admitted two counts of encouraging terrorism and five of possessing documents useful to a terrorist.

Dunn-Koczorowski pleaded guilty while still a youth in December to two counts of encouraging terrorism.

That is not the same as jailing someone for their ideology which, as far as I can see, they were not. I would oppose jailing someone just for holding or even promoting neo-Nazi views.

 

[uke2se]

Again, I agree that if you can demonstrate intent then it is fine to prosecute these types of offences, and as with the other example, it seems that the intent has been established and admitted:



That is not the same as jailing someone for their ideology which, as far as I can see, they were not. I would oppose jailing someone just for holding or even promoting neo-Nazi views.

The problem with this is that justice is alway reactive rather than proactive. Accepting that the adherents of inherently violent ideologies are not violent until they inevitably are simply means a higher body count.

 

[angrysoba]

The problem with this is that justice is alway reactive rather than proactive. Accepting that the adherents of inherently violent ideologies are not violent until they inevitably are simply means a higher body count.

Allowing people out on the street, allowing them to drive cars, allowing them any liberty at all means a higher body count.

I think the distinction between those who hold extreme viewpoints and those who actively call for violent acts is an important distinction to make. Otherwise, what are we calling "inherently violent"?

If someone believes Hitler was a great man, likes wearing swastikas and has the number 88 tattooed on his forehead, says bigoted and racist things, etc...do we lock them up? And after locking them up, do we keep them in jail until they stop saying these things and get the tattoos removed?

I think we shouldn't even if they look like a distinct menace to society. If you open the door to locking people up pre-emptively then you are just relying on tactics that suit your aim rather than any important principle.

 

[uke2se]

Allowing people out on the street, allowing them to drive cars, allowing them any liberty at all means a higher body count.

There's immediate and public benefits to those things. There isn't to fascism.

I think the distinction between those who hold extreme viewpoints and those who actively call for violent acts is an important distinction to make. Otherwise, what are we calling "inherently violent"?

Those who hold extreme viewpoints are those often carrying out the violent acts. You simply need to replace every instance of 'Nazi' with 'ISIS member' to understand the danger of your position.

If someone believes Hitler was a great man, likes wearing swastikas and has the number 88 tattooed on his forehead, says bigoted and racist things, etc...do we lock them up? And after locking them up, do we keep them in jail until they stop saying these things and get the tattoos removed?

We lock them up, force them to undergo deprogramming, and then release them when their sentence is up. If the commit another similar crime, we lock them up again.

I think we shouldn't even if they look like a distinct menace to society. If you open the door to locking people up pre-emptively then you are just relying on tactics that suit your aim rather than any important principle.

It's not prematurely though. They have declared their intent.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I like my humour dark and edgy, so I hate to agree with OP.

But yes.

An infamous example was Rwanda before the genocide, where much of the comedy programs on the radio would lampoon Tutsi stereotypes. Even Tutsi would tune in and laugh along. in the end, it was one of the tools to dehumanise them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I like my humour dark and edgy, so I hate to agree with OP.

But yes.

An infamous example was Rwanda before the genocide, where much of the comedy programs on the radio would lampoon Tutsi stereotypes. Even Tutsi would tune in and laugh along. in the end, it was one of the tools to dehumanise them.

But remember that wasn't real genocide, it was only acts of genocide, if it was real genocide then the international community would have looked on and did nothing but as only acts of genocide it was fine.

"But American officials say that so stark a label could inflame public calls for action the Administration is unwilling to take. Rather than compare the massacre with, for example, the deaths under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the State Department and the National Security Council have drafted guidance instructing spokesmen to say merely that "acts of genocide may have occurred.""

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/10/world/officials-told-to-avoid-calling-rwanda-killings-genocide.html

 

[luchog]

I think the distinction between those who hold extreme viewpoints and those who actively call for violent acts is an important distinction to make. Otherwise, what are we calling "inherently violent"?

Neo-Nazism is a call to violence, it's inherently violent. Violence against minorities and "undesirables" is a fundamental part of its credo. All you have to do is read the writings of the founders of Nazism to see that. To advocate Nazism is to advocate genocide.

Likewise, to advocate white supremacism is to advocate for the oppression, enslavement, and/or murder of fellow human beings. That's what "white supremacism" means.

I'm not personally comfortable prosecuting and jailing people for "thoughtcrime"; but when neo-Nazis and white supremacists start openly preaching in the streets, openly recruiting on social media sites, openly advocating a worldview that not only invites, but mandates, violence against anyone unlike them, some sort of forceful response is required in any society that values the liberty, safety, and equality of its members.

At the very least, some form of deplatforming and social sanction needs to take place.

An infamous example was Rwanda before the genocide, where much of the comedy programs on the radio would lampoon Tutsi stereotypes. Even Tutsi would tune in and laugh along. in the end, it was one of the tools to dehumanise them.

I'm reminded of the Minstrelsy period of American entertainment history. The earliest form of distinctly American popular culture, the entire foundation of minstrelsy was constructed of ridicule and dehumanization of African-Americans (first as slaves, then as freedmen). The link between minstrelsy pop-culture, and the treatment of black people in American culture in general, was so closely intertwined that a popular minstrel song gave its name to an entire body of oppressive and racist legislation -- Jim Crow.