Stochastic terrorism - I want to hear it at the Senate trial

[wnylib]

I could have missed it because I have not watched or heard every minute of the trial. But I believe this is a term that needs to be brought up during this trial and I wonder why it hasn't been. It describes so well what Trump did for four years leading up to Jan 6.

Trump's words leading up to Jan 6 amount to stochastic terrorism. His words and actions need to be identified with that term because that is what he is guilty of.

[SharonClark]

1. For those of you, like me, who never heard of this word...

noun
the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted:
The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism.

source: https://www.dictionary.com/

[Mike 03]

3. Thank you!

[wnylib]

4. That's why I believe that this term

needs to be used in the trial - because people don't know that there is a term for what Trump did. It's a thing. It's real. One of the managers can introduce this term with the brief definition that you gave so that the American people KNOW what to call it, and to recognize it in the future from politicians.

[PatSeg]

15. Thanks

I had heard the term before, but couldn't remember what it meant. I was just about to look it up.

[SharonClark]

2. What Is "Stochastic Terrorism," And Why Is It Trending?

Let’s break down this phrase.

What does stochastic terrorism mean?
Stochastic terrorism is “the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted.”

The word stochastic, in everyday language, means “random.” Terrorism, here, refers to “violence motivated by ideology.”

Here’s the idea behind stochastic terrorism:
A leader or organization uses rhetoric in the mass media against a group of people.
This rhetoric, while hostile or hateful, doesn’t explicitly tell someone to carry out an act of violence against that group, but a person, feeling threatened, is motivated to do so as a result.
That individual act of political violence can’t be predicted as such, but that violence will happen is much more probable thanks to the rhetoric.
This rhetoric is thus called stochastic terrorism because of the way it incites random violence.

Source: https://www.dictionary.com/e/what-is-stochastic-terrorism/

[abqtommy]

5. Words are words and turds are turds. We can call tRUMP a stochastic terrorist or a

domestic terrorist. But he's also an Agent Of A Foreign Power/sPUTIN. No matter, tRUMP is
still a turd and we need to put on our rubber gloves, pick him up and put him in the dustbin of
history.

[wnylib]

7. Words matter. In this case,

using the term stochastic terrorism, with its meaning, helps people identify clearly what Trump did, how he did it, and that it is something in politics that they must be able to recognize and reject before it succeeds in its violent intent.

[lagomorph777]

6. The attack was anything but stochastic; Trump told them exactly when and where to attack.

He bussed them in by the thousands.
He whipped them up.
Then he dispatched them to "fight, fight, fight."

This was not "stochastic" in any sense of the word. It was very carefully planned.

[wnylib]

8. I disagree. His words during the campaign,

and on election night and for weeks afterward set the stage. In fact, his entire presidency of demonizing individuals and groups with violent suggestions, e.g. beating up media and protesters at his rallies, created the anger in people that he directed at the Capitol.

The Capitol attack was the end result of Trump's constant demonization of " enemies of the state" in order to arouse the kind of anger that he could mobilize. That is exactly the point being made in today's trial session. They have described his history of inciting people to anger, but just haven't used the term that fits what they are describing.

Trump's lawyers can and probably will claim that, although Trump told the mob where to go on Jan 6, and he told them to "fight for America," he did not explicitly order them to physically attack members of Congress or the Capitol building. He can claim innocence of what the mob did if you are looking solely at explicit directions from him.

But when you recognize the reality of such a thing as stochastic terrorism, and identify how Trump used it, then he has no defense in claiming that he did not specifically order them to do a physical attack. He knew that he was arousing a terroristic mood and what it could and likely would result in because that is the whole point of using stochastic terrorism rhetoric - to arouse people to vicious and illegal actions without specically ordering them to do it.

[lagomorph777]

9. I think I see where you're going with that.

But the term "stochastic" (not only in this context) specifically refers to randomness. There was no randomness at all, in all of Trump's planning, incitement, execution of logistics, funding, and finally, issuing very specific orders to attack the Capitol.

Could his defenders make a case that he only hinted at violence, that he didn't actually issue orders to attack? Maybe, but it's a pretty weak case.

Could they make a case that it was "stochastic" (random)? Definitely not.

[wnylib]

10. In your post, you said that Trump

issued very specific orders to attack the Capitol.

He did not. He said to march to the Capitol and support the "weak" members of Congress to do what they should do. He said to fight for America and to stop the steal. He did not say to physically attack the Capitol building or anyone in it. He even added the words to go there peacefully, to cover his a$$ no doubt.

Trump is smooth in his use of words, the same as a mob boss. Michael Cohen and Jim Comey made the same mob boss comparison about Trump's use ofcwords in giving orders. You know what he means without him ever saying explicitly what he means. It's a CYA technique.

Trump does not say, "Go beat up that guy." He says, "Wouldn't you just love to beat him up?" and thus giving his permission and hope that you will.

Trump's lawyers will argue that he never told people to get physically violent, so he is not responsible for what they did. He IS responsible, of course, because he fed them lies and whipped people into a mob frenzy before saying they should march to the Capitol.

[lagomorph777]

11. Well, I'm not a Trump lawyer, so it's pretty hard for me to hear his words so generously.

But I'm sure with sufficient imagination and creativity, it could be possible.

[wnylib]

12. As far as I can see, it's the only

defense his lawyers can use. What else can they say in his defense?

[lagomorph777]

13. "But...but..BLM! Antifa!"

No coherent argument, of course. There is none.

[wnylib]

14. We will see soon enough what kind of

defense his lawyers use.

[wnylib]

16. I stand by my prediction of the argument

Trump's lawyers would make, after hearing it this morning. It was a pile of distortions, both siderisms, and plain old BS, but they did claim that he did not incite the mob and only exercised his free speech rights.

[lagomorph777]

17. They can claim all they want, but it takes some pretty heavy hallucinogens to believe it.

[wnylib]

18. QOP Senators do not need to believe it

They only need to use it to hide behind their decision to acquit him. It will sound plausible to Trump followers in the general public and even to some who are not Trumpists.

Sad, but true.