diamond559
10 hours ago
People are being shot in the face by masked gangs of brown shirts, while they are on the ground after trying to administer aid, we're beyond "stochastic" terrorism at this point.
Stochastic Terrorism
49 pointsposted 13 hours ago
by garbawarb16 Comments
iamnothere
9 hours ago
This concept is sophistry when deployed against Democrats just as much as it was when deployed against Republicans.
“Stochastic terrorism” is free speech.
I get it, you don’t like your enemies and you want to find a way to punish them. Maybe even to prevent them from saying things that seem to be increasing their base of support. So you find a few dangerous whackos who also happened to articulate the same points that you’re trying to suppress. Boom, instant justification to suppress that speech! Even if the speech isn’t per se illegal, maybe the fact that both your target and the whackos said the same thing makes it ok to suppress that speech anyway!
No, that doesn’t make it ok. Free speech is free speech. Stop trying to unconstitutionally suppress the rights of your opponents.
PorterBHall
8 hours ago
In the United States, stochastic terrorism is neither a statutory offense nor a term of art in criminal codes; it is an analytic label used in scholarship and practitioner writing to describe probabilistic risks of violence linked to rhetoric. Recent legal and critical surveys stress that usage is heterogeneous and contested, and that the concept's value lies in describing a structure of communication and harm rather than in supplying a justiciable element test.[7] By contrast, U.S. incitement law is anchored in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which protects advocacy short of speech that is intended to produce imminent lawless action and likely to do so. Stochastic accounts often concern non-directive, cumulative rhetoric whose effects materialize unpredictably, making the Brandenburg imminence and likelihood prongs difficult to satisfy absent clear exhortation.[2]
iamnothere
39 minutes ago
The goal of those pushing the “stochastic terrorism” scam has always been either outright criminalization of the speech or (at a minimum) public-private coordinated suppression of the speech. Don’t fall for it.
user
35 minutes ago
[deleted]
rcbdev
4 hours ago
What is up with this comment, is it bot-spam? What are the citations [7] and [2] supposed to be?
Etherlord87
an hour ago
It's a quote from the submission (Wikipedia article).
timmmmmmay
8 hours ago
the more you don't want somebody to be allowed to say something, the more stochastic it is
ares623
12 hours ago
Sometimes it's good to put a name on a nebulous "thing" that we know permeates us.
user
12 hours ago
[deleted]
rcbdev
4 hours ago
This the most hokus pokus pseudo-sciency thing I've read on HN in a while.
phendrenad2
11 hours ago
[flagged]
phendrenad2
10 hours ago
Downvotes really should be public, it would make HN a much more civil place.
direwolf20
34 minutes ago
Not needed in this case. Grokipedia is a heavily manipulated AI slopaganda outlet.
polotics
2 hours ago
this would be indeed super-interesting I wish @dang sees this. maybe only allow users with a certain (1000+ ?) karma to see who downvoted them maybe, to avoid second order effects?
tomhow
2 hours ago
This has been discussed plenty over the years and the reason for not doing it is that it would encourage meta-discussion (argument/debate) about downvotes, when what we really want is for all the forces and incentives to keep discussions focused on the primary topic.