Posted on 11/14/2022 1:59:56 PM PST by Heartlander
I browsed the news recently only to discover that, according to a popular science magazine, I was responsible for the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi, husband to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
In an opinion piece for Scientific American, writer Bryn Nelson insinuated that my factual reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour was an example of “stochastic terrorism,” which he defines as “ideologically driven hate speech” that increases the likelihood of unpredictable acts of violence. On the night of the attack, Nelson argued, I had appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss my reporting, and, hours later, the alleged attacker, David DePape, radicalized by “QAnon” conspiracy theories about “Democratic, Satan-worshipping pedophiles,” broke into the Pelosi residence and attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer.
This is a bizarre claim that, for a magazine supposedly dedicated to “science,” hardly meets a scientific standard of cause and effect. There is no evidence that DePape watched or was motivated by Tucker Carlson’s program; moreover, nothing in my reporting on Drag Queen Story Hour encourages violence or mentions Nancy Pelosi, QAnon, or Satan-worshipping pedophiles. My appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and DePape’s attack against Paul Pelosi are, in reality, two unrelated incidents in a large and complex universe. And Nelson, a microbiologist specializing in human excrement, is full of it.
But Nelson isn’t trying to prove anything in a scientific sense. Under the concept of “stochastic terrorism,” logic, evidence, and causality are irrelevant. Any incident of violence can be politicized and attributed to any ideological opponent, regardless of facts.
The scheme works like this: left-wing media, activists, and officials designate a subject of discourse, such as Drag Queen Story Hour, off-limits; they treat any reporting on that subject as an expression of “hate speech”; and finally, if an incident of violence emerges that is related, even tangentially, to that subject, they assign guilt to their political opponents and call for the suppression of speech. The statistical concept of “stochasticity,” which means “randomly determined,” functions as a catch-all: the activists don’t have to prove causality—they simply assert it with a sophisticated turn of phrase and a vague appeal to probability.
Though framed in scientific terms, this gambit is a crude political weapon. In practice, left-wing media, activists, and officials apply the “stochastic terrorism” designation only in one direction: rightward. They never attribute fire-bombings against pro-life pregnancy centers, arson attacks against Christian churches, or the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice to mere argumentation of left-wing activists, such as, say, opposition to the Court’s decision in Dobbs. In those cases, the Left correctly adopts the principle that it is incitement, rather than opinion, that constitutes a crime—but conveniently forgets that standard as soon as the debate shifts to the movement’s conservative opponents.
In recent years, the Left has not only monopolized the concept of “stochastic terrorism” but also built a growing apparatus for enforcing it. Last year, left-wing organizations and the Department of Justice collaborated on a campaign to suppress parents who oppose critical race theory, under the false claim that sometimes-heated school-board protests were incidents of “domestic terrorism.” Earlier this year, left-wing activists and medical associations called on social media companies and the Department of Justice to censor, investigate, and prosecute journalists who question the orthodoxy of radical gender theory. The obvious goal is to suppress speech and intimidate political opponents. “Stochastic terrorism” could serve as a magic term for summoning the power of the state.
If this process is left unchecked, the consequences will be disastrous. Left-wing NGOs, social media companies, and federal security apparatchiks will gain unprecedented power to police speech and criminalize political opposition. Conservatives and old-line liberals who still care about civil liberties must expose the scheme and work to dismantle the apparatus that supports it. The line of argument is simple: speech is not violence; statistical abstraction is not a substitute for evidence; and free-association fantasies cannot determine guilt. But the politics of fighting back are more complex. It will require dislodging a network of professionals who see the concept of “stochastic terror” as a path to power.
That concept is built on a lie. It deserves to be exposed and discredited.
The ideology of the Left needs to be hated, not tolerated one jot.
Just about ANY Biden speech qualifies under that definition. . . .
P
By his own reasoning his article “increases the likelihood of unpredictable acts of violence” against scientists and journalists.
The power of liberals is their ability to live in the moment. Here’s an example scenario:
A liberal throws trash on the ground. You chastize them. They tell you “so what!”
You then throw trash on the ground. They chastize you. You say “so what!”. They yell at you louder. You say “but you just threw trash on the ground!”.
They say “so what!” again and yell at you even louder.
Liberals operate without precedence or logic.
It will get to the point where uttering the least discouraging word about Big Brother will paint a target on you, with all sorts of negative consequences to your personal and financial well being.
I’ll see you all in the camps, comrades.
bkmk
Does Bryn have a clue of the meaning and proper use of the term Stochastic?
teaching CRT is stochastic terrorism
it is responsible for black on white crime
During the war, my dad&uncle along with all the other sailors, Marines, and soldiers in the Pacific Theater listened to Tokyo Rose WITHOUT interference from the government. Fact is, Tokyo Rose broadcasts were piped over dad’s shipboard M1C speakers, real, “enemy propaganda”, WITHOUT interference from Navy censors, why...
because the troops all knew the propaganda was bullshit!!! but they liked the music
same thing with Hanoi Hanna in Vietnam, grunts liked the music and ignored the bullsh!t
so why is the democRAT party soooo afraid of free speech???
Because the have no retort...
The most effective propaganda against them can be themselves in their own words. So they want to stop that.
SUE THEM TO BANKRUPTCY
It is responsible for black on white crime
And used as self defense or justifiable homicide
RIP Ethan Liming
“Stochastic Terror”: just another liberal pseudo-intellectual label that means nothing.
Basically just regurgitated Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Great post A+
Another poster for the den
Speech is not violence; statistical abstraction is not a substitute for evidence; and free-association fantasies cannot determine guilt.
When I took my engineering courses I learned that a stochastic process or function was fancy talk for 'it has random variables in it'. Stochastic means random or having randmoness to it. But they don't mean that it's randomly occuring terrorism so what they hell does it even mean (I mean literally, what did they think that word meant?)
Crypto meaning hidden would make sense to me. Stochastic meaning random simply doesn't. But probably since they are paying the bills by using a crypto currency company to launder money I guess they didn't want to risk demonizing that word.
If they ever make a movie about actor Biden, he fits every film genre: melodrama, comedy,
love story, film noir, musical, war story, Western, horror, and historical epic.
The Left has been trying for decades to designate all Conservative speech as “violence” and all Leftist violence as “free speech.”
"Scientific American's" smear of the late Sam Cohen of neutron bomb fame comes to mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.