A new Term: 'Stochastic Terrorism' Ever head of this?"

robert38-55robert38-55 Senior MemberPosts: 3,621 Senior Member
I had to write an essay paper yesterday and the writting prompt was: Public Rhetoric from politicians, and talkshow host, rich and famous.... does it cause people to carry out random acts of violence:

I took the stand of: no it doesn't cause people to perform acts of violence, they act alone.
I came across some research I decided to use I thought was interesting and here is it, what is your thought on this?

I came across the term "Stochstic Terrorism: Triggering the shooters...
Stochastic terrorism: is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

A powerful new meme ( meme:A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures) Some say this was Bin Laden hallmark too.

Given the recent attacks in Norway, 9-11, attakks, the Gifford shootings, the Ft. Hood shooting, and the Wong case, I thought that this would make an interesting subject to talk about especially the part about Speeches from Politicians, do they stir the pot enough to actually cause this?


The term Stochastic Terrorism is also been associated with Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do.The left-wingers, and anti-gunners, are saying that this is what has led directly and predictably to a numver of cases of ideologically---movtivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings....My research showed this I don't believe it,, there has been many of good motivational speeches through out the course of this country by great Presidents, and Political leaders, that have not caused a full scale riot or even one act of violence..... this is just another twisted inept way of the left and anti-gunners to gain support for their usleless and friviouls cause.... It has no merit or meaning.. What do ya think?

PS I couldn't find the word Stochastic in any of the dictionarys I have? deffinition came from a web site with same title...
"It is what it is":usa:

Replies

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,429 Senior Member
    Yes, it can happen, but not in the way the writer of the article claims. Look at the fanatical rantings of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and others. Mao Tse-Tung was a master at stirring up the masses to do his will, and thousands, if not millions of his people died as a direct result of his rants. The left-wingers want to paint a few popular commentators with the brush of condemnation as a way to try to restrict their freedom of speech. "Stochastic"- - - - - -it sounds like a made-up word that won't stand up to any serious research into its origins. Of course, people who coin such words or phrases depend on the sheeple not having enough intelligence to do their own thinking. Hey, it's on the internet- - - - -it must be true, right?
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,112 Senior Member
    Stochastic actually is a proper term, in scientific use. At its basic elements, a stochastic process is one where the results from an event are non-deterministic. A lot of people refer to stochastic events as "random events" as what happens after the event is largely unknown. For something to be stochastic, the result of an event is usually multiple, and can be influenced by other events happening at the same time. Stochastic processes are very hard to model.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,744 Senior Member
    What the monkey man said. Stochastic is actually a very common term in the scientific/modeling world. While a stochastic process cannot be deterministically predicted, a probability distribution can usually be assigned to individual events. A simple example of a stochastic process would be flipping a coin 10 times. You cannot predict the outcome of this sequence of coin flips with any certainty, but you do know the odds of the outcome of each individual flip and you could simulate this event many times to determine the most likely outcomes. Of course you can do the same thing on much more complicated systems as well.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Shoemaker SethShoemaker Seth Member Posts: 136 Member
    Dang there's smart people posting stuff on this forum. I'm pretty sure that collectively, we come pretty close to knowing it all.
    Some threads I read for information. Others I read for entertainment value.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,744 Senior Member
    I think there are two key questions here.

    1) does/can stochastic terrorism exist...ie can words/speaches/books of an inflammatory nature encourage or "trigger" unbalanced individuals to act out in a violent manner.

    2) is there a line beyond which speech is more likely to encourage violence. Where is that line if it exists and is there actual culpability on the part of the individual doing the speaking for actions of others inspired by his/her speech?

    I think the answer to #1 is unquestionably yes. People have been/can be inspired in many ways both positively and negatively and I don't see why someone already predisposed to violence could not be inspired to action by the speech of someone they admire/respect.

    #2 is much more tricky. I think there is a line or at least a spectrum. Clearly the speech of Osama Bin Laden and other leaders has inspired people to violence in their name. I also think inflammatory speech by talking heads can influence their followers as well, but I wouldn't put them in the same category obviously. I wouldn't say Rush or Beck or any of the others were responsible or culpable for any of the violent acts that have occurred by extremists, but it is not beyond the relm of possibility that they may have indirectly contributed to inspiring the individuals to act.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,148 Senior Member
    The term Stochastic Terrorism is also been associated with Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others too. The left-wingers, and anti-gunners, are saying that this is what has led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically---motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings....
    This is nothing more than Progressive psycho-babbling propaganda designed to influence the masses to shun FOX News. These shoulder-mounted copulatory organs are at it again.
    :cuss:
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,148 Senior Member
    I also think inflammatory speech by talking heads can influence their followers as well, but I wouldn't put them in the same category obviously. I wouldn't say Rush or Beck or any of the others were responsible or culpable for any of the violent acts that have occurred by extremists, but it is not beyond the relm of possibility that they may have indirectly contributed to inspiring the individuals to act.
    Horsepucky! There's a big difference between people screeching day after day "Kill the Jews and the Infidels", and political commentators expressing an opposite political opinion. The Fort Hood and the AZ Congresswoman shooters are terrorists and/or crazies. They don't need some talking head to influence their actions.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Horsepucky! There's a big difference between people screeching day after day "Kill the Jews and the Infidels", and political commentators expressing an opposite political opinion. The Fort Hood and the AZ Congresswoman shooters are terrorists and/or crazies. They don't need some talking head to influence their actions.


    Once again my research leaned heavily toward speeches that could and would trigger a violent act, by a single person.. I still don't believe that I believe people are accountable for their own actions as individuals. In a website on Warnthepeople.org, Seena Fazel at the University of Oxford a research doctor ph.D claims that people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are two to three times more likely to commit violent crimes than people without mental illness, We all know that Wong, Loughner's FT. Hood shooter ( I can't recall the guys name)....
    Researchers claim generally that it isn't clear one way or another that Rhetoric has actually caused a specific act of violence by one person but Teach says:
    [QUOTEYes, it can happen, but not in the way the writer of the article claims. Look at the fanatical rantings of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and others. Mao Tse-Tung was a master at stirring up the masses to do his will, and thousands, if not millions of his people died as a direct result of his rants][/QUOTE]

    We all know thats true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I believe that violent rhetoric can make people more comfortable with the idea of violence, and push masses of people to hysteria, rebellion, kaos, and full scale riots, but not one single individual.................
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Horsepucky! There's a big difference between people screeching day after day "Kill the Jews and the Infidels", and political commentators expressing an opposite political opinion. The Fort Hood and the AZ Congresswoman shooters are terrorists and/or crazies. They don't need some talking head to influence their actions.

    Got to agree with that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Make_My_Day
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Dang there's smart people posting stuff on this forum. I'm pretty sure that collectively, we come pretty close to knowing it all.

    Thanks Seth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't consider myself one of those, but I do consider the other folks here very smart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    This is nothing more than Progressive psycho-babbling propaganda designed to influence the masses to shun FOX News. These shoulder-mounted copulatory organs are at it again.
    :cuss:

    I'm with you on this. Sounds to me like just another damn excuse to try to blame someone else for someone's actions.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,148 Senior Member
    Look at the fanatical rantings of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and others. Mao Tse-Tung was a master at stirring up the masses to do his will, and thousands, if not millions of his people died as a direct result of his rants.

    We all know thats true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I believe that violent rhetoric can make people more comfortable with the idea of violence, and push masses of people to hysteria, rebellion, kaos, and full scale riots, but not one single individual.................
    It's called "mob mentality"....the hard-core left is very good at this. I have not read it, but based on interviews I have seen, Ann Coulter's new book "Demonic" outlines this very well.

    3 good examples of this come to mind.
    1) union mobs and protests in Madison Wisconsin during the legislation session for reducing benefits to public employees.
    2) riots and mob mayhem during ANY G-8 Summit.
    3) riots and mob mayhem in Greece while the government attempts to reduce spending.

    These incidents are all inspired and supported by communist and anarchist agitators. I have no doubt that this will happen here if our financial situation gets to that point as well.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,744 Senior Member
    You forgot the civil rights movement, Tienanmen square and the protests in Egypt that brought an end to their corrupt dictator. Big difference between (largely) peaceful protests and an individual/small group carrying out mass murder.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    I know the political ramblings of political leaders can cause full scale riots, protest, violence and I have seen this in my life, MLK in the 1960's. But the actuall writing prompt was this:

    When public figures ( politicians, talk show host, the rich and famous,etc.) or the media use inciting words or images, can they ( the words and/or images) move some people to commit violent acts OR is the perpetrator of the violent act(s) solely responsible for his/her actions?

    I feel that it might be causing some to be persuaded more toward committing the act that they have been planning before the speech or image was shown but it doesn't actually cause a rational sane person to go and committ the act, right after hearing the speech or viewing the image. My researched showed that people like Wong, Loughner, etc. have/had some type of mental illness way before they committed their acts. Not to say that all mentally ill people committ acts of violence, most do not... However, the signs were certainly there, and were missed by everyone.

    I think what they are getting at here is does this Rhetoric, actually cause one person to committ the act? I took the stand of no it doesn't because people like this are already in a frame of mind and have been planning an attack for sometime... These individuals, have cased, stalked and rehearsed what they are getting ready to do many times over before the act is carried out.....
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    As I see it, rhetoric alone cannot cause a person to commit a criminal offense (riot and/or murder). Every listener hears a different message. The listeners own anger towards a situation or event has to be taken into account. Their moral compass may also be dysfunctional or nonexistent. They may have been personally affected by some event directed towards them that makes them more susceptible to the message. They may also have poor self control and have little or no self restraint; they act out without thinking.

    These are the people the agitators hope to reach, and cause a spark to ignite. With the instant communications we have now, a speaker can reach across the nation and to the world. If the message hits the right buttons, it is sure to reach at least one person that will act out their anger. A riot starts with one person throwing a brick through a window or at the police, then the herd mentality comes into play. It becomes a cattle stampede and is no less violent or destructive.

    Back in the '70s I saw what a few Communist agitators could stir up in Greece. A pliable audience that is already prone to violence for perceived wrongs can easily be whipped into a frenzy with the right 'magic words and phrases' by a skilled speaker, and a few chosen agitators mixed in with the crowd whipping up some extra hate. The 1968 Democratic convention riot in Chicago is a good example. The FBI had agitators in the crowd that whipped the protesters into a frenzy; the result was inevitable. One person acting out stampeded the herd, and the police went berserk. Good example of how things can go bad fast.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Thats a good explanation Tennmike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I likes that!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    If you get the chance, take a course in psychology, and then follow up with a course in abnormal psychology. It will be an eyeopening experience into the mind and why people do what they do. It's actually easy to make people go over a tipping point; we all do it at one time or another, and no violent action is the result, most of the time. Think of how easy it is to use words to make someone mad just by pushing the right buttons. Once they're mad, pushing further will determine their level of self control and self restraint to avoid violent action on their part.

    One way to look at it is that there are two basic reactions to inflammatory rhetoric. If the rhetoric is decrying a real and present deplorable situation, one group will work in a constructive way to make the situation better by working through the system to effect changes in the system. The other group will use violence and destructive civil disobedience to lash out in anger at the situation, making it worse, or worse yet, a self fulfilling prophesy.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    If you get the chance, take a course in psychology, and then follow up with a course in abnormal psychology. It will be an eyeopening experience into the mind and why people do what they do. It's actually easy to make people go over a tipping point; we all do it at one time or another, and no violent action is the result, most of the time. Think of how easy it is to use words to make someone mad just by pushing the right buttons. Once they're mad, pushing further will determine their level of self control and self restraint to avoid violent action on their part.

    One way to look at it is that there are two basic reactions to inflammatory rhetoric. If the rhetoric is decrying a real and present deplorable situation, one group will work in a constructive way to make the situation better by working through the system to effect changes in the system. The other group will use violence and destructive civil disobedience to lash out in anger at the situation, making it worse, or worse yet, a self fulfilling prophesy.

    Thanks tennmike I will certainly check into that, especially about the abnormal psychology, sounds interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.