I posted this 4 1/2 years ago. This morning Jake Tapper-trying to use the word he had just learned from interviewing Juliette Kayyem–said “schotastic.”
stochastic terrorism: the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf.
Until today, I’d only encountered the word “stochastic” in the economic term dynamic stochastic general equilibrium. (Don’t ask me what it means). The latest addition to my political vocabulary is stochastic terrorism. For the average person, it’s simpler and infinitely more useful.
Stochastic means having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. There doesn’t seem to be much of any literature on the subject of stochastic terrorism, but nonetheless, it provides a useful label for describing the actions of the right-wing noise machine and a credible hypothesis for its effects. Once upon a time, it would have taken a Bircher to produce the kind of rhetoric and a major league demagogue to have any effect. Today, it’s part and parcel of the Republican presidential campaign. This week the terrorist shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic. In June, it was Dylann Roof shooting up an African American church and some members of its congregation.
Raw Story gives Cliffs notes explanation of stochastic terrorism:
In an incident of stochastic terrorism, the person who pulls the trigger gets the blame. He—I use the male pronoun deliberately because the triggerman is almost always male—may go to jail or even be killed during his act of violence. Meanwhile, the person or persons who have triggered the triggerman, in other words, the actual stochastic terrorists, often go free, protected by plausible deniability. The formula is perversely brilliant:
-
A public figure with access to the airwaves or pulpit demonizes a person or group of persons.
-
With repetition, the targeted person or group is gradually dehumanized, depicted as loathsome and dangerous—arousing a combustible combination of fear and moral disgust.
-
Violent images and metaphors, jokes about violence, analogies to past “purges” against reviled groups, use of righteous religious language—all of these typically stop just short of an explicit call to arms.
-
When violence erupts, the public figures who have incited the violence condemn it—claiming no one could possibly have foreseen the “tragedy.”
The usefulness of the term stochastic terrorism is that it provides a label for a phenomenon and an explanation for how it works. Thoughtful people can certainly disagree about the exact relationship between right-wing extremist rhetoric and lone-wolf terrorism, but it’s hard to dispute the fact that words have consequences and that terrorists get their ideas and energy from somewhere. Anti-abortion terrorism is real. As Raw Story enumerates the shootings since 1993:
- March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was shot and killed after being depicted in “Wanted Posters” by Operation Rescue.
- July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and a clinic escort, James Barrett, were both shot to death outside another Florida clinic, which has been bombed twice including in 2012.
- December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were shot and killed in Brookline, Massachusetts by an abortion foe who had previously attempted murder in Virginia.
- January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, died when the clinic was bombed.
- October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed at his home in Amherst, New York, by a shooter with a high-powered rifle.
- May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller, who provided late term abortions, was shot and killed in the lobby of his church, where he was serving as an usher.
- November 27, 2015: Two civilians and a police officer died during a five hour siege in which a “lone wolf” assaulted patients and providers at a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Colorado Springs.
This list does not include the vandalism, threatening phone calls, assaults, and worse–at least one clinic was set on fire–suffered by an organization that provides legal health care service for women. Some people have a hard time referring to the more extreme acts on this list as terrorism. That’s denial. It’s time we call it what it is. Stochastic terrorism may be a mouthful, but it’s a concept that has long needed a name.
I fail to see how it can be otherwise without major damage to the first amendment. I am extremely disturbed by the implications of this line of argument.
I’m even more disturbed by the death toll that follows the transparent call-to-arms broadcast at every opportunity by our home-grown stochastic terrorists.
I’m disturbed by worrying about whether or not my daughter will be shot while on campus at Tulane, in New Orleans. I’m disturbed by our hysterical rush to arms against “ISIS terrorists”, while we rationalize and ignore the terrorism committed by anti-abortion extremists right here at home.
Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that the months of extremist lies from GOP stochastic terrorists on the floor of Congress about Planned Parenthood were a major causal factor in this most recent Planned Parenthood terrorist attack? Is there anyone who isn’t able to connect the dots between Carly Fiorina’s lies about videos that never existed and Robert Lewis Dear’s terrorist attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado?
We long ago reached a consensus that falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not an expression protected by our First Amendment rights. I see little distinction between falsely yelling “fire” and the utterances of our stochastic terrorists.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater where none exists has the direct and immediate effect of people understandably scrambling to flee to safety, possibly trampling each other in the process. Carly Fiorina telling lies about PP does not share the same immediate and direct effect. None but a small handful of people who already have “issues”, even among ardent pro-lifers react to her rhetoric by taking the law into their own hands. There’s no way to prove causation so the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy comes into play. Even if Dear were to come out and say he did what he did because of what Fiorina said, the responsibility for his heinous acts is still entirely his.
You have to understand this term, Christopher. Your comment suggests you don’t. A lot of speech has ramifications. No one is saying that Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his speech or that he doesn’t have a right to say it. That doesn’t mean it has no effect. Stochastic is an explanation of how that effect works.
…stochastikos, meaning to aim. It actually has less to do with hitting the target but rather the processes and efforts put into aiming. In mathematics stochastic refers to the analysis of an equation with many variables, one or more of which variables has values which cannot be predicted (which is slightly different from ‘random’ or ‘chaotic’ which are words sometimes used to describe ‘stochastic’). By using probaballistic analysis (essentially a series of repeated guesses using increasingly more tightly bounded guesses) mathematicians ‘take aim’ at a solution. In engineering the same sort of mathematical processes are used to determine the behavior of systems for which one or more of the components is unpredictable, or for systems whose individual components are completely deterministic but which possess an initial state that is unknown or random;y derived. Think about how you would aim at a target you don’t know is there… or what would you do to define the process of ‘aiming’ when you have no idea what or where the target is… This is a distinction some don’t get.
It is in this distinction that Trump, and similar, can take careful aim and exclaim surprise when it ends up hitting home. A more transparent example of this sort of thinking occurred when the Mississippi bluesman R. L. Burnside* once exclaimed “I didn’t mean to kill him. I just shot him twice in the chest and once in the head. Him dying was between him and the Lord.”
The other word in the initial diary “terrorism”, when coupled with “stochastic” can, I believe, have multiple meanings. The purported meaning Mark Bail gave
Is certainly valid. But I also think it refers to actual terrorism… as in “I didn’t mean to scare anyone. I’m just ‘telling it like it is…” Here the aim is to scare people, which is the base form of terrorism, and the surprise occurs when people actually do get scared. Maybe the colloquial term for ‘stochastic terrorism’ is ‘dog whistle’…?
* (If you saw the movie Black Snake Moan you saw Samuel L. Jackson give a comparatively cuddly portrayal of R. L. Burnside. )
We seem to agree that Carly Fiorina’s lies do indeed have an immediate and direct effect on a “small handful of people”.
Robert Lewis Dear chose to attack a Planned Parenthood clinic, as have so many before him. He repeats the lies of Ms. Fiorina. How can you NOT connect her words to his terrorism?
Mr. Dear did not choose to attack a bank or a broker’s office. So far as I know, the campaign of all the Democratic presidential candidates has not produced even a single terrorist incident.
We have suffered from multiple fatal domestic terrorist attacks since the 1980s. So far as I remember, ALL of them were perpetrated by right-wing extremists, and nearly all of them were religiously motivated.
Surely we have at least SOME left-wing extremists in our society. What is your explanation for the nearly exclusive predominance of right-wing extremists in the perpetrators of the domestic terrorist attacks we have experienced since the GOP began its “Southern Strategy” in 1968?
I agree that we may be seeing an effect where unstable psychotics are drawn to right-wing rhetoric, in addition to being encouraged by that rhetoric. So what? The point is that those psychotics are NOT drawn to left-wing rhetoric. It seems to me that there is no escape from the conclusion that right-wing rhetoric ITSELF is more likely to provoke terrorism.
Your steadfast denial of even the existence of stochastic terrorism is strikingly reminiscent of your similar denial of de facto and systemic racial discrimination.
A long series of correct court decisions have ruled that members of the KKK have a First Amendment right to spread whatever hate speech they like. That does not, in my view, shield them from responsibility for the lynchings that still occasionally happen in the deep south. More specifically, that speech makes it impossible for people like David Duke to win public office, even if they attempt it.
I suggest that the same should be true for nearly all of today’s rabid GOP right. I want an America where the hate-speech of people like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carsen, and pretty much the ENTIRE current GOP makes them:
1. Unelectable
2. Unmentionable in polite society
If they choose to wear special robes and desecrate Christian religious symbols in the dark of night, so be it. I want them kept FAR AWAY from public office.
“Your steadfast denial of even the existence of stochastic terrorism is strikingly reminiscent of your similar denial of de facto and systemic racial discrimination.”
In my view it is very important to have specific evidence of deliberate action to back up an accusation. They ARE similar in many ways because in my view you don’t accuse racism unless somebody is actually being racist and you don’t accuse someone of encouraging murder unless they actually come out and say someone deserves to be murdered. It’s Golden Rule ethics for me. I would not want to be accused based on implications and assumptions and thus I will not so accuse others.
I absolutely agree such voices should be marginalized.
I agree with Christopher about exercising caution, but frankly, we’ve been exercising too little for the last few years. People have a right to privacy. Putting targets on their back, listing provider addresses on the Internet, and screaming about baby killers, murder industry and a party of death is irresponsible. Especially since these same forces largely recognize that our country is heavily armed and encourage that sad reality.
Buffer zones of some sort are clear public safety measures that are not nearly as invasive as the kinds we have agreed to post-9/11. Speaking of which, every time a Muslim fundamentalist even remotely is connected to a terror attack people demand every Muslim condemn them. Well that same demand applies to this movement now, especially since there is a clear and disturbing pattern of people with their extremist faith twisting the words of their holy book and turning to violence as Mark Bails list demonstrates. And unlike the fiction of Sharia law in America, this terrorism is having an actual effect on limiting a constitutional right.
The dumbest thing about these clowns is that this year they turned me the final 90 degrees I needed to go on this issue. And I’m sure I’m not alone. Damon Linker is an acquaintance and a center-right thinker appalled by the rights apocalyptic rhetoric and demonstrates that it’s clearly responsible for incidents like this. He lost a good friend in Brookline, but his perspective is quite restrained considering that connection.
…and I would include implicit threats like publishing “Wanted” posters and home addresses. Regarding regularly scheduled denunciations I don’t think two wrongs make a right. We should not insist every Muslim denounce terror alledgedly in the name of Islam nor should we expect pro-lifers to publicly condemn and apologize for PP murders.
If a cleric regularly said death to Israel and death to America we would still have no right to prosecute him after a terror attack, but we would be right to condemn his speech. There is an openly pro-ISIL cleric in the UK. He can’t be prosecuted, even though their free speech protections are weaker, but he has been isolated by the media. He has been forced to distance himself from people attacking women and gays in the streets after hearing his sermons. His sermons are now tracked and monitored by the police to ensure no further fights break out.
That’s the kind of policing I want. I want the media to get its Murrow on and call these people liars, call Dear an anti-woman terrorist just as we would call an Islamic terrorist an extremist and anti-American or a white nationalist attacking Jews or blacks an anti-Semite or racist extremist. The only difference between this guy and the ISIL fanatics who attacked Jews after Charlie Hebdo or secular nightlife in Paris or Dylan Root is who he hates and what God he has perverted to justify that hate. He is abusing our faith to hate women, and he should be connected to other prelates and candidates who bear some of the responsibility for this.
Believe me, if Obama said BLM was justified to arm itself and stalk white police officers Fox would call him out on it, and in that hypothetical they would be right to do so.
Christopher made the analogy before and it just doesn’t fit this situation. No one is saying all those on the anti-choice side must denounce it, but those who actively stoked the hatred and constantly called PP murderers and butchers should be called out.
then the person for the effects of their comments. None of this will eliminate terrorism, and as the term stochastic suggests, it is difficult to establish direct causation between the rhetoric and the act, but there is a link. It is impossible to account for the many other variables that contribute, family, socioeconomic factors.
And we have people running for president who are unwilling to specifically condemn Dear, limit their condemnation to “murder of any kind” (which obviously refers to PPH), and then specifically incite the Dears of this country by falsely accusing PPH of “trading baby parts.” If you don’t think that Ted Cruz is specifically speaking a language designed to incite another Dear, you’re kidding yourself. But, it’s even more base than inciting another Dear; because, it isn’t done only to kill someone associated with women’s health (although that’s the intended result), the speaker cares more about attracting votes in the Republican primaries than he does about killing those associated with providing women’s health services. Disgusting.
I absolutely agree that free speech needs to be fought with more free speech. If you want the media and other public voices to come out and forcibly condemn this hateful rhetoric I’m right there with you. However, my Logic background will not allow me to hold speakers responsible morally or legally for the actions of others. There was a comment earlier that stochastic terrorists go free as if that were a bad thing and I continue to cringe at what I see as the implications of that comment.
You can’t shake the devils hand and say you’re only kidding. And that’s what they do. They call providers baby killers and murderers and insist on a fully armed America and then they are shocked when people take their rhetoric seriously and act on it.
I mean, let’s look at John Brown. To me, that man is an American hero. I’ve read pieces and seen talking points by mainstream conservatives comparing abortion to slavery, pro-life activists to abolitionists, Roe v Wade to Dred Scott. And if you honestly believe that, why not take the leap John Brown did? Tom Coburn said the death penalty was fair for abortionists. He said that as a sitting Senator on a Senate subcommittee. That’s the climate. And it will occasionally produce it’s share of John Browns unless the rhetoric is tamped down.
Mark Bail, is in effect, asking to fight their hate speech with informed speech. The media isn’t doing it, it’s buying their talking points, letting them wash their hands, and pretending there are two sides to this story like every other. And it should be really nailing them for the consequences of their speech. We aren’t calling upon anyone to be arrested, we are simply asking that everyone connect the dots instead of pretending it’s just a coincidence the guy was muttering baby parts after months of the GOP presidential candidates doing the same.
Ted Cruz has a right to say whatever he wants, the media a responsibility to connect the dots and say that his rhetoric contributed to the climate that produced those deaths. Tailgunner Joe had a right to accuse whomever he wanted of communism, Ed Murrow had a responsibility to call him out as an irresponsible bullshitter ruining people’s lives. All Mark is asking for is more Ed Murrow’s telling the truth, and just like then, it’s the only way you can beat the cycle of bullshit and the climate of extremism.
We have a long, and in my view correct, history of success at bringing civil liability actions against companies that are shown to be guilty of de facto discrimination even if their policies do not include explicitly discriminatory language. During recent decades, we have created similar obligations for establishments that provide alcohol for patrons, creating a civil liability when their serving procedures result in drunk driving crashes. Both of those changes were challenged on constitutional grounds, and both survived those challenges.
I’d like to see at least a discussion about taking similar steps towards stochastic terrorism. Yes, any such civil liability must withstand constitutional scrutiny. Yes, there will be those who oppose such a change.
I think our domestic terrorism is a far more immediate and urgent concern than any threat presented by ISIS. I’d prefer us to focus our energy on addressing our domestic terrorism.
So long as we’re talking about constitutional protections, I suggest that our history after 9/11 suggests that our hysteria about “Islamic terrorists” is a far greater threat to our constitutional freedoms than anything contemplated about stochastic terrorism.
as you do to the truth.” ANON
And you’re dreaming if you think profit-driven media gives a damn about stopping the mayhem it aids and abets every day. The conservative-military-industrial-academic-media complex is alive and very profitable — thank you very much.
And by the way, great journalists like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Lippmann and Walter Cronkite are long gone. Their spiritual heir, Dan Rather, was fired by CBS for exposing the fraudulent military record of W.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
There was an interesting article in Vox yesterday, which suggests that the media is impotent in the face of demagogues like Trump:
I wanted to do something with it, but didn’t know what to do. I don’t have much time for writing these days, and if I post it on Facebook, I’ll have some of my differently-winged friends commenting or arguing with me.
Trump has reportedly demanded that CNN pay him $5 million to participate in their debate. I certainly hope they tell him to go jump in the nearest lake and offer his podium to someone who would have otherwise been at the “kids table”, but is a more serious and qualified candidate.
The shooter didn’t yell anybody to death.
I don’t think we have an absurdly high number of mentally ill people in this country compared to other post-industrial democracies. That’s not what’s causing our vertiginous rate of massacres.
What we do have an absurdly high number of guns.
of 12 dead in a shooting in San Bernadino. The motive isn’t clear, the target seems to be some sort of event at the facility’s conference center. The San Bernadino Health Department was holding a holiday event there. I couldn’t find anything on their website about providing abortions, but they do deal with STDs and pregnancy. Maybe they don’t advertise?
Whatever the reason, this looks like an act of terrorism: multiple, well-equipped, organized shooters.
I couldn’t find anything about the health clinic “providing abortions” either, keep digging.
I did find some more info about the suspects though ….
I guess he was hell bent on finding a girl friend …
suspect #2 was his wife/girlfriend her name is
According to Farook’s brother-in-law, Farhan Khan, Farook had recently found success in a relationship with a 27-year-old named Tashfeen Malik — a woman police later said was his accomplice in the deadly shooting. The brother-in-law said the two were married, but overnight police said they weren’t totally clear on the couple’s marital status, except that there was a relationship.
a piece of work! Had I known you’d be commenting 12 hours later, I would have stayed home from work and updated my comment. I would have preferred the perpetrators to be abortion protesters, to be honest. We are already aware of Islamic extremism. The Republican Party is in denial about right-wing extremism.
Instead, the culprits were Muslims–the stochastic terrorism this post is about has actually started. My guess now is that they were either fully-radicalized or half-radicalized and took whatever irritation the guy had and took it out on his co-workers.
Anyway, congratulations for being one of the very few people I would like to punch in the face.
[eye roll] Really? We’re going there Mark?
There’s not really any there to go anyway. My pixels can’t punch you in the fact any more than yours can roll their eyes.
The other thing I forgot to say about my comment was that the perps were reported as white people until the day following the event. San Bernardino does have some hate groups and the Hell’s Angels, but I was puzzled as to why two white people would shoot up a group of people in public health.
Thanks for the hot tip, Mark.