Stochastic Terrorism

[nadinbrzezinski]

This s another case of it

The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist. The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Here's the mechanism spelled out concisely:

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.

One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act. While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. "given the provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such&quot , the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet).

The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do."

http://www.openleft.com/diary/21377/stochastic-terrorisma-powerful-highly-accurate-new-meme

[wakemewhenitsover]

1. Very smart.

[Coexist]

2. knr

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Kick

[Enrique]

4. interesting, but how is this a case of it?

we don't even know the guy's motive yet. Or do we?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Remember what Rush said the other day

Abput Bane, Bain and the Dark Knight?

[slackmaster]

8. Do you habitually listen to Rush Limbaugh?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Just because the clip was played in every other media outlet

Picked by media matters first. Do you regularly engage in distracting attacks?

A short list of where that clip was played.

The young Turks
The Ed Show
The Lawrence O'Donnel show
The Thom Hartmann show.

And as I wrote, media matters for America.

Next


And yes, whoosh!

[Brickbat]

12. And if he didn't hear the clip?

[slackmaster]

13. I've never watched or listened to any of those sources

What clip are you referring to?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Go to media matters if you are so inclined.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Here is your quote

Rush Limbaugh, courtesy of Media Matters: Have you heard, this new movie, the Batman movie — what is it, the Dark Knight Lights Up or something? Whatever the name of it is. That’s right, Dark Knight Rises, Lights Up, same thing. Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in the Dark Knight Rises is named Bane. B-A-N-E. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran, and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?

[slackmaster]

21. I'm not seeing a connection between such a trite conspiracy theory and some wack job shooting up...

...a theater full of people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. What you call conspiracy theory

Is well understood science at this point.

Have a good day, some folks simply do not get science.

[zappaman]

25. And there it is

Another completely rude and insulting post.
Bookmarking, with all the others, to show when you do your next "I'm being bullied" thread.

[SidDithers]

77. Must be the kind of science that has 60cm in a meter...nt

Sid

[zappaman]

95. Ooooooooooooh...THAT science!

[limpyhobbler]

116. This is DU, where we can say Ann Romney has sex with her horse, and nobody asks to see proof.

Maybe the OP is just a below-the-belt shot at Rush. Cut it some slack. Why so much effort defending the honor of a hateful right-wing biggot? If it's not stochastic terror or whatever this time, he'll probably be guilty of it later anyway.

[zappaman]

118. Defending Rush?

Hardly.
OP makes assertions without facts. THAT'S the problem.

"If it's not stochastic terror or whatever this time, he'll probably be guilty of it later anyway."
Who made you judge and jury?
Hey, what about that guy walking by? He's probably guilty of something too.
Why don't we just accuse everybody of everything?
By the way, what are you guilty of? Must be something...I just know it.

[limpyhobbler]

119. There are assertions everywhere without facts. Why so much focus on one OP that accuses Rush ?

Rush has a big microphone and he ought to be careful what he says. Rush wouldn't leap to your defense or mine. He accuses people of stuff on his radio show all the time without any facts to back it up. He does stoke hatred for the gov't and for our elected leaders. I don't think he had anything to do with the incident in Colorado, but also not jumping to defend him. I understand how much sense this OP makes and it makes at least as much sense as a segment of the Rush Limbaugh show.

[zappaman]

120. yes, that's all true about Rush

Now show me that the shooter was a Rush fan.
Then show me how Rush urged him to do what he did.
Go ahead...I'll wait.

[limpyhobbler]

121. ...

You could be waiting for a while. Like I said, I don't think Rush is to blame for this shooter, but also don't feel the need to defend him. IOW, it's cool to make shit up about Rush once in a while. Or to just let something slide. Like this OP. We could just say hey that's not fair to rush, but let's let it slide. He deserves it cause he's a gross bully.

[Brickbat]

28. Could you post some peer-reviewed articles on the concept of "stochastic terrorism"?

Obviously, propaganda works. But this specific idea of inciting people who are mentally unstable in order to wreak some sort of unspecified havoc seems like a mighty big reach to me. Why tailor propaganda to the unstable when it works so well on people who are ready to believe it?

[slackmaster]

60. I searched for reputable publications on the subject of "stochastic terrorism"

It seems there is one book and a whole lot of blog posts, but no peer-reviewed journal articles.

[zappaman]

61. Have you found anything online

linking it to this particular tragedy?

[slackmaster]

65. Only this thread

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Try the International court

A Rwandan was convicted of war crimes, for using his spot in mass media...

Or you are telling me the court, which used specialist testimony and peer reviewed articles, made it from whole clothe.

[zappaman]

64. No, you're being told that you are ascribing a motive to the shooting

without any basis in fact.
In other words, pulling it out of your ass.

[slackmaster]

66. I am familiar with the term "Incitement to Genocide"

Why would Rush Limbaugh want to incite someone to shoot up a crowd of young movie fans, who are undoubtedly of a broad mix of races, religions, political persuasions, etc.?

They're not a member of any identifiable group that could conceivably make rational sense to someone as a target of genocide.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. See 67

[slackmaster]

71. Already read it. It makes no sense. Terrorism by definition has an intended goal

Over and out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. In time it will

Terrorism it is...and already has had an effect.

[Brickbat]

86. As near as I can tell, the term is a fairly recent one.

But I can't find a good definition, and the stuff in this thread is all over the place. If Rush Limbaugh has no intent (as alleged in Post 67) to incite, but people who are mentally unstable feel like they should commit some act because of what he says, how is that a concerted effort to get them to commit some act?

Rwanda is a totally different example. That was straight-out propaganda and explicit calls for the general population to commit explicit acts. The theory of "stochastic terrorism" breaks down without intent, benefit to the instigators, understanding of those participating (Post 58 -- if they are stable enough to recognize their own manipulation, then how is it this subtle thing?) and so on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Use string "academic papers and stochastic terrorism"

Top of the search

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574001305800110

[slackmaster]

93. All roads lead back to a January 2011 blog post on thedailykos.com

Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. alas that is what you could not find

an academic paper leading to the 1990s... is this another one of those cases Romney loves?

[zappaman]

97. Are you speaking in some kind of code?

Ok.
The eagle has landed on the lawn.
Repeat...The eagle has landed on the lawn.

[leveymg]

126. Nadin is right about the origin in social sciences of the term stochastics. It's a branch of

statistics that deals with complex, large number sets where the extreme ends of the phenomenon aren't consistent with what would be predicted for the rest of the curve.

Stochastics is a branch of numbers theory and nondetermininistic social science related to Chaos Theory that has been proven widely useful in the last 30 years or so in studying complex phenomena such as stock markets, social media, weather patterns and such. Jared Diamond, a professor at UCLA, popularized it in describing, explaining and predicting the sudden collapse of states and societies. His best known works are Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, and Guns, Germs, and Steel. These are very good and accessible reads for people who think they hate statistics and applied social sciences, but you will end up really enjoying these books and the numerous examples of societies he gives of societies that fail, and his explanations, are clear and compelling.

Nadin's basic point, if I understand it, is that things that happen at the outlying extremes -- like the Batman shooting -- can't really be accurately predicted by the same relatively simple explanations that encompasses the mainstream activity at the center. Thus, social processes that start out being fairly predictable at their inceptions appear to become unpredictably complex within a short period of time. Even a small change that occurred long ago, can have enormous and violent results at their farthest ends. But, as Chaos Theory shows, contained in the complexity and seeming chaos are amazing regularities that show up at all levels of examination.

The concepts behind "stochastic terrorism" are pretty well established social science. It isn't just something a blogger made up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. You got it right

it is like the flutter of a butterfly and all that.

[zappaman]

131. Is it like being "in a few shootouts"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002995290#post61

Where was this again?

[zappaman]

24. You don't have the abilities of the OP...obviously.

It's not easy being a know-it-all.

[dionysus]

57. don't make fun of nostradamus like that.

[sabrina 1]

31. You read DU don't you? That's where I read about Rush's clip.

[slackmaster]

59. I don't have time to read everything, and I really don't care what media clownz say

Especially fat windbags like Rush.

[sabrina 1]

82. The point isn't what YOU read or do not read. The point is that you accused the OP

of being a regular listener to Right Wing radio.

People are explaining to you that you never had to turn on Right Wing radio to hear what Rush had to say about the movie.

Iow, clearing up a misconception that you created about someone else which people now know was false.

The story was right here on DU.

Maybe next time ask someone where they got their info before jumping to false conclusions and creating a false impression about someone else.

[slackmaster]

91. I didn't accuse her of anything. I asked a question.

RIF

[truth2power]

73. Nadin, I don't know how anyone who frequents DU could have missed

that incident with Rush.

An interesting and ironic thing about that: Someone posted in a thread the title of the original book, graphic novel, whatever it was, published back in the nineties or so, that gave the name of the antagonist as "Bane". Thus giving the lie to Rush's complaint that this was some liberal conspiracy.

You'd think Rush would have done his homework on this. Makes him look like an even bigger fool, if that's possible.

Maybe someone can post the name of that book.

ETA: On reflection, my statement in the subject line seems kind of snarky. Everyone can't be up to speed on everything that is posted on DU. There's lots of stuff that I just pass by because it doesn't seem important at the time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. I do

And will leave it at that

[obliviously]

104. Do we blame this on bourbon

or have you been out in a lightning storm again?

[zappaman]

5. Except you or anyone else has yet to hear a motive

So, this is just speculation, not a fact.
But that never stops you, does it?

[slackmaster]

7. That's paranoid, just as ridiculous as blaming producers of violent movies like The Dark Night Rises

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Actually it is a well understood phenomena

Starting with Rwanda.

[zappaman]

15. Did you learn a new term today and couldn't wait to share it?

Even if it may not apply here?
Or do you somehow have all the facts that no one else does?
I miss UNREC.

[Mira]

26. Reading your deliberate attempts to misunderstand, so do I n/t

[lapislzi]

69. Thank you!

This is what I have been saying all day.

There's no one tweet or catch phrase or directive from any single source. But it's the drip, drip, drip of the intoxicant from multiple sources that works its malignant magic on the subject, or subjects, until one of them blows.

And every loud mouth gas bag can claim plausible deniability.

[freshwest]

113. Has been mentioned in several killings; one of police officers, another in SF at a 'liberal' place;

And people gunned down at a church. People have been attacked from this in cases that did not result in deaths but were clearly acts terrorism in which the rantings from Glenn Beck were prominently mentioned. He was even mentioned in the trials.

From Thom Hartmann's website:

Are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and the rest of the gang guilty of stochastic terrorism?

Submitted by louisehartmann on 13. January 2011 - 10:02

President Obama was in Arizona last night to speak at a memorial service for the victims of the Arizona shooting. He - along with a few Members of Congress – also visited Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the hospital where more positive signs of recovery continue to emerge. Giffords reportedly opened her eyes for the first time. The President focused his speech on the victims of the tragedy – using the death of 9-year-old Christina Green to encourage our nation to move forward – to be better. As he said, “I want America to be as good as she imagined it.” His speech stood in stark contrast to the bitter and divisive statement Sarah Palin released the day before. Palin focused much of her time on the shooter – and invoked the term “blood libel” to characterize her treatment from the media. “Blood libel” is a blatantly anti-Semitic remark and may also be a dog whistle to her base of militias and ultra Conservatives as she prepares her 2012 Presidential run. While President Obama stayed above the fray – refusing to condemn the political rhetoric coming from the Right…as he probably should – I won’t.

When you listen to people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and the rest of the gang – it’s easy to see – these men and women are guilty of something called stochastic terrorism. That is – the use of mass communication like radio or television to encourage individuals to commit random lone acts of violence. It’s what Glenn Beck was guilty of when he encouraged Byron Williams to attempt to massacre members of the Tides foundation and ACLU. It’s what Bill O’ Reilly was guilty of when he shouted “Tiller the baby killer” a dozen times on his show – and then someone killed Dr. George Tiller. And it could be what all these talking heads are guilty of when Jared Lee Loughner took his semi-automatic pistol to a local Safeway grocery store in Tucson on Saturday and attacked his hated "big government" by trying to assassinate a Congresswoman. We are living in a volatile and violent nation today – and if we want to emerge from it – we need to recognize the damage certain people on the Right are doing. They are profiting off their own unique form of terrorism.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2011/01/are-sarah-palin-glenn-beck-michael-savage-and-rest-gang-guilty-stochastic-terrorism

Thom Hartmann is not a loose talker and liberals do not call for gunning down liberals as conservatives such as Rush, Michael Reagan and others. There were death threats inspired by O'Reilly against Christne Gregoire, and other liberal poltiicans and some of these have resulted in convicions.

This is no a new concept and it's been around a long time. If one thinks that America is immune to the kind of media inspired violence that the Nazis used in their inflammatory rhetoric, or when imams called for people being killed as a a result of cartoons, or that all killings are just random, they really should check out history.

Thom's webpage above gives well-known examples. There was a Democrat running for office in AR who had his family terrorized; buidings where Democrats were holding their precinct meetings have been bombed. It's rather disingenous to say that no one knows about this phenomenon.

I've seen these on the bumpers and back windows of SUVs and pickup trucks for years:



Some may have trouble reading that. For those, here is the text:

No Bag Limit - Tagging Not Required. May be used while under the influence of alcohol. May be used to Hunt Liberals at Gay Oride Parades, Democrat Conventions, Union Rallys, Handgun Control Meetings, News Media Association, Lesbian Luncheons, and Hollywood Functions. MAY HUNT DAY OR NIGHT WITH OR WITHOUT DOGS

There was a more recent one:



Some posters see liberals and conservatives as the same. Some people see socialists and fascists as the same. No explanation will answer the questions.

[nc4bo]

11. Investigate.

Where did the guns come from? Was he employed/finances? Why was he dropping out of school? Where did the money come from for him to be so well supplied? Who did he associate with?

A thorough investigation would resolve all of the questions.

[Hutzpa]

16. Few names come to mind when you think of

stochastic terrorist; Rush, Hannity, Beck, Weiner etc.

They all should be frog marched to DHS if you ask me. Since they're stoking up home grown terror.

[ananda]

17. Thoughts.

This kind of "terrorism" is endemic in media, religious, and political rhetoric.
It pervades our society.

And yes, vulnerable, emotionally unstable individuals will be incited to violence
because of it.

However, it's disingenuous to say that the stochastic incitement is the work of
one lone individual or just one particular type. Our whole corporate consumerist
social structure enables it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. The point is we need to have that conversation

[zappaman]

19. The point is you have ascribed a motive before anyone else.

That's called "being without facts".
Not good journalism...

[gtar100]

22. Yes, and the more they're brought to light...ahem,right-wing radio...the less effective they'll be.

It seems their greatest weapon is to harm and/or kill their opponent. Our greatest weapon is to expose them for the vile human beings that they are and let nature takes its course.

[unblock]

27. orange alert!!! kurtosis on the loose!! skewed deviance!! mean regression!!

anovaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

[enki23]

38. He's just another victim of the GLM

.

[unblock]

53. yup. now i have the least squares.

[B2G]

29. So let's suppose that it comes out that he is an OWS'er

Are you saying that the Occupy movement is responsible?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Isn't that a hell of a jump from data available?

But hey, expected.

[B2G]

35. I was just following you over the cliff. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. So you are calling accepted science

First recognized in Rwanda, (a radio host was charged with crimes against humanity for that one) going over the cliff?

I know science is not the strong point of many, but jeez!!!

[zappaman]

42. Can you link to any news that supports your assertion?

I know facts are not the strong point of many, but jeez!!!

[B2G]

43. God you are condescending

Your little lesson for the day isn't what's being called into question. It's your assumption that it's what caused this guy to shoot up a movie theater.

I know, I know. Welcome to your Iggy list. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. No, I just pointed the phenomena

You're the one who jumped.

And not more condescending than you, nor did I come out of the shoot with an expected attack. And no you won't go to iggy, the idiocy is way too enjoyable.

[zappaman]

45. Bully. n/t

[B2G]

49. The first sentence of your OP:

"This s another case of it"

Try again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Yes, and

Go on...more

Yummy.

[DemocratsForProgress]

72. No. Actually you're the one who jumped

with both feet, right into a ridiculous premise that you don't have a prayer of proving, because it's ludicrous.

And your dragging Rwanda into this discussion merely proves it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. More entertainment

Pass the

[DemocratsForProgress]

78. While you're enjoying your snack

Go back and read the first line of your OP. Your words, I presume?

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Lovely

More

I may get too much of the stuff

[TheManInTheMac]

87. Hey, now. Some of us are hear to learn.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

132. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:23 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

God you are condescending http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=983818

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/? com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:34 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'd sooner hide the post this is in response to than this one. Leave it! Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Leave it alone - I've read bad posts, this is not one. Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Tired of these stupid alerts. Knock it off Nada Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seems OK in light of the post it was responding to. Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see no reason to hide this. Kaleva Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: She IS condescending and thoroughly enjoys this.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[zappaman]

133. Good jury decision! n/t

[B2G]

140. And here I thought she was enjoying the banter

I mean, she had popcorn and everything.

[zappaman]

141. No, it's typical.

We are due for a Goodbye thread soon...

[SidDithers]

81. "I know science is not the strong point of many"...

Sid

[BOG PERSON]

114. lol

[sabrina 1]

36. I thought the media said he was a Teabagger?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. And then backed off

Not the same Holmes.

[B2G]

46. I though Aurora was where Moore bought the gun

I swear I read it somewhere...

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Ah expected

Should I add butter, salt and other stuff, or just plain popcorn?

The entertainment value alone.

Go on.

[sabrina 1]

50. Yes, I know.

The OWS claims though, came from the usual suspects, not even bad reporting by the media.

[zappaman]

52. Agreed

Just more bullshit speculation....much like the op!

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yup, care for some popcorn?

Like the sun rising.

[4th law of robotics]

83. No, the nice thing about this theory is that it requires no hard evidence

and the facts can be spun to suit whatever narrative is deemed necessary.

Even if he were a member of the OWS (just for the sake of argument) it could still be claimed that he at some point overheard one of Rush's broadcasts (can't disprove it) and that forced him to act.

It is a non-falsifiable theory. In other words: garbage.

You can't disprove it any more than you can disprove alien mind control was involved. Both theories are exactly as accurate and supported by the facts.

[zeemike]

30. K and fucking R

Somebody needs to say it...and we need to recognize it for what it is.
We can't just keep blaming it on mental illness and guns...those are just the tools.
And just as a poor workman blames his tools we blame the stochastic terrorists tools.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Well, yes...

But we, I fear, will not have that talk yet.

[zeemike]

40. Probably not.

Because it would mean change and change is a fearful thing....and so is admitting that there is something wrong with us.

[cali]

33. Paranoid Schizophrenia

and yes, that pretty much does rule out stochastic terrorism.

[HiPointDem]

41. If we're not supposed to leap to conclusions, why should we leap to the conclusion that he had

paranoid schizophrenia?

[cali]

76. I've maintained we shouldn't leap to political conclusions

and I'm not leaping. Details that dovetail with such a diagnosis are already extant.

[HiPointDem]

88. are you a psychiatrist or medical professional?

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=42

why is your speculation more valid than anyone else's?

The validity of the DSM-IV diagnostic classification system of non-affective psychoses.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

The schizophrenia and other non-affective disorders categories listed in the DSM-IV, are currently under revision for the development of the fifth edition. The aim of the present study is to demonstrate the validity of these categories by investigating possible differences between diagnostic patient subgroups on various measures.

METHODS:

1064 patients with a diagnosis of non-affective psychosis (schizophrenia N = 731 (paranoid type 82%), schizoaffective N = 63, schizophreniform N = 120, psychosis not otherwise specified/brief psychotic disorder N = 150) participated in this study. Dependent variables were demographic and clinical characteristics, severity of psychopathology, premorbid and current functioning, and indicators of quality of life.
RESULTS:

Within the diagnostic group of schizophrenia, no significant differences were observed between paranoid schizophrenia, disorganized, and undifferentiated schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia experienced more severe psychopathology and had poorer levels of current functioning compared to patients with psychosis not otherwise specified or brief psychotic disorder. Differences between schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder were less clear.

CONCLUSION:

Our results do not support the validity of schizophrenia subtypes. Schizophrenia can be distinguished from brief psychotic disorder and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. These findings may fuel the actual DSM-V discussion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22026404

[cali]

110. No. As I said I worked within the Mental Health System for years

First in Mental Health Agencies and then for some years for the federally mandated Protection & Advocacy Program. I worked with the criminally insane and the health care professionals caring for them. I knew several paranoid schizophrenics who had murdered people. and came to know them well.

I was right about Loughner and I'm betting on right about James Holmes.

[HiPointDem]

112. iow not a medical professional or diagnostician. I myself worked "with" nuclear physicists.

[AnnieK401]

47. I can't stand Rush, either

and it would warm my heart to see this blamed on him. However, some details that are coming out (the heavily "booby trapped" apartment, the fact that he quit Med. School last month) tend to indicate that this had been planned for awhile.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Yes, this is how it works

And we need to start talking of it. In Rwanda there was planning too. He was going to, the question is what movie he was going to chose?

[slackmaster]

63. I'm struggling to fathom how on Earth a Rush Limbaugh could benefit from a horrible crime like this

I can't imagine any rationalization under which he could have WANTED it to happen.

It makes no sense at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Here is what you are missing

Unlike our Rwandan friend who wanted the end result. (dead Tutsies) Rush does not have intent. But his words still can have that effect. Wiener might actually want that, but Rush, no he does not want it. Any responsible media person though, should be aware of the potential.

But Rush does engage in eliminationist language regularly, to his credit, not as often as Wiener or a few others.

[Xipe Totec]

56. The Fisher King - That's the basic premise of the story.

Except that the character that triggers the event in this case, really does not anticipate the consequences.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. I know.

Many a times I wonder if real life missiles actually understand the consequences as well.

[lapislzi]

70. Oh, and I forgot to rec.

100% agreement; I am sure the facts will eventually bear this out.

[4th law of robotics]

80. How do you differentiate "stoichiastic terrorism" from "sh*t happens"

As it appears you can simply claim any random act of violence is part of some greater trend led behind the scenes by Those People even without any evidence.

Even if it could be proven this guy didn't listen to any of the mass media you are referencing you could always claim he got it second hand from friends.

So this is a non-falsifiable theory. Which means it's a matter of faith.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Why this theory entered the ICJ

Pass the

[kctim]

89. This is an interesting theory

As this is "well understood science at this point," could you help with how it pertains here?

If I am following your posts right, you believe:

Rush used mass media to broadcast memes to incite an unstable person to commit this violent act.
You claim the hidden message to this guy was in Rushs' talk about "Abput Bane, Bain and the Dark Knight"
The unstable person does his deed and Rush can use plausible deniability and deny he is responsible for what people in his audience do.

So why does this guy call himself the Joker? A character that was last seen 4 years ago? A character that has nothing to do with Bain or the Dark Knight?

[zappaman]

92. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Never argue with the OP.
They know everything!

[Zalatix]

94. As I said in another thread, it's about degrees of separation of culpability.

[BOG PERSON]

98. so martin scorcese is a stochastic terrorist

for making the film "Taxi Driver" (1976). which i'm sure he understood plenty of viewers would totally miss the point of (e.g. john hinckley). how many people to this day consider travis bickle a heroic character?

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. Whoosh!

That's ok, you're not alone

[zappaman]

101. Yes, he is not alone.

I admit you are smarter than anyone here.
Waaaaaaay smarter!

[Zax2me]

100. What a load of crap.

I remember when this same bull was said about the lunatic that tried to murder Gabrielle Giffords.
Until it was leaked how much he hated George little-bush.
Then it kind of died down.

This particular lunatic painted his hair red and told police he was the joker - after shooting up a Batman movie viewing. From that you get stochastic terrorism?

This all borders on sick.
Sick that some are politicizing a tragedy while bodies still litter the floor.
Stochastic terrorism?
My ass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Nd when a crazy went nuts in an European country

Don't forget that one.

Oh and I forgot the IJC and Rwanda.

[zappaman]

103. Some people just think they know it all.

Don't worry, when it comes out that this person's particular pet theory is bullshit, the poster will self delete and cover their tracks.
Happens like clockwork...

[fascisthunter]

105. you have quite a fan club

same folks every time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. And most are on ignore for good reason

You'd figure after a while they'd get tired!

[fascisthunter]

108. good idea

[malaise]

107. As in Scumbaugh

Beck et al

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Yup...O'Reilly coud directly

Be connected to one.

[malaise]

111. Indeed

I remember that one

[DonCoquixote]

115. an unpleasant truth

The fact is, ever since Mussolini was one of the first politicians to use Radio, the right wing has had an advantage. They had no problem using the mass media to pander to fear and anger, especially since the media can give the illusion that you do not have to get past these emotions to actually learn. Father Coughlin during the FDR years, Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all have been part of a successful chain to reach out to the weak minded, those who want to lash out.

Part of this is that we on the left have been a bit arrogant. Some of the intellectuals are all too happy to do book tours and college lectures, but have scoffed at giving EXOTERIC knowledge, language meant for the common person. A great tragedy of the left is that we talk about the "proletariat" our abstracted vision of the common person, but have no clue how to speak TO the common person.

Current TRIES, but it is new, and while I love some of the MSNBC crew, sometimes I wish Rachel Maddow would realize that half her audience will be lost with her academic language, even though I know she is seriously dumbing down half her words. Michael Moore is better, as is Cenk.

[SlimJimmy]

117. Answer this question. Did Limbaugh talk about the movie months ago?

That's what I thought.

[loli phabay]

122. i thought the movie was just released, not understanding this one at all.

[SlimJimmy]

123. The OP is claiming that this is a case of stochastic terrorism. In other words, the act of

terrorism influenced directly by an outside force. How is that possible if Limbaugh's comments happened months after the suspect started planning and buying material for the attack?

[zappaman]

124. The OP has learned a new term and is edumacating us.

The OP knows all...

[SlimJimmy]

125. The OP knows all...

The OP doesn't know *jack* in regards to this subject.

[leveymg]

127. You probably know less. See #126.

[SlimJimmy]

128. The OP is wrong about the cause of this criminal act. You are confusing one thing with another.

I didn't say it doesn't exist, I maintain that it doesn't apply in this case. Unless the suspect was clairvoyant, he couldn't have acted upon something that hadn't happened yet. In this case he was planning, and purchasing items used in the crime, months before Limbaugh ever spoke a word publicly about the movie. You are trying to defend the indefensible.

[leveymg]

134. You are confused about the nature of stochastics - studies indeterminacy, not cause and effect.

Bernoulli Stochastics, which is one branch of the subject, holds that the starting point is to some degree indeterminate, and that gives uncertainty to subsequent events. The science is in determining the degree of uncertainty. To make this plain, the Fat Man with a Cigar is just one element, a random variable, which is one of the events leading to The Joker with an AR-15 and two .40 Glocks.

Before you comment derisively on a subject, you should understand its fundamental principles. You obviously don't.

[SlimJimmy]

135. You should have read the OP which stated that there was a direct link between Limbaugh's speech

and this act. Speech that occurred months after the suspect started planning and acquiring material for the specific act. Maybe you should read the entire thread and comments before you hit send.

[leveymg]

136. Is your problem with nadin's OP above , G2Geek's DK post, or Paul Rosenberg at OpenLeft?

I've read all three. Here's Rosenberg at DKOS citing G2Geek:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/21377/stochastic-terrorisma-powerful-highly-accurate-new-meme
"Stochastic Terrorism"--A powerful, highly accurate new meme
by: Paul Rosenberg
Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:00

In a recent discussion thread, Sadie Baker called attention to a very important DKos diary with a powerful new meme, "Stochastic Terrorism". The diarist has been using the term for some time now, and many others have described this process as well. But the time has never been ripe before for this particular picture-perfect formulation to gel. Now, however, the time is ripe--it cuts through so much BS all at once (particularly the way that individualist assumptions and framing cloud people's understanding), and puts the facts together most succinctly:

Stochastic Terrorism: Triggering the shooters.
by G2geek
Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:37:39 PM PST

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.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do. And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.

Update: the mechanism spelled out.

(This update is to resolve some ambiguity.)

The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist. The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Here's the mechanism spelled out concisely:

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.

One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act. While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. "given the provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such&quot , the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet).

The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do."

The lone wolf who was the "missile" gets captured and sentenced to life in prison, while the stochastic terrorist keeps his prime time slot and goes on to incite more lone wolves.

Further, the stochastic terrorist may be acting either negligently or deliberately, or may be in complete denial of their impact, just like a drunk driver who runs over a pedestrian without even realizing it.

Finally, there is no conspiracy here: merely the twisted acts of individuals who are promoting extremism, who get access to national media in which to do it, and the rest follows naturally just as an increase in violent storms follows from an increase in average global temperature.

I would actually disagree with this last paragraph. There's not a conspiracy in any sort of clock-and-dagger sense. But there's definitely a long-term strategic plan. There's a hegemonic struggle. And it's not just "individuals". There are entire media organizations based around pushing these sorts of provocations on a regular basis. The provocations to violence are only one part of a wider range of provocations, all of them couched within a framework of conservative victimology.

But that's an issue which is considerably more complicated to deal with and explain. What can be said is that the stochastic terrorism model doesn't require any sort of conspiracy--no activist cells, no on-the-ground organizations for the FBI to track down and infiltrate, etc. So we can just set that whole issue aside for the purposes of discussing stochastic terrorism in and of itself.

[ . . ]

The essential point all make is that Limbaugh's ongoing hate rants -- like the radio propagandists in Rwanda -- is just part of a chain of violent provocation and aggitation propaganda that unhinges people with violent unstable tendencies.

Why is that so hard to understand - or, do you disagree with the fact and theory of psychological warfare?

[SlimJimmy]

137. Because the OP said there was a direct link between what Limbaugh said specifically

(ie; the Bain - Bane rant) and this suspect's actions. The problem, as I have pointed out several times now, is that Limbaugh stated these things months after the suspect had purchased items and started planning for this event.

The essential point all make is that Limbaugh's ongoing hate rants

If the OP hadn't tried to connect specific speech to these acts, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But she did, and that is why I am commenting that this is not a case of stochastic terrorism based on Limbaugh's speech alone - which is what she is strongly implying in her OP. She is wrong.

[leveymg]

138. Reference to Limbaugh is once or twice removed. Take it up with the others at the link.

You made your point - which, BTW, is really a red-herring, once or twice removed.

At this point, what you're doing amounts to harassment of a fellow DUer. It's unnecessary.

[SlimJimmy]

139. Have you read *anything* in this thread?

The reference to Limbaugh is direct, and not even once removed - see below.

4. interesting, but how is this a case of it?
we don't even know the guy's motive yet. Or do we?

6. Remember what Rush said the other day
Abput [sic] Bane, Bain and the Dark Knight?

At this point you are grasping at straws. Why are you trying to defend the indefensible?

[loli phabay]

129. precognition i suppose.