General Discussion

ananda

(35,015 posts)

17. Thoughts.

Reply to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 02:08 PM

Jul 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

141 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Stochastic Terrorism [View all] nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 OP

Very smart. wakemewhenitsover Jul 2012 #1

knr Coexist Jul 2012 #2

Kick nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #3

interesting, but how is this a case of it? Enrique Jul 2012 #4

Remember what Rush said the other day nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #6

Do you habitually listen to Rush Limbaugh? slackmaster Jul 2012 #8

Just because the clip was played in every other media outlet nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #9

And if he didn't hear the clip? Brickbat Jul 2012 #12

I've never watched or listened to any of those sources slackmaster Jul 2012 #13

Go to media matters if you are so inclined. nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #14

Here is your quote nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #20

I'm not seeing a connection between such a trite conspiracy theory and some wack job shooting up... slackmaster Jul 2012 #21

What you call conspiracy theory nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #23

And there it is zappaman Jul 2012 #25

Must be the kind of science that has 60cm in a meter...nt SidDithers Jul 2012 #77

Ooooooooooooh...THAT science! zappaman Jul 2012 #95

This is DU, where we can say Ann Romney has sex with her horse, and nobody asks to see proof. limpyhobbler Jul 2012 #116

Defending Rush? zappaman Jul 2012 #118

There are assertions everywhere without facts. Why so much focus on one OP that accuses Rush ? limpyhobbler Jul 2012 #119

yes, that's all true about Rush zappaman Jul 2012 #120

... limpyhobbler Jul 2012 #121

Could you post some peer-reviewed articles on the concept of "stochastic terrorism"? Brickbat Jul 2012 #28

I searched for reputable publications on the subject of "stochastic terrorism" slackmaster Jul 2012 #60

Have you found anything online zappaman Jul 2012 #61

Only this thread slackmaster Jul 2012 #65

Try the International court nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #62

No, you're being told that you are ascribing a motive to the shooting zappaman Jul 2012 #64

I am familiar with the term "Incitement to Genocide" slackmaster Jul 2012 #66

See 67 nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #68

Already read it. It makes no sense. Terrorism by definition has an intended goal slackmaster Jul 2012 #71

In time it will nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #74

As near as I can tell, the term is a fairly recent one. Brickbat Jul 2012 #86

Use string "academic papers and stochastic terrorism" nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #90

All roads lead back to a January 2011 blog post on thedailykos.com slackmaster Jul 2012 #93

alas that is what you could not find nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #96

Are you speaking in some kind of code? zappaman Jul 2012 #97

Nadin is right about the origin in social sciences of the term stochastics. It's a branch of leveymg Jul 2012 #126

You got it right nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #130

Is it like being "in a few shootouts"? zappaman Jul 2012 #131

You don't have the abilities of the OP...obviously. zappaman Jul 2012 #24

don't make fun of nostradamus like that. dionysus Jul 2012 #57

You read DU don't you? That's where I read about Rush's clip. sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #31

I don't have time to read everything, and I really don't care what media clownz say slackmaster Jul 2012 #59

The point isn't what YOU read or do not read. The point is that you accused the OP sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #82

I didn't accuse her of anything. I asked a question. slackmaster Jul 2012 #91

Nadin, I don't know how anyone who frequents DU could have missed truth2power Jul 2012 #73

I do nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #79

Do we blame this on bourbon obliviously Jul 2012 #104

Except you or anyone else has yet to hear a motive zappaman Jul 2012 #5

That's paranoid, just as ridiculous as blaming producers of violent movies like The Dark Night Rises slackmaster Jul 2012 #7

Actually it is a well understood phenomena nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #10

Did you learn a new term today and couldn't wait to share it? zappaman Jul 2012 #15

Reading your deliberate attempts to misunderstand, so do I n/t Mira Jul 2012 #26

Thank you! lapislzi Jul 2012 #69

Has been mentioned in several killings; one of police officers, another in SF at a 'liberal' place; freshwest Jul 2012 #113

Investigate. nc4bo Jul 2012 #11

Few names come to mind when you think of Hutzpa Jul 2012 #16

Thoughts. ananda Jul 2012 #17

The point is we need to have that conversation nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #18

The point is you have ascribed a motive before anyone else. zappaman Jul 2012 #19

Yes, and the more they're brought to light...ahem,right-wing radio...the less effective they'll be. gtar100 Jul 2012 #22

orange alert!!! kurtosis on the loose!! skewed deviance!! mean regression!! unblock Jul 2012 #27

He's just another victim of the GLM enki23 Jul 2012 #38

yup. now i have the least squares. unblock Jul 2012 #53

So let's suppose that it comes out that he is an OWS'er B2G Jul 2012 #29

Isn't that a hell of a jump from data available? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #32

I was just following you over the cliff. n/t B2G Jul 2012 #35

So you are calling accepted science nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #37

Can you link to any news that supports your assertion? zappaman Jul 2012 #42

God you are condescending B2G Jul 2012 #43

No, I just pointed the phenomena nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #44

Bully. n/t zappaman Jul 2012 #45

The first sentence of your OP: B2G Jul 2012 #49

Yes, and nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #54

No. Actually you're the one who jumped DemocratsForProgress Jul 2012 #72

More entertainment nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #75

While you're enjoying your snack DemocratsForProgress Jul 2012 #78

Lovely nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #85

Hey, now. Some of us are hear to learn. TheManInTheMac Jul 2012 #87

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service UnrepentantLiberal Jul 2012 #132

Good jury decision! n/t zappaman Jul 2012 #133

And here I thought she was enjoying the banter B2G Jul 2012 #140

No, it's typical. zappaman Jul 2012 #141

"I know science is not the strong point of many"... SidDithers Jul 2012 #81

lol BOG PERSON Jul 2012 #114

I thought the media said he was a Teabagger? sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #36

And then backed off nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #39

I though Aurora was where Moore bought the gun B2G Jul 2012 #46

Ah expected nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #48

Yes, I know. sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #50

Agreed zappaman Jul 2012 #52

Yup, care for some popcorn? nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #55

No, the nice thing about this theory is that it requires no hard evidence 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #83

K and fucking R zeemike Jul 2012 #30

Well, yes... nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #34

Probably not. zeemike Jul 2012 #40

Paranoid Schizophrenia cali Jul 2012 #33

If we're not supposed to leap to conclusions, why should we leap to the conclusion that he had HiPointDem Jul 2012 #41

I've maintained we shouldn't leap to political conclusions cali Jul 2012 #76

are you a psychiatrist or medical professional? HiPointDem Jul 2012 #88

No. As I said I worked within the Mental Health System for years cali Jul 2012 #110

iow not a medical professional or diagnostician. I myself worked "with" nuclear physicists. HiPointDem Jul 2012 #112

I can't stand Rush, either AnnieK401 Jul 2012 #47

Yes, this is how it works nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #51

I'm struggling to fathom how on Earth a Rush Limbaugh could benefit from a horrible crime like this slackmaster Jul 2012 #63

Here is what you are missing nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #67

The Fisher King - That's the basic premise of the story. Xipe Totec Jul 2012 #56

I know. nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #58

Oh, and I forgot to rec. lapislzi Jul 2012 #70

How do you differentiate "stoichiastic terrorism" from "sh*t happens" 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #80

Why this theory entered the ICJ nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #84

This is an interesting theory kctim Jul 2012 #89

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! zappaman Jul 2012 #92

As I said in another thread, it's about degrees of separation of culpability. Zalatix Jul 2012 #94

so martin scorcese is a stochastic terrorist BOG PERSON Jul 2012 #98

Whoosh! nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #99

Yes, he is not alone. zappaman Jul 2012 #101

What a load of crap. Zax2me Jul 2012 #100

Nd when a crazy went nuts in an European country nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #102

Some people just think they know it all. zappaman Jul 2012 #103

you have quite a fan club fascisthunter Jul 2012 #105

And most are on ignore for good reason nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #106

good idea fascisthunter Jul 2012 #108

As in Scumbaugh malaise Jul 2012 #107

Yup...O'Reilly coud directly nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #109

Indeed malaise Jul 2012 #111

an unpleasant truth DonCoquixote Jul 2012 #115

Answer this question. Did Limbaugh talk about the movie months ago? SlimJimmy Jul 2012 #117

i thought the movie was just released, not understanding this one at all. loli phabay Jul 2012 #122

The OP is claiming that this is a case of stochastic terrorism. In other words, the act of SlimJimmy Jul 2012 #123

The OP has learned a new term and is edumacating us. zappaman Jul 2012 #124

The OP knows all... SlimJimmy Jul 2012 #125

You probably know less. See #126. leveymg Jul 2012 #127

The OP is wrong about the cause of this criminal act. You are confusing one thing with another. SlimJimmy Jul 2012 #128

You are confused about the nature of stochastics - studies indeterminacy, not cause and effect. leveymg Jul 2012 #134

You should have read the OP which stated that there was a direct link between Limbaugh's speech SlimJimmy Jul 2012 #135

Is your problem with nadin's OP above , G2Geek's DK post, or Paul Rosenberg at OpenLeft? leveymg Jul 2012 #136

Because the OP said there was a direct link between what Limbaugh said specifically SlimJimmy Jul 2012 #137

Reference to Limbaugh is once or twice removed. Take it up with the others at the link. leveymg Jul 2012 #138

Have you read *anything* in this thread? SlimJimmy Jul 2012 #139

precognition i suppose. loli phabay Jul 2012 #129