Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Should we consider how people react to all the internet BS not that all or even a minority, but some people
It does have a name “Stochastic terrorism”
|
Should we consider how people react to mainstream media BS from commentators like Don Lemon, Mika Brzezinski/Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, and media comedian/commentators like Noah Trevor, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher? Are they responsible for stirring up Stochastic terrorism?
Or political "how aboutism" such as Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi--do they stir up any Scholastic terrorism.
And your article's using Bin Laden as an example of one who stirs up terrorism--That was his SPECIFIC INTENTION. Are you saying, or more appropriately for you, are you suggesting That Trump intentionally is stirring up shootings, killings, terrorism?
It appears to me that, if you are suggesting that, using a communication forum to express it, that is a sort of stochastic terrorism--stirring the pot of the "Trump-is-a-killer/Hitler/Nazi/white nationalist/blah, blah" syndrome. Which can lead to a lone wolf to go after him or after his followers.
If you are suggesting that Trump should change his tune, I would respond that such would be a surrender to the cacophonous Anti-Trump screeching that assaults him, and the rest of us, every day. And if you are suggesting that if Trump changed, the cacophony would also, I would say that you're dreaming. The anti-Trump narrative, with its extremist accusations and characterizations, is the only thing now that the left functionally has to defeat him and the Republicans.
Personally, whatever truth there is in your article, it is, at best, suggesting one of the minimal, collateral, dangers of free speech. To curtail speech because of that danger is the beginning of limiting speech because of many other small dangers and ultimately the elimination of the very anchor of political and personal freedom. To ban speech that may offend or possibly (not deliberately) stir to violence, limits speech to the most banal and barely utilitarian use.
Which would be very advantageous to authoritarian government.