3 ms·

The implication of ST is you aren't targeting a specific individual, so this analogy falls short there - "Chris2048 on HackerNews" is definitely targeted. Peopl

by Chris2048 4y ago

The implication of ST is you aren't targeting a specific individual, so this analogy falls short there - "Chris2048 on HackerNews" is definitely targeted. People rail against HN and its "tech bros" all the time.

XorNot 4y ago
The definition is widely accepted now to include targeting either a group, or an individual[1]. The "stochastic" component is that no individual or group is being specifically directed by command to carry out the attack, but the speaker is knowingly or negligently adding rhetoric to incite someone to do so. But you're also conflating terms: criticism is not an incitement to violence. An incitement to violence is specific: "I think it would be great if some implied violence happened to that group I don't like". It's specifically not considered ST to say something like "I hope some legal consequences happen to this person who I think is committing crimes" because amongst other things, that's a call to the application of the justice system, not terrorism. It's also worth noting that other incitements, like encouraging someone to commit suicide has been found to be a punishable crime - and this is the sort of action Kiwi Farms specializes in and openly supports against their targets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_te...
- Chris2048 4y ago
  Perhaps, but then "individual or group" seems to be pretty relevant to me, especially if you provide information specific to that individual/group versus a "tribe" of distributed individuals. Plus, the "terrorism" aspect seems to apply to a wider group, or who else is terrorised? Presumably, individuals or groups with similar principles. Your example also doesn't incite violence, just heavily implies it.

3 ms·

The implication of ST is you aren't targeting a specific individual, so this analogy falls short there - "Chris2048 on HackerNews" is definitely targeted. Peopl

by Chris2048 4y ago

XorNot 4y ago
The definition is widely accepted now to include targeting either a group, or an individual[1]. The "stochastic" component is that no individual or group is being specifically directed by command to carry out the attack, but the speaker is knowingly or negligently adding rhetoric to incite someone to do so. But you're also conflating terms: criticism is not an incitement to violence. An incitement to violence is specific: "I think it would be great if some implied violence happened to that group I don't like". It's specifically not considered ST to say something like "I hope some legal consequences happen to this person who I think is committing crimes" because amongst other things, that's a call to the application of the justice system, not terrorism. It's also worth noting that other incitements, like encouraging someone to commit suicide has been found to be a punishable crime - and this is the sort of action Kiwi Farms specializes in and openly supports against their targets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_te...
- Chris2048 4y ago
  Perhaps, but then "individual or group" seems to be pretty relevant to me, especially if you provide information specific to that individual/group versus a "tribe" of distributed individuals. Plus, the "terrorism" aspect seems to apply to a wider group, or who else is terrorised? Presumably, individuals or groups with similar principles. Your example also doesn't incite violence, just heavily implies it.