I think everyone is able to see how the other side incites violence, but thinks the rule doesn't apply to them. For instance, there was a lot of rhetoric about

I think everyone is able to see how the other side incites violence, but thinks the rule doesn't apply to them. For instance, there was a lot of rhetoric about how dangerous it was when Donald Trump was elected - that it would be the end of Democracy, that fascism was coming to the U.S., that we could well end up with concentration camps and nuclear war. The man who shot up the Congressional baseball game[1] was a member of pages dedicated to how threatening Trump and the Republicans were. Are the people who said that responsible for his attempt at political assassination? I guess you can argue that. But most people I see bringing up "stochastic terrorism" suddenly say that those types of violence don't count. It's not just that this outlook is controversial - I've yet to meet anyone who has applied it consistently. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shootin...