Dec 11, 2022Liked by Justin Ling

You are such a good writer!

Expand full comment
Dec 10, 2022Liked by Justin Ling

Fantastic piece!

Expand full comment

I'm kind of against the phrase "Stochastic Terrorism", because you always just then have to explain it.

But I'm very much in favour of the TV pundits being called out for it, as here. Since you have to stop and explain the danger and connection anyway, there's no point using the Big Word.

Their stochastic terrorism is the most-significant event in journalism right now, to me. Journalism is protected speech, of course. What's not protected is "active speech", the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre", because that causes immediate action, with no time for reflection.

But Rwanda, and the radio broadcasts that kept pounding repetitively on how much the Hutu deserved to be killed, and that worked - that showed us another kind of "active speech" where incendiary repetition could also remove all reflection and judgement: 800,000 dead.

From Bill O'Reilly helping to get his "Tiller the Baby Killer" victim murdered in his own church, to the stochastic terrorism against immigrants and the non-straight today, I think it's an area where we need more enforcement. What kind, man, there's a discussion. But the discussion should start.

Expand full comment

I'm always leery of these quasi-academic concepts being used for a very real, public problem.

I think, armed with the facts, people can spot extremism when they see it. And there's lots of extremism to spot, here.

And if there's one thing I absolutely hate, it's debating semantics during an actual crisis.

So I'm not big on the term, and I feel like people fervently evangelicalizing it are expending a lot of energy in the wrong direction.

Expand full comment