That’s kind of the point. It’s a vague sort of can’t prove or can’t disprove it concept that is easily corrupted and overused to the point it doesn’t really mean anything other than an expedient label for any type of speech one doesn’t agree with while failing to hold individuals accountable for their own actions.
See if you would have stopped there you would have a little bit of an argument of a single instance that points toward “stochastic terrorism”. Then you tried to paint Charlie Kirk with the same broad brush and the argument falls apart.
Thats exactly why its effective! Its vague enough where the speaker avoids direct blame. But its easily corrupted by radicals on both sides and serves as motivation for violence from them.
For example, Kirk was a proponent of the nonsense Great replacement theory. Did he invent it? No. Did he tell any specific person to commit a specific act of violence related to it? No. But he certainly talked about it and promoted it. So when the Buffalo shooter cited it in his manifesto as a reason for the grocery store shooting of... immigrants...the link is there. Is it 100% his fault? Of course not. But the event is linked to all who created and promoted that theory
Same with jan 6. The jan 6 planners were followers/inspired by the stolen election and election fraud theories. All heavily promoted by Trump and his allies. So the link is there
Another example, would be Trump saying that Haitians were eating people dogs. Placing a target on Haitians specifically, and immigrants generally. Did he advocate for a specific violent act? No. But certainly some wacko could have been inspired by those words.
Now lets look at the definition of stochastic violence
Stochastic violence, more commonly known as stochastic terrorism, refers to the public demonization of a person or group through mass communication, which provokes statistically probable but individually unpredictable acts of violence. The name comes from the statistical term "stochastic," which describes a random variable that can be analyzed statistically but not individually predicted.
Public demonization of a person or group through mass communication? Haitians eating dogs and great replacement theory. Check
Provokes probable but unpredictable violence? Buffalo shooting. Check. Haitians? Over 30 bomb threats called into Springfield schools after his comments...many with anti Haitian messages. Check
Now lets look at some of the characteristics of stochastic violence
Rhetoric from an influential figure: The process begins with a public figure using hostile language that vilifies and dehumanizes a specific person or group. The language is often indirect and uses "plausible deniability" to avoid explicit calls for violence.
Check
Amplification by media: Mass media and social media platforms spread and intensify this rhetoric, fostering a climate of fear and anger among the figure's followers.
Check
Motivated audience: Some individuals or "lone actors" who are susceptible to radicalization interpret the rhetoric as a green light for violence. Experts argue this is not a coincidence but a statistically predictable outcome of the rhetorical strategy.
Check
Avoidance of responsibility: After the violence occurs, the instigator can condemn the act or claim it was random, thereby maintaining plausible deniability and avoiding blame.
Check
So as you can see, the speech patters from Trump and Kirk fit exactly within the definition of stochastic violence. Does it mean its only their fault or all their fault? Of course not. Does it mean they should be victims of violence themselves? Absolutely not. And of course they can say whatever they want
But to deny that their speech is part of the problem, is simply wrong. I didn't invent the term.
And i am sure you could find examples within some far left movements that also fit the bill. Its not unique to the far left or far right...but the far right is far more successful with it
www.bbc.com
research.skeptic.com
