Last week, the Dkos Firearm Law and Policy group posted a diary on the subject of "stochastic terrorism" (here), defined in the dairy as:
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.
In our editorial discussions prior to publication, I expressed my misgivings about the concept of "stochastic terrorism" in the form of some questions to the other editors. LilithGardener, the diary author and group editor, suggested I post my questions as a comment to the published diary. The resultant comment discussion was animated and contentious, and many readers/participants found it offensive (
here). I would now like to clarify my thoughts of "stochastic terrorism", and make an apology to everyone I offended.
1. It is not a good idea to gratuitously call other Americans “terrorists”.
- Calling Americans “terrorists” is divisive. America is strongest when we work together and calling each other “terrorists” weakens our communities and our nation.
- Calling someone a “terrorist” has a long and grotesque history of being used to silence political expression. All Americans, regardless of their political leanings, should be allowed to openly express their political views peacefully without being branded as “terrorists”.
- The US government currently applies horrible violations of civil rights and human dignity to people designated as terrorists on the flimsiest of evidence: there are very real penalties for people designated as “terrorists”. We should not be using that label lightly or gratuitously.
- Liberals hate it when Sarah Palin claims that Pres. Obama “pals around with terrorists”; liberals hate it when Fox News describes the President as giving a “terrorist fist bump”. Such language is grotesque when spoken by conservatives; it is equally grotesque when spoken by liberals – even when the label “terrorist” is modified by “stochastic”, “heuristic”, “post-modern”, or any other foo-fa. (N.B.: This is not a “both sides do it” argument: it is a “it is gross behavior when done by conservatives, and it is gross behavior when done by liberals” argument. It is a “this is gross behavior” argument.)
2. Gun violence in America is not a result of what is said by conservative talking heads on Fox News; it is a result of the wide availability of too many guns.
- There is large amount of carefully done scientific research showing that where there are more guns, there are more people getting shot.
- There is little to no evidence that people go out and shoot others because of what they see or hear on TV or the radio or in video games.
- Even if we were to have solid evidence that people are motivated to violence by watching Fox News, in the absence of the easy availability of very lethal weaponry the likelihood of their successfully carrying out a violent attack would be greatly reduced.
3. I am sorry that I upset readers when I tried to make these points in the comments of the previous diary.
- My earlier comments were poorly made and upsetting to readers.
- I acknowledge that my previous comments were upsetting to readers.
- I apologize for my previous comments and commenting behavior.
- I will do my best to avoid upsetting readers in my future comments. I trust the dkos community will (gently) guide and advise me in this and correct me when I fall short.
The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you would like to write about firearms law please send us a Kosmail.
To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.
|