Chippopotanuse t1_iujl1fn wrote
Reply to comment by N8CCRG in Alleged Paul Pelosi attacker charged with assault and attempted kidnapping | CNN Politics by electromagneticpost
I can’t stand Republicans.
But anyone who breaks into McConnell or Trump’s house, beats up their spouse with a hammer, and then threatens to break kneecaps deserves a SHIT TON of prison time.
It is insane and absurd that folks on the right are advocating for violence against political enemies, knowing that mentally ill folks like this guy will respond with violence.
All the GOP “stand back and stand by”, “fight like hell”, “take our country back”, and “will be wild” crap needs to end.
Sanpaku t1_iujq2av wrote
>Since 2018, the term "stochastic terrorism" has become a popular term used when discussing lone wolf attacks. While the exact definition has morphed over time, it has commonly come to refer to a concept whereby consistently demonizing or dehumanizing a targeted group or individual results in violence that is statistically likely, but cannot be easily accurately predicted.
>
>A variation of this stochastic terrorism model was later adapted to describe public speech that can be expected to incite terrorism without a direct organizational link between the inciter and the perpetrator. The term "stochastic" is used in this instance to describe the random, probabilistic nature of its effect; whether or not an attack actually takes place. The stochastic terrorist in this context does not direct the actions of any particular individual or members of a group. Rather, the stochastic terrorist gives voice to a specific ideology via mass media with the aim of optimizing its dissemination.
>
>It is in this manner that the stochastic terrorist is thought to randomly incite individuals predisposed to acts of violence. Because stochastic terrorists do not target and incite individual perpetrators of terror with their message, the perpetrator may be labeled a lone wolf by law enforcement, while the inciters avoid legal culpability and public scrutiny.
jigokubi t1_iujo65y wrote
Agreed. The average Republican is appalled by this event. But the message of people like Trump speaks straight to unstable people like this, or the goons that wanted to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, or—how much time have you got, it's a long list.
ButtMilkyCereal t1_iujq7h7 wrote
Bullshit. This is what the average republican wants, as evidenced that they keep voting for lunatics through the primaries and then into office. They won't hold themselves accountable, and are egging themselves into a civil war.
jigokubi t1_iujsajl wrote
>they keep voting for lunatics through the primaries and then into office
This is the core of the problem.
This is why I get so irritated when the only response people have to Jan 6th is "But, BLM looting!"
They never own up to what voting for Donald Trump lead to. Instead they make the false assertion that Democrats support violent protests.
I stand by my assertion that the average Republican doesn't like this. The problem is they keep voting Republican even when party has been taken over by lunatics.
To be fair, the party was already a terrible choice to begin with. There's a reason why Trump was appealing to Republican voters.
ButtMilkyCereal t1_iujvw0d wrote
To repeat a phrase, it's a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter if they're actually terrible people themselves, or just supporting terrible people while they do terrible things to the rest of us.
CrashB111 t1_iuk9ep7 wrote
If they keep voting for the inmates to run the asylum, they support it. Full stop. Tacit approval is approval nonetheless.
You can't vote for insanity, then just wring your hands afterwards and claim, "But I HAAAD to do it! The other option was a Democrat!"
fight_your_friends t1_iukaxsp wrote
> The average Republican is appalled by this event
As indicated by what, exactly? The fact that they've been spreading conspiracy theories about the situation and the motivation of the terrorist?
[deleted] t1_iujrfbg wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments