I really resent articles that teach people to live in needless fear. Yes, this shooting was a tragedy and the U.S. has an absurd number of mass shootings compared to other high-income countries - that is wrong and so many of us have called for change for years (especially since so many shooters have histories of abusing women). It doesn't mean that "the LGBTQ family" is under constant threat. As others have pointed out time and time again, trans-identified people are less likely to be murdered than other groups. A good thread here last week (I can't find it now - can anyone help) pointed out that more people are killed by toddlers accidentally setting off guns each year than trans-identifying people are murdered for any reason (and if you want to look at TIPs killed because of transphobic violence, the numbers are vanishingly small). Fearmongering and telling people it's unsafe to live normal lives is harmful to their mental health and wellness and it needs to stop. For the love of god, let's get gun control and lock up dangerous men stat, but it's not because "the LGBTQ family" is under particular threat.

And I think, in terms of mass shootings, women and kids seem the current prime targets. I'm including LB women in that. It's really become just men terrorizing the rest of us.

Ls keep getting threatened and assaulted by TQs. But that's not a narrative the Jeff Bozo media wants to go with.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 15 points Edited

"We're so filled with totally real, absolutely not at all fake or performative 'fear' that we've taken a slur that literal gaybashers used to scream like a war cry as they committed murder or mayhem, and actually made it part of the not-even-an-acronym into which homosexuals are about to be coercively assimilated."

That last thing, by the way, is really making me see red. Not just any red, but scary, technicolor, fucking lycanthropic bloodlust red—which i might even have to navigate with little more than guesswork at certain points, because it's emotional frontier territory.

In any case. That the "LGBTQ" "community" would run roughshod over the actual depth of tragedy, and disregard the space needed by those thrown into fresh grief, was something that, sadly, i was fully expecting.
That they would not stop at just papering over the tragedy of a mass murder, but would immediately jump headlong into cynically leveraging *it to * accelerate their forced assimilation of LGB people, on the other hand, I was NOT expecting. But that's exactly what they're doing.

This is a GAY MEN's club—an identifier that, on this day of all possible days, SHOULD get top billing across almost the entire political spectrum, bringing us together in actual remembrance and pressing pause, however ephemerally, in other political fights.
But, no. Oh no. The word "gay" doesn't even so much as make a cameo in most of the Colorado reportage. "Gay", "homosexual", "men", all scrubbed entirely from the story. It's nothing but "LGBTQ" this and "LGBTQ" that.

These TQ+ captured, and/or just useful idiot, reporters are OVERJOYED that a TIF was gunned down. They really are—as sick and genuinely subhuman as that makes them.
Just look at how they're falling all over themselves to "other" the TIF victim. EVERY SINGLE MENTION of this murdered TIF explicitly others her by calling her out as trans, in precisely the same way that the shrieking choir of TIMs would smear as a literal attempt to commit genocid.
"TMAM", which we all now know is an optional part of the TQ+ loyalty credo, has been gleefully tossed out the window by reporters RACING to write omg omg twans man was there!—which just so happens to be exactly the pretext they need to scrub every single occurrence of "gay" or "homosexual" from their lcoverage, and to steamroll the entire story with forced "LGBTQ" assimilation that was reserved exclusively for the "L" until about two minutes ago.

The "Transgender Days of Remembrance" in places with exactly ZERO deaths to memorialize makes me see more of the same lycanthropic red.

Just imagine if a whole year went by during which Karen Ingala-Smith tallied ZERO dead Women! My god, I'd be sobbing like an idiot with tears of pure joy. The existential relief of, just this once at least, being able to flip the switch to cancel the suddenly redundant "day of remembrance" would almost certainly be one of the best moments of our lives.

The TQ+ though? A "Trans Day of Remembrance" was duly held in the UK, where the last such killing was almost 5 years ago. And in Norway, where it was almost 15 years ago. Exactly what the fuck is "remembered" in such places?

What's marginalized, even forgotten, in those places that still go through all the performative solemnity despite 0 deaths –rather than marinating for at least one day in l the sheer joy of *actually being able to cancel the fucking thing "—is the violent killings of Women, which continue apace around the world.

They're literally trying to colonize grief and bereavement. They want to take even THOSE things from us. Even MS-13, comprising some of the world's worst and cruelest men, doesn't attack grieving rivals at funerals.

The TQ+ does, without a single qualm in sight. This makes them actually, literally, objectively, subhuman. They are subhuman.
If writing this is a bannable offense, then so long and thank you.

Personally I was really put off by the police department reciting the sacred pronoun shahadah when listing the names of the dead. But not their "deadnames," because that would, uh, make them want to commit suicide or something.

We're never going to get that giant meteor, are we?

[–] DonnaMme [OP] 13 points Edited

So there will be even more pressure for women to remain silent and anyone who speaks out will immediately be branded as pushing violence against TIP. I posted this to the comment section

There are many violent men and this is a terrible tragedy. When will the gun access laws be changed? But this tragedy should not be conflated with women's efforts to regain rights that are being invalidated. There are women who are standing up, speaking out for their rights and speaking against the trend to hypersexualize children. This is not a violent movement but I am sure that the media will lump them in with violent groups. Why will this happen? I don't know but the media has blacked out any women who speak up

Not very well written, my comment and I am thinking of dropping my subscription to WaPo. Too much money and it's the most manipulative of the woke newspapers but the media has such power to silence.

I had a sub to dIgital WP once. Then they did a spread on TIM Richard Levine becoming the “first woman” ever get promoted to admiral or multi-star general or something.

Someone pointed out in the comments that a real woman had already attained that rank a few years ago and was an actual military commander, not head of some fed service departments.

Anyway, I pointed out that Levine was a man, father of 2 children. I got an email that my commenting privileges had been suspended for 2 hours. I replied to them to terminate my subscription, effective immediately, which they did. Haven’t regretted or looked back for one nanosecond.

The "first female" line that's peddled about Levine makes me so mad. He did not face the challenges that women doctors typically face. His teachers and professors didn't encourage him to become a nurse instead instead of going to medical school. He didn't have to months or years out of his career for pregnancy and child-rearing. He did not have to grit his teeth and politely ignore it when male patients sexually harassed him.

Musk has an ongoing beef with Bezos. Wish he'd buy WaPo and unleash sane free speech there too.

Dictionary dot com was already subtweeting/trolling with their word of the day being stochastic terrorism. It's all one big engineered narrative with big money behind it. More people should read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" for an examination of what "the Party" / "the Cathedral" is doing in terms of woke newspeak. It's gotten to the point that I'm so sick of this movement that when something like this happens, I struggle to even care.

Best thing to do is condemn violence as we always do, and to ignore the calls to back off criticizing twanz ideology on grounds that it's "stochastic terrism" and just keep exposing their lies. It's a scare tactic by "regressive progressives" to create a chilling effect, just like they did when they victim-blamed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, the South Park creators, and outspoken reformist Muslims, for "Islamophobia." When everything is stochastic terrism, nothing is, and none of their calls to "kill TERFs" or the threats they've made against detransitioners ever meet with actionable consequences or pushback, so the worst thing to do would be to let their wolf cries intimidate our side in any way. They've been going on for so long that "words are violence" and hurt feelings or disagreement are a thousand times worse than the Holocaust and 9/11 combined, such that when actual violence occurs, they want to make a false equivalency or declare gender-critical beliefs to be the gateway drug, rather than address legitimate issues like gun control or male domestic violence. Just let the news cycle wash over this event. It sounds callous, but at some point the public will reach twanz fatique from their constant wailing, fearmongering, and finger-pointing that everyone from Dave Chappelle to Elon Musk has blood on their hands, and none but the most hardcore "be kind" believers in the one true gospel will be arsed to care.

A trend is emerging, and I think its origins lie in the USA, to label these lone shooters as "terrorists". Any attempt to resists this watering-down of the concept of "terrorist" is met with outrage and indignation. Don't I care that people died? Don't I think that's a beyond-awful thing? If I don't want him labelled a terrorist, maybe it's because I'm on his side? Thus all are forced to take part in this semantic escalation, or be viewed with suspicion themselves.

We are heading in the direction of every assault being called terrorism and every act of discrimination being called genocide. How long before the terms "beyond terrorism" and "beyond genocide" make their appearance? Victimhood culture is a competitive game. When everybody's a victim, it's important to ensure they acknowledge that the thing you're a victim of is worse than the thing they're a victim of. And apparently it's much worse to be the victim of a terrorist attack than the victim of a mentally ill lone shooter.

[–] Apricot_Ibex LGB Ally 🏳️‍🌈 1 points

I’d say some lone shooters have met the real definition of “terrorists” because they do have political aims, while many others do not, but instead of analyzing each perpetrator on a case by case basis, the word is often used for all of them, which renders it almost meaningless. People who use it as a blanket term almost seem to be interpreting it as meaning someone who is “terrorizing” the public.

Incel shooters have been recognized by the state of Texas Dept. of Public Safety as a domestic terror threat:

Although not a new movement, Involuntary Celibates (Incels) are an emerging domestic terrorism threat as current adherents demonstrate marked acts or threats of violence in furtherance of their social grievance. Once viewed as a criminal threat by many law enforcement authorities, Incels are now seen as a growing domestic terrorism concern due to the ideological nature of recent Incel attacks internationally, nationwide, and in Texas. What begins as a personal grievance due to perceived rejection by women may morph into allegiance to, and attempts to further, an Incel Rebellion. The result has thrust the Incel movement into the realm of domestic terrorism. The violence demonstrated by Incels in the past decade, coupled with extremely violent online rhetoric, suggests this particular threat could soon match, or potentially eclipse, the level of lethalness demonstrated by other domestic terrorism types.

I mean, at the point they started describing semi-automatic rifles as weapons of mass destruction I think the jig was up.

[–] RawSienna 6 points Edited

I watched the seeding and spread of the fucking dumb term “stochastic” terrorism a few weeks ago. It’s a lame attempt to manufacture some new, exotic type of terrorism aimed at the left.

Stochastic means “random” (more or less) and the first time I heard the term was years ago and was referring to some type of printer technology. So “stochastic terrorism” is a redundancy because terrorism is random by its very nature.


[–] kayfabe 2 points Edited

I regret not taking a screenshot but someone on Reddit got real huffy about something and posted a long preachy headline that included “Scholastic (sic) terrorism” yesterday lol

edit: I found it


[–] ProxyMusic 4 points Edited


adjective technical

randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

Origin: mid 17th century: from Greek stokhastikos, from stokhazesthai ‘aim at, guess’, from stokhos ‘aim’.

Also, I don't the it's true that "terrorism is random by its very nature." The traditional definition of terrorism is

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

Most terrorism, whether committed by the IRA, Weather Underground, Al Queda or other Islamist fanatics, has been deliberately aimed at specific targets. Most terrorists put a lot of time and thought into planning out their attacks. From the perpetrators' perspective, there's nothing random about terrorism - that's just how it seems to everyone else.

[–] Eava 3 points Edited

The term has been used for several years to describe right wing rhetoric, not about trans issues in particular, but about immigration and antisemitism. The mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue was probably what started the use of the term. http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/featured/stochastic-terrorism-politics-spreading-fear-can-lead-deadly-violence/

It was definitely used a lot after 1/6.

And terrorism usually isn't committed by random people. Terrorists organizations are usually highly structured and they take credit for the violence they cause. Stochastic terrorism is different because there is no organizational structure, no one who carries out the violent acts is a member of a particular organization. It isn't Al-Queda, it is some random loser sitting in his parents' basement listening to people like Alex Jones and Donald Trump talk about his country being invaded, so he decides to shoot up a synagogue known for helping immigrants. There have been numerous events in the past 4 years that are examples of mass shootings targeting Hispanic and black communities. But it isn't the KKK doing it. It is an individual "patriot" defending his country.

Wild how people's perceptions are colored by the media they consume. I'd always heard stochastic terrorism being applied to, like, people who commit terror acts in the name of Isis. I think this application to right wingers whose speech you don't like is definition creep.

[–] Nim 3 points

From Dictionary.com - "Stochastic terrorism is “the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted."

Uhh, isn't this ALL terrorism already?

Terrorism comes from hatred of the 'other'.

They're trying to make a case for it being a random person who is a member of a following of a charismatic leader.

Shorthand for "Libs of Tik Tok founder is Hitler" (never mind that she is Jewish).