80

Knowing something about statistics, this phrase really threw me. And I couldn't figure out what it could possibly have to do with feminists. Apparently, language has been twisted so that you can make someone accountable for something they didn't do. This is Ministry of Truth level stuff! Let me explain:

Example: Somebody says, "I disagree with gender ideology." Over the course of a year or any random amount of time, some trans person somewhere is killed. According to the reasoning of "stochastic terrorism", YOU caused that killing. Why? Because YOU should have known that disagreeing with gender ideology would cause killings of trans persons, somewhere, sometime, somehow. In statistical terms, YOU made that killing more likely by saying or even thinking that, and so you share the guilt for what happened.

Wow. Just wanted to make sure all Ovarians knew this new insidious little rhetorical turn, in case someone throws that accusation against you.

Knowing something about statistics, this phrase really threw me. And I couldn't figure out what it could possibly have to do with feminists. Apparently, language has been twisted so that you can make someone accountable for something they didn't do. This is Ministry of Truth level stuff! Let me explain: Example: Somebody says, "I disagree with gender ideology." Over the course of a year or any random amount of time, some trans person somewhere is killed. According to the reasoning of "stochastic terrorism", YOU caused that killing. Why? Because YOU should have known that disagreeing with gender ideology would cause killings of trans persons, somewhere, sometime, somehow. In statistical terms, YOU made that killing more likely by saying or even thinking that, and so you share the guilt for what happened. Wow. Just wanted to make sure all Ovarians knew this new insidious little rhetorical turn, in case someone throws that accusation against you.

69 comments

[–] pennygadget 55 points Edited

This has been a tactic for years. If we want to talk about the levels of Black women subjected to domestic violence, we get shut down for demonizing Black men. If we want to talk about FGM, we get shut down for being Islamophobic and contributing to stereotypes about Muslims. If we advocate for workplace protections for women, we're accused of hating stay at home moms. If we want to discuss opening more women's shelters, we're accused of not caring about homeless men. If we want to discuss how policies favoring men in lipstick have disenfranchised females, we get accused of intentionally driving trans people to suicide. Etc etc...

Its all a ploy to exploit our empathy and keep us silent

Exactly, the tactic isn't used on men, because it doesn't work on men! TIFs are trying all the TIM tactics to guilt gay men into pretending to be attracted to them, and it isn't working. They get shot down in no uncertain terms.

I'll bet TRAs have no problem with that, lol. They only give a shit if someone with a dick and balls gets upset

EXACTLY! I don't get how so many ppl fail to see the common denominator here: every one of these things is a way to shut women up

Tell the truth and shame the devil, as they used to say.

If a person or the group they belong to can be made to look bad by a simple statement of facts about what they do and believe, then maybe they need to take a hard look in a mirror and fix somethings.

Don't you know Janice Raymond has the blood of 50K trans women on her hands because of a report that she wrote and someone else cited in a policy?

I didn't know there was a term for this tactic, but it's definitely not a new one.

no one ever listens to women. So now they claim our words have weight?

Pick a side assholes. One or the other.

Damned if we speak out and damned if we don't. Women can never win, that's how despised we are.

This is the double bind of oppression. People experiencing actual oppression have no winning scenarios. They are punished regardless of what they choose to do.

The only way out of it is to fight back as a class. This harms individuals in the class but helps the class overall. We need to expect that men and their handmaidens are going to hurt us for fighting back.

"Won't someone rid me of this turbulent priest?"

When Henry II said this (or something like this), his knights knew exactly what he was really asking even though he did not say it, and several of them murdered the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas à Beckett.

When we used to talk about stochastic terrorism, this was THE example. Coming from the King, that is not a rhetorical statement. But coming from Joe Blow on the street, is anyone going to obey him? Not likely. However, coming from a person in a position of media power...maybe. It gets complicated when you get to perceived power. For example, the reddit incel forum and its influence on Elliott Rogers and various other femicides. But merely discussing something, even something controversial, cannot be held to have the same effect or the world collapses into nonsense. Did Galileo cause the death of priests in Florence because he insisted the world was round? (I mean, surely some died around the same time) Did Sinead O'Conner destroy the Catholic church when she ripped up a photo of the pope on TV? Do atheists really cause the damnation of children?

To a TRA, the answer to all of these would be no, no and no, and I'd get accused of cherry picking or twisting things. But if I am, then you must make a case for why THESE dissenters, THESE heterodox believers, THESE free-thinkers are different from women who are gender atheists. Go ahead. I'll wait.

"Won't someone rid me of this turbulent priest?"

When Henry II said this (or something like this), his knights knew exactly what he was really asking even though he did not say it, and several of them murdered the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas à Beckett.

When we used to talk about stochastic terrorism, this was THE example.

That just makes me think of this:

https://youtu.be/U6cake3bwnY

Is "gender atheist" a new term? I just saw it for the first time today and it's popped up 3 times now. Not trying to be a dick, just curious

Not a new term, it's been around for at least a couple years. I think you just experienced the Baader-Meinhoff Phenomenon.

Superb comment. How could we even have a thing called science (debased as it is these days) unless someone could say, "No, I don't think so, and here's why."

On the flip side, anytime a man disagrees with a woman on anything, they are committing stochastic misogynistic terrorism whenever a woman dies.

Yes, they are! :-) However, I suspect the terrorist label only works one way, right?

Sadly but we shouldn’t forget to be inclusive of the penis havers and magical thinkers alike 😔

It's like in Peter pan when, every time a child says "I don't believe in fairies", one of them dies. Unless someone claps their hand.

Lol i've thought this to myself many times.. "i DO believe transwomen are women! i do! i do!"

[–] hmimperialtortie cats plz 8 points

I always liked Hook ...

I forgot where I read this, but hook is actually the good guy. Peter pan was capturing kids (might have even been a pedo) and manipulated them to stay in never land. Hook was a kid that got away and wanted to stop Peter pan.

Well Pan is a child and continues to be one forever. But he won't tolerate others becoming adults so that's why he kills them. When he doesn't bother with Wendy for a few years he's horrified to find that she's grown up and tries to murder her baby.

Peter Pan is the warning and the explanation as to why growing up has to be inevitable.

[–] hmimperialtortie cats plz 8 points

Pan also seems to have killed off the Lost Boys when they got too old.

I never read the book - when I found out in school that Hook was killed I noped out. (Someone who looked like Charles II being killed? Not for me!). I was going to watch the 2003 film with Jason Isaacs, because swoon, but the start was too irritating to sit through (and I couldn’t stand Pan having an American accent). So it’s been all fanfic for me, including one that actually got published, Alias Hook.

Well if talk is terrorism, I'm concerned about the way people talk about women. I've got to say I think there's a lot more sexism and misogyny than there is talk about trans. I'm thinking of all of history and most of the internet here. Do you think people would take us very, very seriously and earnestly reconsider their ways if we called them terrorists?

I've always thought domestic violence should be referred to as domestic terrorism, for that is what it is.

I think sexual assault and harassmant plays a similar role: we all know it could happen to us on the basis of our sex. We don't even have to be targeted by someone we know since our sex is visible to everyone. We have a level of rational fear about the possibility. I presume that creating such a "stochastic" threat is not the specific intent of violent males, but there are certainly some men who take advantage of that fear to give their verbal abuse and intimidation more weight and threat.

It's like intersectionality. They pick up a term and it's their favourite word for the year and they'll use it in any way they possibly can, regardless of whether that's what the word really means or how it's meant to be used.

It's how misogyny disappears and is replaced by 'transmisogyny' and how intersectionality is repeatedly abused to force women to centre men.

Oooo, a new woque buzzword! Especially since it’s unnecessary and what it’s referring to isn’t actually happening! What these Goebbelsian assholes really mean is “people are becoming aware of our horrible, destructive ideology and are criticizing us”.

Lol you can really tell that "stochastic terrorism" is their new favorite flavor-of-the-month term they saw on Twitter that makes them feel super smart to use (despite having no earthly fucking clue what they're on about).

Yes, it's a way to charge you with wrongthink by asserting there are "real" negative consequences (when they are none).

Load more (12 comments)