Kerby Anderson

Progressive activists have invented a term that is used to criticize and condemn Christians and conservatives. The term is “stochastic terrorism.” As someone who has had numerous classes in math and science, I have never seen the word “stochastic” used in the social sciences, until now.

The textbook definition of stochastic is: “randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.” Some examples of stochastic models would be a Monte Carlo Simulation or a Markov-Chain Model.

Of course, that is not what progressive activists mean. Instead, they use the term to criticize and condemn someone not even connected to a crime. Days after a shooting at a gay bar in Colorado, Focus on the Family had its entrance vandalized. “Blood is on your hands” was spray-painted on the door. Or the Buffalo shooter adopted some conspiracy views therefore Tucker Carlson was guilty of incitement.

Now, there was no evidence that the Colorado shooter even listened to Focus on the Family or that the Buffalo shooter even watched Tucker Carlson. That doesn’t matter according to stochastic terrorism. Someone is guilty merely for holding to traditional views and promoting them in the media.

In previous commentaries, we have talked about the progressive concept that “words are violence.” On my radio program, I have discussed this dangerous concept with Jonathan Haidt, co-author of the book, The Coddling of the American Mind. He and his co-author document the danger of equating words you may not like with violent acts.

Yes, words are important and powerful tools. But trying to link a violent act to a Christian group or a conservative commentator makes no sense. These activists would be wise to leave the word stochastic to the sciences and stop using it to criticize and condemn people they don’t like.