Stochastic terrorism is when the attack outcome is predictable statistically, but not individually. In this case, the sentence would’ve resulted in the murder of the archbishop, but you couldn’t pinpoint who and when would commit it.
Ah, my mistake. I thought it meant that the victims were not individually predictable, like “won’t someone rid me of these meddling Anglicans” and then a bunch of random Anglicans get killed, but as you suggest, Wikipedia says " Stochastic terrorism…describe[s] a mass-mediated process in which hostile public rhetoric, repeated and amplified across communication platforms, elevates the statistical risk of ideologically motivated violence by unknown individuals, even without direct coordination or explicit orders. "
I mean that interpretation isn’t inherently wrong, and in today’s views makes sense.
And the term doesn’t apply directly to this case (hence my “(quasi? proto?)” remarks), but has enough similarities to be related more than just tangentially.
It’s not stochastic if you can predict the outcome (which, depending on what you think about Henry II, he likely did).
You’ve got the definition wrong.
Stochastic terrorism is when the attack outcome is predictable statistically, but not individually. In this case, the sentence would’ve resulted in the murder of the archbishop, but you couldn’t pinpoint who and when would commit it.
Ah, my mistake. I thought it meant that the victims were not individually predictable, like “won’t someone rid me of these meddling Anglicans” and then a bunch of random Anglicans get killed, but as you suggest, Wikipedia says " Stochastic terrorism…describe[s] a mass-mediated process in which hostile public rhetoric, repeated and amplified across communication platforms, elevates the statistical risk of ideologically motivated violence by unknown individuals, even without direct coordination or explicit orders. "
I mean that interpretation isn’t inherently wrong, and in today’s views makes sense.
And the term doesn’t apply directly to this case (hence my “(quasi? proto?)” remarks), but has enough similarities to be related more than just tangentially.