Yes, that's the dividing line.

Specific example that I linked:

>Rallies organized by Likud and other right-wing groups featured depictions of Rabin in the crosshairs of a gun. In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".

>Netanyahu denied any intention to incite violence

Rabin was subsequently shot dead.

The definition in Wikipedia says:

>Stochastic terrorism refers to political or media figures publicly demonizing a person or group in such a way that it inspires supporters of the figures to commit a violent act against the target of the speech.

Of course, direct "kill this person" language is not a requirement for that. "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?"[1] is a famous example from the 12th century.

>If "XXX of party YYY is a disgusting piece of human garbage" than I don't think that should be called terrorism.

By itself, it wouldn't be. However, if XXX of party YYY subsequently starts getting death threats or other harrassment as a result of this statement being made, there is a problem.

Which language a public person uses to indicate a target to their followers highly depends on the context and history of the particular public person and the group they are addressing.

Hopefully, you understand why doxxing[2] is problematic. There are real-life consequences for the person being doxxed. However, the language is perfectly benign; after all, there is no explicit call to action in an address, a phone number, a name.

Stochastic terrorism similarly leverages context and publicity to highlight targets. It's not about how you would interpret the message; it's about how the target audience interprets it.

In Tran's case, both the message (die slowly) and the target audience's interpretation (a call to harrasment) indicate that there was no miscommunicaiton.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

>>However, if XXX of party YYY subsequently starts getting death threats or other harrassment as a result of this statement being made, there is a problem.

How can you control that, though? Are people responsible for the mental state of all their followers? Or do they have to ensure that every utterance is so milquetoast that no action would ever come of it?

I'd have less of an issue if these rules were to be applied in a politically neutral fashion, but we know they never will be.

>How can you control that, though? Are people responsible for the mental state of all their followers?

No. There is an extent, however, to which leaders are responsible for the actions of their followers.

They know what audience they're speaking to.

>Or do they have to ensure that every utterance is so milquetoast that no action would ever come of it?

False dichotomy.

They have to not encourage their followers to commit violence against others.

The entire point of someone engaging in this would be plausible deniability; the ambiguity is a part of it.

>I'd have less of an issue if these rules

Which rules? It's not like we're discussing legislation here.

We're discussing a concept.

>a politically neutral fashion

Oh, how curious. Do you seem to imply that certain political groups are more likely to be accused of inciting violence against individuals or groups?

Perhaps with a documented track record of spikes in violence following public statements?

Hmmm.

>>Perhaps with a documented track record of spikes in violence following public statements?

Yes, like Maxine Waters committing "stochastic terrorism" against the Supreme Court.

Or maybe you're talking about BLM?