Scott argues against the concept of 'stochastic terrorism' by showing it's applied inconsistently across the political spectrum, examining and rejecting various proposed distinctions about what criticism should be allowed, and advocating instead for a liberal solution where all criticism is permitted but violence is always the perpetrator's sole responsibility. Longer summary

Scott critiques the concept of 'stochastic terrorism' - the idea that harsh criticism of a group can make you responsible for subsequent violence against that group. He provides numerous examples across the political spectrum (from Trump to Muslims to health insurance CEOs) to show the concept is applied inconsistently and opportunistically. He examines and rejects various proposed distinctions (harsh vs mild criticism, policies vs individuals, powerful vs weak targets) as either arbitrary or contradictory. Scott argues for a liberal solution: any criticism should be allowed, violence is never legitimate, and perpetrators bear 100% responsibility for their actions. He acknowledges some edge cases around incitement and hate speech laws, but maintains that normal legal frameworks handle these better than the 'stochastic terrorism' concept. Shorter summary