For an example (a silly one so people don't make a useless tangent arguing irrelevant details), if I for some reason believed that all Chevrolet drivers were fanatics and psychotics, and after someone made a disparaging comment about Chevrolet vehicles, I might say "I wouldn't be surprised if Chevy drivers assaulted someone over this". This doesn't mean I think that should happen, as it's an expression of what I think other people might do. It also doesn't actually express that other people might do this, because my mental model of those people is obviously incorrect. The only thing you can actually infer from that statement is what I think about that subgroup of people, whether I'm one of them or not, and that's just opinion.
> it means the thought crossed your mind...might start to look like something if there are a lot of them
This doesn't make any sense. Thinking about worst case scenarios is normal. The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed.
At the other end of the spectrum, it seems that people who go online and rant about how someone should shoot the President or cut a judge's brake lines or whatever are the least likely to follow through. They aren't exactly the movers and shakers of civilization, more likely just thoughtless kids or random loudmouths. Wasting law enforcement time on nonspecific threats is the sort of thing a government that has too much power tends to do.
Did he not say exactly what he was going to do, then do it?
I don't see what scale has to do with it.
I also don't see how an absolute statement like "The person who is going to rob you is the one person who is definitely not going to tell you in advance that you're going to be robbed." can be believed. It only takes one counter example.
This is a thread about anticipating crimes based on online commentary, something that could absolutely have flagged the Christchurch massacre.
Yes. The point being, he wrote a manifesto, not a vaguely-ominous sounding tweet.
Seems you know this background and motivation well. Since it perfectly fits the definition of terrorism, why won't you call him a terrorist? Is it because he isn't brown?
I chose "murderer" as a stronger word than "shooter". I didn't say anything about "brown people". I'm not sorry and you are out of line.
It means the thought crossed your mind with enough strength for you to post it. In almost all cases that's a big nothing, but it's a tiny breadcrumb that might start to look like something if there are a lot of them, or if you were to rant on about it in a thread. Its interesting to think about automating searches for actual threats or patterns that might be indicators.