I’m not sure you’re understanding me, so let me try my best to clarify what I’m saying. Please approach my arguments in good faith rather than assuming I’m automatically wrong because I hold a motivation you’re assuming I have. Most mass shootings in history have been done for political reasons. Most of the time it’s the government acting through use of their militaries against other militaries and often against civilians, and also often by individuals or non-government groups committing acts of terrorism to affect some kind of political change. Some mass shootings, such as the one committed by Charles Whitman, were committed for other reasons but did not inspire others to follow their example.
The Columbine shooters were inspired to commit an act of violence by Timothy McVay not because they agreed with the radical libertarian political ideas he committed his act of terrorism for, but because they saw it made him notorious in the media. The Columbine shooters were inspired mainly by their desire for infamy and fame. This is clear from mountains of evidence of the shooters claiming that this is the inspiration for their act of violence. Since the Columbine shooters, an additional category beyond political violence has become common for mass shootings which is the desire to become infamous. Since Columbine this category of non-politically motivated mass shootings has been significantly more common than prior to Columbine mainly in the United States but also elsewhere such as Australia. There may have been mass shooters with the Columbine shooters’ motivations prior to Columbine, but they were rare and did not inspire the trend which Columbine inspired. It is extremely likely that since Columbine, the desire to become infamous is the motivation of a mass shooting which is committed for non-political reasons.
Media groups including the BBC have decided no longer to name and reveal information about mass shooters to deter this inspiration from possibly being fulfilled, hence why this article gives no details of “The gunman.” I am relieved whenever I see this and support it.
The US right wing protects mass shooters which the Australian right wing did not which is among the reasons why Australia does not have the same amount of issues with mass shootings as the US does. Because the Czech Republic has a strong right-wing element it may be possible they take measures to protect future mass shooters as the US has.
I specified non-political mass shootings by individuals, not mass killings in general. Obviously mass killings in general existed prior to that, and there were a few mass shootings prior to them becoming extremely common. The event that caused them to become common was Columbine, not the Charles Whitman mass shooting or any other historical mass shooting which had occurred rarely and sporadically until that point.
Protecting mass shooters is a right wing thing, which their right wing may or may not do as a consequence of this. Mass shootings themselves outside of terrorism were first popularized by the Columbine shooting which inspired many copycats hoping to become as notorious. Thankfully the article calls this POS “the gunman” instead of giving them the infamy they may have wanted.
I live in a red state. At a certain point it just comes down to what people want to believe regardless of outside information. This isn’t going to change any minds who associate with Zionism, but it could be another straw for people whobare reasonable but are bombarded 24/7 with state propaganda and don’t know what to believe.
I think this is the perfect kind of class for undergraduates attending American Universities. A class which directly challenges students’ pre-existing biases and lays out contemporary arguments so that the class can have a shared understanding of what they’re discussing whether they are supportive or opposed to those arguments. I was challenged like this when I was in college outside of class and having to directly consider these ideas among people I really repected helped me immensely in my understanding of American culture dynamics and ability to use reason when facing difficult claims.
And if they weren’t, Hamas was using them as human shields. If they weren’t, then they should have obeyed Israel’s directives to evacuate. If they did, then they shouldn’t have voted for Hamas. If they didn’t, then they shouldn’t have been born on land Israel wants.
Watching those newborns suffocate to death on a table over the course of the day was something I’m never going to forget. If the IDF thinks they can move past this without a lot of scrutiny, I hope they’re dead wrong.
I do most of my discourse on Beehaw which is protected in many ways. When I used reddit I would often have a comment typed out ready to post and think better of it since I knew it would only drive dismissive and antagonistic responses of the stupidest kind. It may be because of the protections or it may be because of the smaller community but I find a lot less posturing and a lot more actual conversation since I’ve been using this platform. This is what keeps me here rather than reddit. It might be worth engaging in conversations you wouldn’t have on reddit when you’re interested.