y va marquer wrote:
To say that this killing should be examined in a biased way, "under the banner of broad spectrum social dysfunction, toxic masculinity" could mean that key elements and details, that might broaden understanding of why he acted as he did, and possibly help prevent further killings, may be ignored.
In order to prevent further killings, you need a theory of what causes people to kill. Once you have a theory, it of necessity will generalise certain details. Once that theory is converted into a regulation, it will be blunter still.
The theory I have is based on reading countless stories of this kind over the past few years and looking at the common elements.
The words "toxic masculinity" are justified in my view since nearly all of these killers are male.
The words "social dysfunction" are justified because none of these men are notably happy or well adjusted.
These are things they do have in common, unlike their beliefs, the colour of their skin, their nationalities, the things they post on Facebook.
By all means, no germane detail should be excluded. Instead we should dispassionately work out what the germane details actually are. Most of all, reductive, wrong and prejudiced theories should be nipped in the bud—it's essential for that to happen for there to be any prospect of the right thing happening in government.
You can call that looking at things in a biased way if you like. Seems pretty empirical to me.
