So I generally agree with publishing terrorist/shooter manifestos — I don't think journalists do themselves any favors when we self-censor.
I think it also helps to show people have boring/mundane/misguided/unhinged these people are. In my experience, these manifestos are self-defeating.
I think it also helps to show people have boring/mundane/misguided/unhinged these people are. In my experience, these manifestos are self-defeating.
Comments
The Unabomber manifesto has been widely available for decades. If it weren't available, would anyone have *not* committed their attack? Was its availability instrumental in any attack?
There's always this profound naïvité that runs through them. Like: oh, woe is me, here at the end of history.
Readers tend to see through that shit.
But even the Unabomber manifesto, which this kid was apparently quite taken by: It is, and I know this is controversial, not very good!
And yet we don't have any good hallmarks of ideological radicalization (as opposed to just general radicalization to violence), not does this fit into a trend.
(I'm trying to write this column and I'm thinking aloud.)
Trudeau abandoned his electoral reform promise because he didn't trust Canadians to run their country.
A story as old as humanity. Only this one plays out in the 21st century.
We are the naive ones to think things can change....
I had plenty of naivete in my 20s, but I always felt I had the opportunity of a decent job and a home in my future. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Nearly every other shooter that’s out out a manifesto wrote about why others should also be out there murdering Jews (E.g. the Tree of Life synagogue shooting), Muslims (E.g. the New Zealand mass shooter)or African-Americans (E.g. Dylan Roof).