Yes! Trump does deserve blame for the Dayton massacre!

[unitedwethrive]

Whenever a leader, particularly a national leader, spreads hate and divisiveness – both sides are enraged. As a liberal, every time he tries to divide people by calling out our differences, I become angrier. Heck, even the way he shortens the name of my political party (I guess in an effort to harshen the sound of it?) makes me mad.

Now imagine someone who has violent tendencies, and access to guns (not hard to imagine in this country) – and anger on both sides of the division can lead to the same outcome. Of course the white supremacists are more likely to act violently, since that is part of their philosophy, but pushed hard enough, members of any group – or no group at all – can do the same.

It is not known how much politics or group identity played a role in the Dayton terrorist’s motivations. We can’t rule out the possibility that his internet comments were meant to mislead investigators, particularly since random violence goes against everything progressives believe. But no matter what his intention, the climate in our country certainly played a big part in his actions.

The tone of a president such as Obama was entirely different. Yes, he called out those with which he had substantive disagreements, but at the heart of everything he said was that we should come together as Americans. That message from our leader turned down the volume on all the anger. Sure, those who wanted to be riled up found a way to be, but the air was not electric with hate, the way it is now.

Yes, having a president who openly preaches hate from the White House incites all of the American people. Such strong rhetoric ultimately begs people to choose a side, and the blame for this lies squarely on his shoulders.

[John Fante]

1. I suspect that the killer's supposed liberal views were a front to

mask his true nature. Serial killers do that all the time.

By all accounts, he fantasized about harming people from an early age. The fact that he was in a pornogrind band doesn't increase his progressive bonafides either.

[Igel]

2. And he did it for years.

In various venues, public and private.

At some point the cover's too deep to be believable as just cover and what's left, however distasteful, is what's left.

As in other instances, what we often do is read something and say, "Ah, yes, in this bit he's admitting what I knew to be the facts before I even began to read this, so it must be true and he's being truthful and sincere. But in this bit he's disagreeing with what I know are the facts, so here he's lying." All that you're left with is confirmation of what you believed and, well, confirmation of what you believed. Don't know why anybody even bothers to read anything, since we already know everything.


Read this bit about the Pittsburgh synagogue killings which showed a really profound commitment to the author's personal truth. When the killer's "manifesto" agreed with the writer, it was accurate; when it disagreed, it was ignored and the writer actually said that the manifesto said something completely different from what was written by the killer. It's what the killer *should* have written, *wanted* to write, *intended* to say. It struck me as very Soviet.

[unitedwethrive]

3. That is a really good point about the Pittsburgh synagogue killer.

Again, we are just being primed to be divided and to automatically make choices as to which side people belong.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. There's no evidence that there was any political motivation

On the part of the Dayton shooter, and to suggest that there was is to play in to the RW narrative.

Everything I've read about him describes him as someone with a long term fascination with guns, violence, and mass shootings. He had stated on previous occasions a desire to kill people, and was expelled from school for maintaining "hit" lists and rape lists.

The El Paso shooter demonstrated clear political motives, repeating the kind of rhetoric that Trump uses about Mexicans, and even writing a "manifesto".

Let's not take "both siderism" too far, especially not when it favors an incorrect RW narrative.