In an article about one of the many civil 'shooter' incidents in the USA (ie domestic 'white' terrorism), Ruth Fowler wrote in Counterpunch: << What does it reveal about our society? Now this is the big one. It could reveal a need for gun laws. It could reveal the dangers of video games. It could reveal the futility of America's police. It could reveal rampant white supremacy. Entitlement. Elliot, conveniently, ticks pretty much all the boxes and reveals an obnoxious personality which manages to span pretty much all unpleasant ideologies over a 141 page manifesto. Reams of endless hate and self pity are dredged up from the young killer's blog, vlog, manifesto and transcriptions of everything in between. The liberal media quickly decide that "the angle du jour" will be - misogyny. >>
Fowler insists << In fact, everyone from Salon to The Guardian to The Atlantic to The New Statesman to The Huffington Post to Twitter, all basically say the same thing: Elliot Rodgers killed because he hated women, although they all seem to be conveniently missing each other's articles and acting as if they're the only ones drawing such a "radical'"conclusion.
Let's cut the crap. Killers are not usually attracted to nonviolent philosophies, peaceful ideologies and challenging systemic oppression. Quit fucking acting like it's a surprise Elliot Rodger was a misogynistic, racist, sex starved, white male privileged fuck either formed by, or attracted to, the kinds of ideologies expressed in his disgusting manifesto. >>
Too right Fowler.
Fowler mocks them all with these words: << Something pompous and important must be declared! We'll pretend it's the first time we've written it. We'll pretend we care, but really, next week, we will have forgotten. >>