Yet the Chicago Strangler [1], who is still active, still operating to this day, 50+ victims, few have heard of....because he attacks marginalized groups like black runaways rather than white people.
But even if he's not as well known as Zodiac, again, look at the victim profile: runaways and sex workers. It's not just about skin color, although for some reason both of you zeroed in on that. I specified "marginalized groups" such as [mostly black] runaways. It's about being poor, unknown, and not white.
Your implication is that white people can't be marginalized. Economics cut across skin color.
So, which is it?
The common thread seems to be economic status as another commenter stated.
That strongly implies that a white person couldn't be marginalized.
Directly contrasting a specific "non-white marginalized group" with "all white people" does, for me, evoke the impression as if the assumption was that there were no people among "white people" that could be marginalized the same way.
> He only said that that serial killer targets black runaways, and that that is a marginalized group.
This is the part of the comment I was replying to that I took issue with and felt I had to rebut, because it's simply a false summary. The original comment definitely was a stronger statement than that through the broad comparison it drew.
If the original post had been phrased "... rather than white middle class people" (which I believe was the intention), I would completely agree with it.
But Zodiac is killing couples he doesn't know at a distance with a gun (or a knife, likely because a gunshot would draw too much attention). He wants to be notorious but not personally notorious? He just has a hate on for anonymous couples? Are there (m)any more examples of this kind of killer? Hypothetically, if he could kill say a hundred couples from a distance with a bomb would that motivate him? I'm just not getting it.