flakovertarget

> as having a potentially normalizing effect

I find virtually all mainstream discourse around mass-casualty attacks to be either normalizing or to just simply sweep the issue under the rug and ignore it.

There is no deep discussion on the topics, just further fiddling.

> Replace that language with "deluded, ignorant, and sociopathic"

I really wouldn't call him any of those terms, he simply has a completely different "tribe," value system, and morality than yours.

To simply throw some high-brow insults at him and walk-off is intellectually lazy, and blinds you to someone becoming what Buffalo boy became.

I live down the street from a pre-Revolutionary fort, a real facet of the settlers lives was dealing with Indian raids. They would sneak in and, under cover of darkness, kill as many as they could. This attack, ultimately, makes me think of a modern raid.

> Don’t you have to be at least a little bit more detached from reality than the median person (“crazy”) to shoot up a supermarket?

I would say, "yes," but this is crazy in some type of modern-day social sense of the term. If we're to consider the long, rich history of human violence it looks a bit pedestrian.

He's not a member of your tribe, your tribe attacks his tribe, he attacks yours.

He played by an older, darker, less civilized rule-book.

So he's not "seeing things schizo crazy" and so in some sense, no, he is not crazy.

> There's a big difference, IMO, between watching low-budget white nationalism content on YouTube and having long, daily, hate-filled discussions with people who share your anger.

But what is the actual end-goal here, have a "probe" and say "we did what we could" as did the NY police when they investigated and passed over the Buffalo shooter for his prior threats?