The manifesto from the El Paso shooter seems to confirm initial reports: he was convinced of a hostile, replace-white-people invasion from Latin America and felt he had to do something about it. There's some abominable twisting going on in some right-wing sites, framing the manifesto as "leftist" or "antifa." ("Because Democrats were for segregation, you know!"--this is a pervasive defense point among some on the right, conveniently ignoring the sources of current segregationist policies.)
More encouragingly, some on the right are naming and reacting against "domestic terrorism" and "white supremacy" explicitly. I see such efforts running into a couple of different species of pushback. "There's almost no white supremacists, and they're not really conservatives" would be one. "Antifa is just as bad/worse" is the other. There's a surprising amount of certainty on the right that antifa--which is perceived as much more hierarchical, organized, and homogeneous than it actually is--murders people, that their violence is comparable to that of white supremacists. There's no evidence of a death by antifa in the twenty-first century (though there are instances of violence, even potentially lethal violence). White supremacist views, not antifa views, have been linked to more violence. There's a lot of resistance to recognizing this, though.
Few if any on the right connect the dots between the shooter's anti-immigrant rhetoric and Trump's own rhetoric (though the dots are there to be connected). The most public figures blaming Trump's rhetoric for stoking anti-immigrant fires--Beto O'Rourke, for instance--get framed (not without cause) as having an agenda for positioning themselves as anti-Trump. There's plenty of reason, in other words, for those interested in excusing Trumpism to excuse him.
Meanwhile, some rumors I'm seeing online (reddit, for example) are suggesting that the Dayton shooter had a history of left-leaning, antifacist social media posts. RedState in particular has seized on this as vindication of the both-sides-equally (but antifa mainly) suspicions. As I've written about before, I have a lot of feelings about the Batman-esque romance of violence that circulates in (some) antifa discourse. I don't see much evidence (yet) that such romance fueled this shooting.
Some leftists online are pushing back against the antifa-caused-this narrative online, even as they note the dangers there. In one Reddit thread (from ChapoTrapHouse, which has been accused in the past of a "brocialist" mentality), a Redditor admits:
Our rhetoric can be really dystopian And while the support system in leftist communities can also be insanely strong (compared to most communities), if you miss that part of it then most leftist rhetoric can leave a bad taste in your mouth about society as a whole.Another Redditor concurs:
Again, I doubt that the shooter operated with anything like as clear an agenda as the El Paso shooter had. But I really appreciate that degree of self-awareness these posters display. (I also--for another time--want to reflect more on what happens when you take only the dystopian, black-pill aspects of leftist social change initiatives and leave out the hope.)Agree, a lot of leftism can be a "black pill" to some degree as the sheer injustice of the world is made clear, just as our inability to affect it is as well. At the same time big leftist communities can have feelings of superiority, glamorise violence (ironically), and generally have that edgy persona which is necessary for humour but can also have side effects.Lastly, probably worth remembering the demographics for the sub [ChapoTrapHouse] consistently come out in surveys to be similar to that shooter sweet spot. Leftism didn't incite the shooter, but he spent time in our communities (even if just online) and still did it - we should own that at least and remember it going forward.
Other sources suggest the Dayton shooter was a Satanist, that he was a bully, and that he fantasized about doing violence to women in particular. The Dayton Daily News, interviewing his former classmates, paints a picture of someone morbidly obsessed with death and killing. "I think of this less as a hate crime," said one, "and more of an 'I hate everybody' crime." His sister (and possibly her boyfriend?) were victims of his rampage. It's too early to assign or dismiss a specific political stance to his actions.
It's not too early, though, to note that most mass shootings relate to domestic violence and misogyny. Nor is it inappropriate to note that the preponderance of guns in the USA makes mass shootings possible.
More tomorrow,
JF
No comments:
Post a Comment