5 ms·

You mean that shooting in which shooter was identified as a non-binary child of porn actor?

p0pcult 4y ago
Sorry, which shooting was that? Hard to keep track here in the US. Are you attempting to imply that the "non-binary" or "porn" adjectives are relevant here? I may be going out on a limb here, but I am not sure that "non-binary" or "porn" people commit shootings at different rates than the rest of the population--do you have any evidence, rather than mere implication (if that is in fact what you are implying)?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >Sorry, which shooting was that? Hard to keep track here in the US. The one you just cited, obviously. The point is that you are either misinformed, speculating as it suits you, or lying to present that shooting as being motivated by moral panic type politics because it has since come out that the shooter did not subscribe to those beliefs. And as much as it pains me to agree with you I concur that the shooter's gender and father's occupation are irrelevant.
  - p0pcult 4y ago
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      Yes, everyone knows how radicalization works. It's a well trodden path. The problem here is that in two separate comment subthreads you are acting as though the purveyors of moral panic are radicalizing people to shoot up gay bars when in reality they're responsible for 0 of 2 if that is indeed their goal (which is an insane assumption). You are trying to lay blame at the feet of people who are not responsible when it is known that there are specific others who are. Stop it. Stop lying. Or if you can't do that please live long enough to reap what you are sowing by doing your part to poison discourse with dishonesty.
      - p0pcult 4y ago
        0 for 2 means theyre not successful, not that theyre not trying.
chownie 4y ago
A false narrative which doesn't pass the sniff test. Non-binary according to the shooter's attorney but referred to as "he" by his father. Neighbours also asserted that the shooter frequently used homophobic slurs and didn't identify as non binary at any point in the past.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Sorry, which shooting was that? Hard to keep track here in the US. Are you attempting to imply that the "non-binary" or "porn" adjectives are relevant here? I may be going out on a limb here, but I am not sure that "non-binary" or "porn" people commit shootings at different rates than the rest of the population--do you have any evidence, rather than mere implication (if that is in fact what you are implying)?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Sorry, which shooting was that? Hard to keep track here in the US. The one you just cited, obviously. The point is that you are either misinformed, speculating as it suits you, or lying to present that shooting as being motivated by moral panic type politics because it has since come out that the shooter did not subscribe to those beliefs. And as much as it pains me to agree with you I concur that the shooter's gender and father's occupation are irrelevant.
- p0pcult 4y ago
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Yes, everyone knows how radicalization works. It's a well trodden path. The problem here is that in two separate comment subthreads you are acting as though the purveyors of moral panic are radicalizing people to shoot up gay bars when in reality they're responsible for 0 of 2 if that is indeed their goal (which is an insane assumption). You are trying to lay blame at the feet of people who are not responsible when it is known that there are specific others who are. Stop it. Stop lying. Or if you can't do that please live long enough to reap what you are sowing by doing your part to poison discourse with dishonesty.
    - p0pcult 4y ago
      0 for 2 means theyre not successful, not that theyre not trying.

chownie 4y ago

A false narrative which doesn't pass the sniff test. Non-binary according to the shooter's attorney but referred to as "he" by his father. Neighbours also asserted that the shooter frequently used homophobic slurs and didn't identify as non binary at any point in the past.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]