Comment

GreenKnight23@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

One rich asshole down, one terse yet loud and clear message delivered to the rest of his ilk, no innocent bystanders hurt.

This right here is the message the aristocracy doesn’t want you to hear. I can’t count the number of times this guy was referred to as a “mass shooter” in the news.

No. He was not a “mass shooter”. Mass shooters shoot innocent civilians en masse. This guy was an assassin. One target, one goal.

it was never about either of them.

5mlc3z-47451610

source

Sort:hotnew top

captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Look at it from corporate media’s perspective: He shot a lot of dollars.

source
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

No. He was not a “mass shooter”. Mass shooters shoot innocent civilians en masse. This guy was an assassin. One target, one goal.

While I obviously agree that it can’t be described accurately as a mass shooting, I still wonder:

Do the victims need to be innocent for it to be a mass shooting?

From a philosophical POV there’s a issue of defining what an innocent person is (I mean some Christian societies will say that nobody’s innocent). Is innocence to be judged through the eyes of the shooter or society?

Anyway, that wasn’t the point I set out to make, so let’s set that aside.

Suppose one was to go to a convention of child molesters, war criminals, and nazi death camp guards, and you start shooting indescribably. I hope we can agree that members of the categories listed should be classified as “not innocents” by any contemporary standard. Even if only people guilty of the previously mentioned things got hit, wouldn’t it still be a mass shooting once a certain number had been shot?

source