It happened yesterday. That’s data.
49 people dead. Children dead. VIPs dead. Regular citizens of New Zealand dead.
Who isn’t dead?
Whose manifesto is spreading around?
Who is gaining sympathy?
Your post is a reactionary response. A call to put it into historical context is a call to average out the life in statistical form.
Had this not happened, would you have made this post presenting your perspective?
a) Response a
b) Response b
c) Response c
You’re responding with a theory.
I’m responding with a theory.
A theory is an abstraction. It is a framework from within which to view a particular and place it in a category.
My prescription is explicit. Your prescription is implied by the act of stating your theory for others to like/dislike/comment further on.
You are participating.
a) Is it the intent of ALL readers of the manifesto to want to stop violent acts?
b) If not, what other intents may they have?
It is not I who is using ostrich logic.
Do you both REALLY believe that over 80% of the manifesto readers are doing so to play “armchair psychologist”?
You are reacting to an event. You have chosen to present an argument – a side – for consideration.
So you’re implying that this manifesto will be studied in thousands of schools for 60 years to come.
Oh, you’re just quibbling about my word choice.
You don’t like being referred to as a reactionary.
“Meh, these things happen” is proper historical context?
Sure. But is a balm.
Smooths over the rough edges of reality.
The predicate betrays your ontology.
“just a splash in an ocean of history.”
I’m not arguing that you’re incorrect in the general.
You could make this all purpose statement at any number of events in world history and would be “a way” to contextualize the event.
Responsible large sites will remove it but thousands of little sites and non-sites will have anything you ever once saw.
Sometimes it’s as easy as going to http://archive.org