The Words We Say

>>So if it's obvious that the guy was a lunatic, and not even a political one, why is everyone assuming he was a Republican?<<

I'm not sure I'd call anything obvious at this point. The input I'm seeing is still scattered and contradictory. I've not spotted a good, thorough, rational, nonpartisan analysis yet.

>> And why does no one talk about the conservative judge he also shot?<<

I've seen a numeration of victims and listings with partial descriptions. Don't think I've seen one talking about the conservative judge in that specific phrasing. If you spot one, point me to it? A discussion of hit (and possibly aimed) targets could be useful. Sheesh, if nobody else does it, why don't you? You're asking good questions here.

One possibility that occurs to me, considering that the hit targets included a Democrat and a conservative, is that the aimed target(s) may have been along the lines of "the government" or "durn politicians" rather than "Democrats" or "conservatives."

>>I am really disappointed in my friends and acquaintances. This is not the community of diversity and tolerance that they talk about. This is not the considered 'assess before we assume' environment that they have told me we all belong in.<<

*sigh* Let's say I've not been thrilled with some what my liberal friends have been posting.

Still, consider that most folks gravitate toward discussions and newsfeeds that agree with them. That creates an echo-chamber effect. The first bunch of news you hear on a topic will usually reflect your views closely. If you want a counterpoint you have to hunt for it. That's why I keep an ear out for conservative friends and a handful of conservative feeds.

So, now I know that the hit targets weren't politically monofocal; that undercuts (but does not disprove completely) the argument that the shooter was influenced by Republican ranters. If the rant advocates want to uphold their argument, they have to come up with a way of explaining that data point. However, just saying "he's crazy" isn't sufficient either; while there's some evidence of mental imbalance, he still had to have some kind of goal in mind. If it was as vague as "I hate the world and want to shoot everybody" then that requires ruling out more specific targeting first. And figuring out what was going on in the mind of a disturbed individual during a shooting, based on the fragments of his work that we can see and the glorified slush pile of modern media ... will be difficult if not impossible. So people take shortcuts by reading someone else's conclusions, and that's how we get the barking madness now going on.

>> I don't expect moral, laudable or even responsible behavior from politicians and the media. But my own fellow citizens, and people who know and interact with me?<<

Well, at least your audience and mine go berserk less often than average.

It is just so, so easy to lump people together in big bundles and sort them all as if they were the same. The culture encourages that too -- when you have racism, sexism, and a host of other isms then people get into that habit. Politics is just another mass-sort-function. It has exactly the same drawback as all the other isms, which is that people aren't cookie-cutters. (I saw a bumper sticker the other day, "Prayerfully pro-choice." Now that must be an uncomfortably small minority stance.) If you judge people based on stereotypes, you'll run up your error rate. Then it's hard to get people to talk with each other, and that causes lots of yelling, and we're right back on the vicious circle ferris-wheel in which everyone is unhappy and little if anything gets accomplished.