For that matter, does it really matter what group he was a part of? Theres a tendency to try to declare anyone that has done anything objectionable as being part of a group one doesnt like, or at the very least not part of one’s ingroup, but that’s a bit pointless.
If a group it large enough its more or less statistically certain that it will contain whatever sort of horrible people you can think of, and this includes things like the group of people with roughly the same political alignment as you. Whatever you support or believe in, if it isnt incredibly niche and rare, there are going to be murders, rapists, bigots, and whoever else is terrible out there who agree with you.
It doesnt make sense to fret over that, or to take the existence of one such guy as an argument that a position must be wrong somehow. If a position inherently requires such things, like the position of someone advocating genocide, or if it inherently increases the risks that excess deaths will happen, like with an anti-vaxxer, one can point those things out and say that the position leads to harmful societal outcomes. But the ideology of an individual murderer is almost irrelevant to if the rest of the holders of that position have a point or not.
Morally and logically, it doesn’t matter what boxes the shooter checks. In terms of how it will be used in politics, it matters a great deal. It shouldn’t, but it does.
For that matter, does it really matter what group he was a part of? Theres a tendency to try to declare anyone that has done anything objectionable as being part of a group one doesnt like, or at the very least not part of one’s ingroup, but that’s a bit pointless.
If a group it large enough its more or less statistically certain that it will contain whatever sort of horrible people you can think of, and this includes things like the group of people with roughly the same political alignment as you. Whatever you support or believe in, if it isnt incredibly niche and rare, there are going to be murders, rapists, bigots, and whoever else is terrible out there who agree with you.
It doesnt make sense to fret over that, or to take the existence of one such guy as an argument that a position must be wrong somehow. If a position inherently requires such things, like the position of someone advocating genocide, or if it inherently increases the risks that excess deaths will happen, like with an anti-vaxxer, one can point those things out and say that the position leads to harmful societal outcomes. But the ideology of an individual murderer is almost irrelevant to if the rest of the holders of that position have a point or not.
Morally and logically, it doesn’t matter what boxes the shooter checks. In terms of how it will be used in politics, it matters a great deal. It shouldn’t, but it does.