The Toronto Massacre has so far resulted in a lot of self-congratulations and chirpy articles about all the wonderful things people do after an emotionally-disturbed man rans a van into a crowd of innocent people, killing ten, and injuring more, forever changing the outcome of people for generations.
That's what cults do to keep the suckers from questioning those who are exploiting them -- and questioning their own gullibility as they toil in squalor and abuse. Stop giving looking for excuses to give people a lollipop for doing things that they are supposed to be doing -- namely, being moral and responsible.
And no, CBC, tracking down the original post of a killer from a screenshot isn't a big deal. Kids can do it. I do it all the time. You still do not get this whole Internet thing.
But that's just one half of the problem with the alleged coverage.
It is the compulsion to label this event with no real facts. You have journalists using speculation without questioning anything.
And it is highly irresponsible garbage.
We have the Globe and Mail offer this sophistry-filled article:
Can the radicalization of ‘incels’ be stopped?
Incels is not an actual thing. It is a hypothetical construct given to describe some men. War propaganda is all about aiming a message at young childless men who are naive enough to enlist in a war to be killed in the name of rich and powerful men who want more power and control, and it did it by exploiting their evolutionary fears of being too weak to survive, and not strong or manly enough to find a mate and reproduce.
In other words, the very label "Incel" is a form of war propaganda used to control that same pool of young men to behave in a certain way.
In a world of 7.4 billion people, there will be millions who have various mental and emotional problems, and so far, the Toronto Van Killer waved red flags of having those problems since childhood. There is no "incel" problem. We have a problem of ignoring troubled people until they explode, and then wasting time thinking up all sorts of labels so we do not actually have to honestly use work and investment to deal with those problems.
Policy Options, another cesspool of sophistry, had this drivel to offer without actual effort:
Why misogynistic killings need a public label
Until we label misogynistic acts including killings for what they are, their underlying motivations will be obscured and our ability to respond disabled.
Newsflash: we already have such a label. It is called Hate Crime.
Notice how that label did not end the practice; so why do you think having sub-labels will solve the problem?
Because labels are meaningless.
Labels do not save lives. They are a way we judge other people and pigeonhole whoever we do not like, usually people who do not as us as superior to them and hence do not applaud our every thought and action. It is an easy script to follow so we do not have to think.
No label would have stopped a man with serious mental problems from renting a van and killing people.
Labels are no-brainer ways of sustaining a pecking order and creating make-work programs for over-thinkers who are averse to actual work.
We are now in a Post-Progressive world filled with experts and labels they create to dawdle instead of produce results.
What would have stopped the tragedy in Toronto?
For starters, if you have people talking all about how this young man was acting strangely all those years, and there was no intervention, that's the first step.
Instead of heaping on praise, some factually-based criticism would put the heat on a system that gobbles billions of dollars, and doesn't produce solutions. Stop giving paper crowns to people for doing their jobs with basic competency.
You do not need a label to stop bloodshed. You need action. You are assuming socially awkward men who cannot get dates are all alike. There is a difference between being socially awkward and anti-social, and now you have ignorant people who have polluted the information stream with the unfounded assumption that not having sex is a problem.
What now? Do young women put off by men have to endure dates with these disturbed individuals in order to save humanity? Are we going to advocate sexual social workers to the save the world?
Do you realize the label "incel" implies that a Beauty and the Beast delusion is the answer to this problem?
Or perhaps these alleged "incels" have a right to engage with unwilling partners because it's better to torment one person instead of a group?
Because a sexist media has just given legitimacy to the notion.
The emotional illiteracy in journalism is out of control. Journalists stick little fake labels on people without ever even being in the same room as the person who sparked this fake debate in the first place.
The coverage is not acceptable. It's vile. We have no facts, but plenty of babbling, and the worst thing of all is it will produce nothing and we can expect more bloodshed even with journalists playing with their label-makers instead of looking for facts as they deal with reality...