zlacker

>>exolym+(OP)
This reads well-meaning, but ultimately misdirected. There is no solid data corroborating the "school shooters are bullied" narrative - in fact, many of them have a long history of being bullies themselves, which then gets twisted from "kids try to avoid the weird kid who does disturbing things" into "poor little baby had no friends".

Disabled, queer, poor teens are not shooting up schools. The profile of a school shooter is overwhelmingly white, male and middle/upper class. A shooting is an ultimate tantrum for which the perpetrator is never held accountable.

>>hellof+e6
> Disabled, queer, poor teens are not shooting up schools.

Because 1. there's support networks for them, and 2. they don't have the resources themselves.

The "white upperclass male" has the resources to do harm, and don't get supported.

I keep thinking of Elliot Rodgers, who had a thought that girls owed it to him to date him. I don't think any of that was because he was white, male, or upper class. It was because he was lonely. And without proper socialisation and support he got further and further into the deep end. Males are violent but it can be channelled into positivity.

It drives home why such divisive language doesn't help the situation.

Obviously the whole "everything supports them every other day" isn't true, because of they were supported, they wouldn't be going through this mess. Or you can believe that it is due to inherent "whiteness", or "maleness", if you would like to continue to divide these kids further.