Hm, I don't see it as people trying to blame society necessarily. I guess... I see it this way. Let's say you put a ball in the center of a room. Then, as you let go of the ball, it begins to roll south. No one is going to argue over why the ball rolled (it rolled because it was a round object on a floor that was not completely flat). However, people will use the evidence from this event to determine which direction the floor is tilting.
That's kind of how I see this situation. Yes, there will always be people who are unstable, or who are more prone to outbursts of violence and anger. People will always do fucked up things, but if we examine the "what" and "why" of their actions, maybe we can spot problems in our society that caused the ball to roll in the direction that it did.
So, in this specific case, people are trying to glean what information they can out of this tragedy instead of shifting blame. They're asking who did he murder? Why did he murder them? What groups was he associated with and how did he interpret their data in a way that justified his actions? If we go with the base assumption that he would have exploded eventually and caused some horrible crime no matter what society he was in, why in our society did he target the people that he did? He is the metaphorical ball in the center of the room-- he was going to roll in some direction no matter what, is there something in our society that caused him to roll in the direction that he did?
This probably came out sounding very silly, but that's how I've viewed the media scrutiny that is surrounding this case. Sorry if my weird intro metaphor is utterly unhelpful.
Log in to comment