I agree completely. We need a nuanced discussion of mental illness's role in mass shootings, a discussion that does not stigmatize non-violent mentally ill people, and we need lots of medical research to accompany that discussion. Right now a lot of people don't want to discuss it at all.

What he makes clear, though, is not necessarily what is objectively the case. To clarify, I think racism is what made him choose *that church* as his target. But I think mental illness is what made him want to choose a target in the first place.

I absolutely do think it should be a focal point in that discussion. And if it had been, we might not have invaded two countries.

"you seem to not want to talk about racism" I'm sorry to have given that impresion. As I said, racism clearly was the decisive factor in his choice of victims.

You speak as though mentally ill people cannot plan things in advance, and cannot consider alternatives to their actions. It should go without saying that that's not the case.

Of course there is. Because the shooter is not a reliable narrator. Oh, certainly he was a racist who absorbed the racism of his surroundings, and that racism determined his target. But that doesn't mean that racism is responsible for the violence itself; eliminate racism and he would still not be a healthy person or…

Now you're talking my language. Why do people want to make a false dichotomy?

OK, but the solution to that is to expand the cases in which we talk about mental illness. Not to pretend that that's not at the root of most mass violence.

I agree with this. But I am confident that without racism, it would have been women, or religion, or elementary school, or anything. People whose brains tell them to kill need help to address that root problem.

I'm annoyed that many of my fellow liberals don't want to talk about mental illness. Somehow they've cast it as an either-or choice vis a vis racism. Obviously racism is what this guy latched onto, but I'm confident that if racism didn't exist, it would have been something else. Different people might be dead, but…

Rob Dean needs to rewatch Tomorrow Never Dies!

Hey, I win!!! :D

Should I thank you or pledge to destroy you for bringing this person's existence to my attention?

Or wildly successful Vegas act.

Failed Vegas act.

The names are all on a theme, though. A theme that generally corresponds with ideological dogmatism. That's no accident, I bet.

The panel conversation was disappointingly shallow.

I did not realize that was Crispin Glover. Yet now that you say it it's obvious.

Actually, brief searches reveal that it is a Simpsons reference. The addition of a dog to the Itchy and Scratchy Show. I have the vaguest memory of that, as I do for most classic Simpsons references.

Thank you! I shall fill the hole in my knowledge with YouTube.