|
|
|
|
|
by BryantD
1212 days ago
|
|
If the web page linked in another comment is authentic, the attacker was in a very bad mental state. I don’t think we can completely rule out previous contact, and the attacker was unhappy with his team members, but random chance also seems possible. I lean towards authentic because a) the journal document is much too long to have been produced quickly, b) the text isn’t lifted from other sources, and c) the website was captured by archive.org in 2019. That last is most important since it’d be relatively trivial to train an AI to produce the kind of disassociated text we see there. Yay, 2022. And just to get out in front of it: while there are all kinds of conspiracy theories and some racism in that document, I don’t see any ideological consistency and I don’t see accelerationist tendencies. I’m not a professional extremism researcher, mind you. |
|