there is the article. There is also a person here who heard this story more directly.
The news article appended does not cover the context for the discussion of the flavor of toxicity or the the internal motives which drove it, quite correct.
There was a person, the victim, who communicated to a person, @smulder, is the story here, the outline of which is confirmed by the article, but the indications of this being driven by ‘toxic masculinity’, as I read it, is something communicated to @smulder in person, and not by the news article about that persons experience.
So, I don’t see any reason to doubt that someone I have come to believe isn’t making up partisan stories for the most part has good reason to believe that ‘toxic masculinity’, of a type so not-uncommon as to be a useful catchphrase, played a part in this. My burden of proof has been surpassed, occams razor slices it as ‘sounds about right’. I’d be a tainted juror, surely, but maybe consider that the part you’re saying isn’t relevant is the very part the person who posted this is bearing witness to. What are you saying isn’t accurate here?
The person who posted this isn’t making the assumption. As I read it the victim communicated this to the poster, who passed it on to us. Additional context is the article, not the other way around. So, if you’re negating it as a opinion you personally couldn’t validly hold under the circumstances, I think you may have misunderstood the circumstances? If someone told me their husband killed their kids for awful reasons, I don’t think I could say the real cause could be any reason except that one, or too soon to tell, or wait to hear both sides of the story. I’d say we have one side of the story, and that’s the only one we’re going to get because someone ended that conversation absolutely.
Don’t mean to be wordy, I’d like to leave room for you to have misunderstood, and not be challenging/invalidating someones first hand accounts about their own experience and their own interpretation of it, by using clever language. Which, if I ever seem to have an ongoing issue with you in a nutshell, that’s what it is.
Also please remember, a nutshell is a very small place, and not much of the world to be concerned with. I wouldn’t take me too personally.
thing is, that’s pretty much what I see you doing in your first response, and this is just a long attempt to say that. The poster DOES know more about the story than is in the link, which you can ignore/discount/invalidate if you take the link as the story and the context of the post as commentary on that article, but that would put the horse behind the cart.
And that just causes cart-jams!!
tl;dr: The story is his conversation, the article is just supporting details.