Hi there! I'm not trying to separate these issues, but it's precisely because I'm concerned with nuance that I'm saying that the correct response is to be led by evidence rather than weaving a story out of common narratives.

Some people are already so convinced that this was a racist attack that there's absolutely no convincing them otherwise. This despite the fact that we currently have no evidence that the attack was racially motivated, limited evidence that it WASN'T racially motivated, and clear evidence that there were other motivations in the mix.

I'm not arguing that I know any better than anybody else what was going through the killer's head. We're all waiting to see what evidence is found. It's perfectly possible that something will be revealed in the coming weeks which proves that he was specifically targeting Asians. If that happens, then we have our answer.

But while we don't, why would the correct approach be to assume racial motivation because some people fetishise Asian women, or because white supremacy and Christianity have been known to be bedfellows?

To me, this makes no more sense than assuming that every guy with an Asian girlfriend is a fetishist, or that every Christian is a white supremacist. The fact that six of the victims were Asian gives us a point of enquiry of course. But jumping straight to absolute certainty that the attack was racially motivated is, I think, a mistake.