So, is the Kansas shooter accurately described as "a terrorist"? Or is he "a murderer" and, possibly, "mass murderer" (depending on how you define that)?

I am still going to contend, as I did a few weeks ago, that so far the event does not seem to meet the traditional definition of 'terrorism' — specifically, 'violence undertaken intentionally to further a political aim or goal by drawing attention.'

It does have all the markings of a hate crime, to be sure. And crimes can certainly be both.

People can, of course, disagree about the definition given above. But maintaining the precision of how we talk about things is important. Just because something affects politics after the fact, though, does not mean it meets the formal definition.

And yes, I understand the political implications that are the cause of concern for so many people. Namely, that conservatives (Republican politicians in particular) use a double standard, and one that has racially minded overtones; it's 'us vs them' talk, and it's discriminatory.

Politicians play games with their language, to manipulate people. Journalists aren't allowed to and, in my opinion, neither should regular people / thinking citizens / the public. You have to filter what politicians and other agenda-driven people say; the fact that they do it does not give you license to play fast and loose with terminology yourself.

To wit, getting into the game of arguing about using the terrorism label for domestic, individual, spur-of-the-moment violence is counterproductive. It plays into the discourse the Republican politicians want to drive, and — worse still — it leads to broad, ill-defined "definitions" that they will then subsequently use against all peaceful protesters whose politics or message they don't like. Which is dangerous, for all of us, beyond belief.