Here we go again.

The massacre in Parkland, Fla., has been followed by revelations that the alleged perpetrator was an avid video gamer.

Cue the moral panic, which almost immediately ensnared President Donald Trump.

Trump’s comments on video games came in the wake of the Feb. 14 Parkland shooting, in which killed 17 people were allegedly murdered by a 19-year-old gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence in video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts,” Trump said.

Who are these people? They’re not hard to find, emerging shortly after any violent tragedy perpetrated by a young male who also happened to play violent video games, to declare that the two are fundamentally linked.

But there’s no evidence linking violent video games to societal violence. And recent studies of the issue — in 2014 and 2016 — have actually found the opposite effect: a link between the release of popular, violent video games and immediate declines in societal violence.

A University of York study published in January and involving more than 3,000 participants found “no evidence” to support the theory that video games make players more violent — no matter how realistic or graphic the on-screen violence.

Before you accuse us of cherry-picking results, consider that a 2015 meta-analysis of studies — that is, a study that analyzed the results of 101 other studies — on violence and video games found little evidence of causal links between violence in games and behavioral problems in youth.

Similarly, studies haven’t been able to substantiate the theory that some people — those on the autism spectrum; those with pre-existing mental health symptoms — are “vulnerable” to these supposed video game effects.

Still, Trump will meet with anti-games politicians and some gaming industry executives at a roundtable that is sure to be short on serious science and policy, and long on proselytization and finger-wagging.

Serious conservatives — heck, serious people of all political stripes — should know better than this.

None other than Justice Antonin Scalia, the intellectual keystone of the U.S. Supreme Court’s modern conservative majority, derided research purporting to show connections between violence in video games and violence in real life.

In 2011 Scalia, in a majority opinion striking down a California law restricting the sale of “violent” games to minors, mocked the conclusions as overreaching and not supported by actual evidence.

He went even further in a footnote, which lays bare just how flimsy conclusions linking video games and violence are:

“One study, for example, found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in ‘explo_e’ with a ‘d (so that it reads ‘explode’) than with an ‘r’ (explore). The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest.”

Justice Scalia (who died unexpectedly in 2016) was obviously not afraid to call out hokey social science and flimsy conclusions when he saw them.

Neither are we.

This meeting and its subject matter are nothing more than a platform for some culture warriors to fulminate on the evils of media they do not understand — which, apparently, is all the evidence they need to declare something evil and harmful.

Some of us are old enough to remember when jazz and rock music were similarly demonized. It’s time to stop replaying this track from the “Greatest Hits of Confirmation Bias.”