9 ms·

This entire line of thinking just seems to be essentially advocacy for a return to that exact system. "Do what we want or we'll go back to random murder". I wo

• ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  shrug I'm not an accelerationist, I do not want to live in any more historically significant times than I already have. That said, our systems continue to fail us at basically every turn so when I see stuff like this, I'm not surprised either. If you put people in a situation where they feel they have nothing to lose, you shouldn't be surprised when they start acting that way too. People demand justice, whether they're right to is a secondary concern, as is the methodologies they choose to seek it. Some become activists. Some become politicians. Some pick up guns.
  • s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >People demand justice, whether they're right to is a secondary concern, as is the methodologies they choose to seek it. Some become activists. Some become politicians. Some pick up guns. That is a true, but We should discourage and condemn them picking up guns. There is a feedback loop at play
    • antisthenes 2y ago
      > That is a true, but We should discourage and condemn them picking up guns. Nonsense. They will and should pick up guns if the entrenched systems no longer serve the purpose of the majority. Sure, it's not ideal. But sometimes it's the only way to enact change. Some of the most important rights we have today were won with violence.
      • s1artibartfast 2y ago
        The majority has all the power and the current system is what the majority wants. Being a frustrated minority does not excuse violence.
        • maxerickson 2y ago
          That's untrue on its face. For instance, killing a guy is a way to use power. It's not one we like, but nonetheless.
          • s1artibartfast 2y ago
            I was talking about the power to enact healthcare policy change. I have the power to kick a dog, but that is tangential to the objective of interest. My point is that healthcare reform is obstructed by the fact that everyday American citizens want very different things and cant agree.
            • slt2021 2y ago
              laws are lobbied by corporations and special interest groups, everyday Americans have very little say in legislation
            • ToucanLoucan 2y ago
              You're assuming his objective was to change healthcare policy, I doubt it was. I think the objective was good old fashioned revenge. Like this is pure speculation right? But I have a strong feeling that, should the person be caught, we'll learn that they have or had a family member or even themselves insured with UHC who has suffered some harm, and that person felt UHC was responsible. Whether they were correct or not is immaterial: the CEO paid the price. And you can feel whatever you feel about that, like I said, I don't want to live in a world where healthcare CEOs get gunned down in the street. But I also am acutely aware of how abusive insurance companies are, both from reading about those abuses in the news of others, and experiencing a handful of my own, and I also don't want to live in the status quo, where unelected, unaccountable private companies get to decide who lives, who dies, and who goes bankrupt via inscrutable bureaucratic practices. In my ideal world, accountability would be these rich bastards getting hauled into congress and charged for the abuses their companies inflict on American citizens. But since our system seems unwilling to do that, if the alternative is they get to walk around just a bit scared that someone will [ censored for HN ]? Well, probably won't fix anything, but I'd be a liar if I said I'd lose a wink of sleep over it.
      • ryandrake 2y ago
        It's one of the so-called "Four boxes of liberty[1]". When the soap, ballot, and jury boxes are no longer effective, we should not be surprised when people increasingly reach for the ammo box. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
        • s1artibartfast 2y ago
          There is a big moral and social difference between an overwhelming majority of the people and a dissatisfied group. The ammo box is not justified and should not be tolerated simply because someone doesn't get what they want. That route is a quick decent to societal collapse. That is how you end up with your incels, anarchist, communists, and Christian fundamentalists shooting anyone who doesnt agree with them.
          • ryandrake 2y ago
            I was not defending its use, but its existence means it could be used, and that fact acts as a sort of invisible check on what corporate/government power can realistically get away with. If the ammo box didn't exist as an option, then even in a democracy the "overwhelming majority" could do pretty much whatever it wanted to.
          • dredmorbius 2y ago
            Based on impressions I'm seeing online (and freely admitting that this is hardly statistically-rigorous or -defensible sampling) I'd suggest at the very least that dissatisfaction with working within the system is highly palpable. Revolutions are rarely majoritarian viewpoints.
    • joquarky 2y ago
      This country was founded by people picking up guns.
• vundercind 2y ago
  > I wonder if the original commenter would have put the same comment if the article were "man shoots his wife and her lover on discovery of adultery" Why wonder if someone would make the same comment in entirely different circumstances? Why does it matter?
• AdmiralAsshat 2y ago
  The distinction would be that you can still seek legal redress in court for your spouse committing adultery. It may not be the redress you want, but it would at least get you something, e.g. grounds for divorce. Increasingly, though, people in the United States feel that the rich and powerful have become effectively insulated from the legal system, such that the common person is denied any redress. At that point, one no longer feels any reason to continue working within the legal framework, because it seems clear that the framework is not at all "equal" under the law. Hence, when all other options feel exhausted: murder. And, frankly, I imagine this will only continue with time, unless this country decides to actually provide some mechanism to hold people in power accountable. Like, I'm frankly surprised no one has attempted to assassinate members of the SCOTUS yet recently, given that they enjoy a lifetime appointment to make wide-impacting, scrutiny-free decisions.
  • oceanplexian 2y ago
    > Increasingly, though, people in the United States feel that the rich and powerful have become effectively insulated from the legal system, such that the common person is denied any redress. They're not insulated from the legal system, the problem is the public is being misled. It works like this: The media lies to the public and tells them that a CEO or Public Figure is getting away with X, so they get some washed up lawyer to do an opinion piece on it, a politician or two co-opts it, and possibly throws in some bait about the working class being screwed over, and then the public buys the made-up story- hook, line and sinker. Since TV Law is not the same thing as real law, the person in question is put through actual due process and the allegation or accusation turns out to be unsubstantiated. The public then feels outrage because "The man on TV said this person was a criminal and he got away!".
    • mindslight 2y ago
      You're missing the point. The people running corporations are NOT flagrantly violating the law-as-written, with the courts just refusing to enforce it (for the most part). Rather they bend the law, often through tiny repeated violations of the law-as-written, and also through lobbying/bribing to undermine the creation of directly applicable new laws, to produce abjectly terrible outcomes that end up being de facto legal. So when the average person feels ever-more subject to the law themselves while seeing the terrible corpos continually getting pass after pass, they become ever-less invested in the general idea of the rule of law.
• InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  I don't know about the original commenter, but societies only work when the vast majority weigh the cost and benefit they derive from the status quo against the cost and potential benefit they incur by fighting against it, and decide that they're better off playing along. Rightly or wrongly, we now have a situation where a lot of people believe that they no longer benefit from society, and are in fact harmed by it, while they also see a few benefit greatly. I believe this is why many people who understand the implication of that choice would still rather vote for Trump, who promises to break things, than for Harris, who would have only made minor changes. This is not advocacy for anything. I think these people are perhaps not exactly wrong, but they don't correctly estimate the cost of breaking a democratic system, even a poorly working one.
  • rthrfrd 2y ago
    Yes it's not advocacy for anything: It's up to everyone how they respond to their situation if they feel disenfranchised and I'm in no position to judge them one way or another. The point is just that it's a tale as old as human civilization itself. It would be disappointing if we've not yet learnt enough from our history to avoid more change via trauma.
• shadowgovt 2y ago
  Yes, that's the essence of social contract theory. Which, it should be noted, is a historical falsehood, in that we're pretty sure no ancient tribe ever really started with people sitting down and saying "It is mutually beneficial if we curb our violent inclinations for the safety and security of blah blah blah"... but is a useful shorthand for the observed notion "A government lasts only as long as it provides a better alternative to picking up a 2x4 and settling your own scores for most people who support it." "You rule because they believe," in essence. (This is why, historically, you'll often see societies keep their pattern of government until, say, famine comes along. Because if you're going to starve to death, the likely outcome calculus on picking up a 2x4 starts to change drastically and quickly).
• anigbrowl 2y ago
  I don't think you understand analogies.