3 ms·

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

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.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I was responding to >But sometimes it's the only way to enact change. >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. My point is that these rich bastards are playing by the rules the American citizens set up. American citizens have the power to change those rules if they want, but cant agree on anything they think is better. People like to imagine a grand corporate conspiracy while ignoring half the population that want the opposite thing. In my mind, it is the same type of vigilantism that justifies shooting up a school, LGBT club, or killing women who wont date you.
    - Ancapistani 2y ago
      > Being a frustrated minority does not excuse violence. - random Internet comment in response to the execution of John Brown, 1859
      - cocacola1 2y ago
        Ethan Hawke has some great lines in The Good Lord Bird as John Brown.
    - thra1145 2y ago
      [dead]
    - salawat 2y ago
      > Being a frustrated minority does not excuse violence. -Random Internet comment in response to the colonial uprising and Declaration of Independence, circa 1776
  - 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.

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.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I was responding to >But sometimes it's the only way to enact change. >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. My point is that these rich bastards are playing by the rules the American citizens set up. American citizens have the power to change those rules if they want, but cant agree on anything they think is better. People like to imagine a grand corporate conspiracy while ignoring half the population that want the opposite thing. In my mind, it is the same type of vigilantism that justifies shooting up a school, LGBT club, or killing women who wont date you.
  - Ancapistani 2y ago
    > Being a frustrated minority does not excuse violence. - random Internet comment in response to the execution of John Brown, 1859
    - cocacola1 2y ago
      Ethan Hawke has some great lines in The Good Lord Bird as John Brown.
  - thra1145 2y ago
    [dead]
  - salawat 2y ago
    > Being a frustrated minority does not excuse violence. -Random Internet comment in response to the colonial uprising and Declaration of Independence, circa 1776
- 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.