11 ms·

The Unabomber's MO was politically-motivated terror attacks aimed at high-rank targets. That's exactly what the NYC killing was, so it supports the claim that t

by sdwr 2y ago

The Unabomber's MO was politically-motivated terror attacks aimed at high-rank targets. That's exactly what the NYC killing was, so it supports the claim that this guy did it.

autoexec 2y ago
The Unabomber killed innocent people. That's a very different MO from this guy.
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  Did I miss something? Under which court of law was the person this dude murdered found guilty of something?
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    Innocence and morality isn't restricted to the determinations or domain of the legal system.
    - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - autoexec 2y ago
        The killer didn't have the right or the authority to kill the CEO, and he'll likely spend a very very long time in prison because of that, but that doesn't make the CEO innocent.
      - hughesjj 2y ago
        For clarity, are you talking about the dead UHC CEO? You're right, I nor anyone I know ever gave him the authority to lead the highest healthcare claims denial rate in the industry and it's super gross that this kind of thing is allowed. If you pay for insurance, you should be able to use it.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        kortilla 2y ago
        > If you pay for insurance, you should be able to use it. For what? The insurance company has to put some guardrails on unnecessary treatments or else the rates for everyone go up even further. I don’t want to be pooled with a hypochondriac that hits up 30 specialists in a year.
        happyraul 2y ago
        Doctors should make that determination, not insurance companies.
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        Doctors are paid for the service they provide so they are incentivized to prescribe things that arent effective. This is a large part of why americans consume so much more healthcare than other countries where doctors get paid per patient on their panel. I agree doctors should determine health care prescriptions but we need to align incentives first.
        happyraul 2y ago
        I think doctors' incentives are more aligned with patients than the incentives of insurance companies. I agree that incentives aren't perfectly aligned, but I'd rather a doctor decide whether I should get a treatment than an insurance company, given the system we have.
        kortilla 2y ago
        There is literally zero incentive for a doctor not to over recommend procedures. That’s why no medical system in the world works that way.
        oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        Of course it's gross, so change it via the democratic process. You can't seriously be arguing that murdering individual CEOs is a better course of action.
      - bagels 2y ago
        You're just imputing different meanings to what people said than what was actually said. The claim was about whether the CEO was innocent or not. Not whether there was authorization, moral imperative, or moral justification to kill.
  - oaththrowaway 2y ago
    You don't have to go through the courts to be guilty of something
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        > If you haven't been proven guilty, you are presumed innocent. That's a sensible procedural rule for courts to follow, but I'm not a court. I have no legal or moral responsibility to presume someone is innocent. I exercise my own judgement on the matter. I agree we don't want vigilante executions in nyc to become more normal than they already are. But don't get it twisted and think that means we are obligated to believe, or act as if we believe, that someone is innocent.
        ithkuil 2y ago
        You're free to privately judge anyone anyway you want. As long as you don't impede their freedom to live their own life. We have laws that prevent you from harming other people. Not only you cannot murder them but there are also laws around stalking, defamation etc. Nobody is forcing us to like the people who we think are terrible human beings.
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
        The point is that we do not have laws that prevent the CEO from harming many people - instead the legal frameworks supported his deadly actions
        ithkuil 2y ago
        Perhaps the problem is the fact that healthcare is privatized in the first place?
  - latentcall 2y ago
    Do you need to be tried in court to be guilty of something? The guy he killed contributed to the suffering of many Americans. In this country that should be illegal but it isn’t, it’s rewarded.
    - hellojesus 2y ago
      It's very interesting to me that everyone is blaming the CEO and not the system. The tethering of health care coverage to employment is the real issue. If decoupled, people could actually shop around and not purchase from companies with high denial rates. It's baffling to me that people are calling this a righteous cleanse when it was purely the murder of an innocent man with a family.
      - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
        Innocent? No, he was a bad person with blood on his hands, made rich by the pain and suffering of the sick. Those people have families, too. I think all of these things can be true. It is possible for one person to be ambivalent about the killing of a bad man, acknowledge that he had a family and that is unfortunate, and accept that the system is flawed and that systematic change is required to materially improve things.
        ithkuil 2y ago
        I agree that the system needs to change. I agree it's fair to criticize executives who are responsible for suffering. But I also think we have to be very careful with the messaging about that. Because I don't want to live in a society where we think that violence is an acceptable solution to injustice. It doesn't lead to a good place. Yes, sometimes it's necessary. But very very very rarely.
        amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        Violence is always the solution. We just usually deputize the police and courts and prisons to do it for us.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    You haven’t missed anything, we are merely witnessing the scary, pathetic beginning of the internet version of medieval peasant mob violence.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Well, Kaczynski thought they were guilty. The intended recipients that is; not sure if he made any statement on employees who were injured by opening mail intended for their boss. In his later writing like Anti-tech Revolution he advocated for strategic actions that would make a return to a pre-technological society (apparently 18th century pastoralism or something similar) inevitable, but sort of threw up his hands over figuring how to meet that criterion.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Did he think the people on the airliner were guilty?
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      Maybe? If I recall correctly his original moment of radicalization was having the peace of his rustic cabin disturbed by some tourist loudly operating an ATV or jetski. However as far as I'm aware that's the only indiscriminate mass attack he undertook; I don't know if the change was motivated by a shift in his moral viewpoint or he decided narrow targeting was a more effective tactic. Context for the confused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_444
      - torified 2y ago
        >having the peace of his rustic cabin disturbed by some tourist loudly operating an ATV or jetski. It was a sawmill! When I saw the documentary about him, I remember thinking that he went to such extremes to get away from people, living without power or water, absolutely in the middle of nowhere, only to have his peace shattered by the reopening of some stupid sawmill. I feel a bit like Ted when my stupid neighbors decide to use their leafblower many times each week. God forbid anyone should have any peace. Oh my god, a leaf!! I must blow it somewhere else at once!!
        shepherdjerred 2y ago
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
They weren't "high-rank targets". At least, many were not. They included a university president and an airline president, several college professors, but also grad students and owners of small computer stores. And the president of the California Forestry Association, who was probably an important person among foresters, but not so much in wider society.
- areyousure 2y ago
  In case anyone was curious, Wikipedia calls the California Forestry Association a "timber industry lobbying group".

by sdwr 2y ago

The Unabomber's MO was politically-motivated terror attacks aimed at high-rank targets. That's exactly what the NYC killing was, so it supports the claim that this guy did it.

autoexec 2y ago

The Unabomber killed innocent people. That's a very different MO from this guy.

cruffle_duffle 2y ago
Did I miss something? Under which court of law was the person this dude murdered found guilty of something?
- hughesjj 2y ago
  Innocence and morality isn't restricted to the determinations or domain of the legal system.
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - autoexec 2y ago
      The killer didn't have the right or the authority to kill the CEO, and he'll likely spend a very very long time in prison because of that, but that doesn't make the CEO innocent.
    - hughesjj 2y ago
      For clarity, are you talking about the dead UHC CEO? You're right, I nor anyone I know ever gave him the authority to lead the highest healthcare claims denial rate in the industry and it's super gross that this kind of thing is allowed. If you pay for insurance, you should be able to use it.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - kortilla 2y ago
        > If you pay for insurance, you should be able to use it. For what? The insurance company has to put some guardrails on unnecessary treatments or else the rates for everyone go up even further. I don’t want to be pooled with a hypochondriac that hits up 30 specialists in a year.
        happyraul 2y ago
        Doctors should make that determination, not insurance companies.
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        Doctors are paid for the service they provide so they are incentivized to prescribe things that arent effective. This is a large part of why americans consume so much more healthcare than other countries where doctors get paid per patient on their panel. I agree doctors should determine health care prescriptions but we need to align incentives first.
        happyraul 2y ago
        I think doctors' incentives are more aligned with patients than the incentives of insurance companies. I agree that incentives aren't perfectly aligned, but I'd rather a doctor decide whether I should get a treatment than an insurance company, given the system we have.
        kortilla 2y ago
        There is literally zero incentive for a doctor not to over recommend procedures. That’s why no medical system in the world works that way.
      - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        Of course it's gross, so change it via the democratic process. You can't seriously be arguing that murdering individual CEOs is a better course of action.
    - bagels 2y ago
      You're just imputing different meanings to what people said than what was actually said. The claim was about whether the CEO was innocent or not. Not whether there was authorization, moral imperative, or moral justification to kill.
- oaththrowaway 2y ago
  You don't have to go through the courts to be guilty of something
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      > If you haven't been proven guilty, you are presumed innocent. That's a sensible procedural rule for courts to follow, but I'm not a court. I have no legal or moral responsibility to presume someone is innocent. I exercise my own judgement on the matter. I agree we don't want vigilante executions in nyc to become more normal than they already are. But don't get it twisted and think that means we are obligated to believe, or act as if we believe, that someone is innocent.
      - ithkuil 2y ago
        You're free to privately judge anyone anyway you want. As long as you don't impede their freedom to live their own life. We have laws that prevent you from harming other people. Not only you cannot murder them but there are also laws around stalking, defamation etc. Nobody is forcing us to like the people who we think are terrible human beings.
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
        The point is that we do not have laws that prevent the CEO from harming many people - instead the legal frameworks supported his deadly actions
        ithkuil 2y ago
        Perhaps the problem is the fact that healthcare is privatized in the first place?
- latentcall 2y ago
  Do you need to be tried in court to be guilty of something? The guy he killed contributed to the suffering of many Americans. In this country that should be illegal but it isn’t, it’s rewarded.
  - hellojesus 2y ago
    It's very interesting to me that everyone is blaming the CEO and not the system. The tethering of health care coverage to employment is the real issue. If decoupled, people could actually shop around and not purchase from companies with high denial rates. It's baffling to me that people are calling this a righteous cleanse when it was purely the murder of an innocent man with a family.
    - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
      Innocent? No, he was a bad person with blood on his hands, made rich by the pain and suffering of the sick. Those people have families, too. I think all of these things can be true. It is possible for one person to be ambivalent about the killing of a bad man, acknowledge that he had a family and that is unfortunate, and accept that the system is flawed and that systematic change is required to materially improve things.
      - ithkuil 2y ago
        I agree that the system needs to change. I agree it's fair to criticize executives who are responsible for suffering. But I also think we have to be very careful with the messaging about that. Because I don't want to live in a society where we think that violence is an acceptable solution to injustice. It doesn't lead to a good place. Yes, sometimes it's necessary. But very very very rarely.
        amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        Violence is always the solution. We just usually deputize the police and courts and prisons to do it for us.
- keiferski 2y ago
  You haven’t missed anything, we are merely witnessing the scary, pathetic beginning of the internet version of medieval peasant mob violence.
anigbrowl 2y ago
Well, Kaczynski thought they were guilty. The intended recipients that is; not sure if he made any statement on employees who were injured by opening mail intended for their boss. In his later writing like Anti-tech Revolution he advocated for strategic actions that would make a return to a pre-technological society (apparently 18th century pastoralism or something similar) inevitable, but sort of threw up his hands over figuring how to meet that criterion.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Did he think the people on the airliner were guilty?
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Maybe? If I recall correctly his original moment of radicalization was having the peace of his rustic cabin disturbed by some tourist loudly operating an ATV or jetski. However as far as I'm aware that's the only indiscriminate mass attack he undertook; I don't know if the change was motivated by a shift in his moral viewpoint or he decided narrow targeting was a more effective tactic. Context for the confused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_444
    - torified 2y ago
      >having the peace of his rustic cabin disturbed by some tourist loudly operating an ATV or jetski. It was a sawmill! When I saw the documentary about him, I remember thinking that he went to such extremes to get away from people, living without power or water, absolutely in the middle of nowhere, only to have his peace shattered by the reopening of some stupid sawmill. I feel a bit like Ted when my stupid neighbors decide to use their leafblower many times each week. God forbid anyone should have any peace. Oh my god, a leaf!! I must blow it somewhere else at once!!
      - shepherdjerred 2y ago

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

They weren't "high-rank targets". At least, many were not. They included a university president and an airline president, several college professors, but also grad students and owners of small computer stores. And the president of the California Forestry Association, who was probably an important person among foresters, but not so much in wider society.

areyousure 2y ago
In case anyone was curious, Wikipedia calls the California Forestry Association a "timber industry lobbying group".