5 ms·

> You don’t get structural change by extreme singular events. The word _singular_ is doing a lot of work there. Historically 'propagande par le fait' has had

> You don’t get structural change by extreme singular events. The word _singular_ is doing a lot of work there. Historically 'propagande par le fait' has had a massive effect on policy. The implication that you have to not only focus on EBITDA but also on social responsibility (in a real non-PR way) is ever lasting if this propagates to more than a single occurrence. Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.)

keiferski 2y ago
Historically 'propagande par le fait' has had a massive effect on policy. What examples are you thinking of, exactly? When, precisely, did a person/group assassinate someone and have that act push forward their cause? Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.) Or, maybe the idea that killing a random healthcare CEO and acting like that will solve the healthcare disaster is a childish idea that belongs in a movie like The Purge or a Marvel film? The world isn't that simple. It's incredible that people have such a one-dimensional moral worldview.
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Being charitable, it's not that it will *solve* the disaster, but that its justice applied. Does locking up a single drug dealer solve the war on drugs, or jailing a murderer solve anything for the victim of the murder?
  - keiferski 2y ago
    No serious definition of justice includes shooting people in the street because they committed a supposed crime. This is literally the basis of civilization.
    - spencerflem 2y ago
      It is illegal, for obvious reasons, but justice is a moral question. We have trials to apply justice because it's not always clear who did what and it would be terribly unjust to lock someone up for something they didn't do.
      - keiferski 2y ago
        And precisely what wise, intelligent definition of "moral justice" includes shooting people on the street? The answer is: none. This wasn't some elaborate ethical act, nor is the pathetic justification of it online. It is boring old mob mentality, combined with class resentment and a number of other things.
        spencerflem 2y ago
        Imagine someone has taken something of yours- would it be just to take it back, even if it could not be proven in court? I'd argue yes, though the trick is convincing everyone else that it was just. Imagine someone murders your brother. They are friends with the judge so they are let to walk. Have you been denied justice? Again, the reason not to shoot people on the street is not because it is always unjust but because its not always clear what is just and we would like a fair consistent way to decide that, in a way that's legible to other people. If you think the death penalty is fair, then you admit that you are fine with people being killed in the name of justice. The only question is, is the person the one who did the crime. Normally a judge would decide that but I don't see why that's a prerequisite
        keiferski 2y ago
        No, the reason not to shoot people on the street is because it undermines a basic function of civilization. Even when someone is clearly guilty, the legal system must still have a monopoly on violence. Otherwise, you get anarchy. This has been a basic assumption of civilization going back thousands of years. And there's still the question of exactly what culpability a CEO of a major insurance corporation actually has, what supposed crime he has committed, and what the appropriate punishment should be. As far as I can tell, pretty much no one applauding this act has any real understanding of how corporations actually work, or what this specific CEO did that warranted him being murdered. As I said above, there is no intelligent defense here. It's just populist street violence.

keiferski 2y ago

Historically 'propagande par le fait' has had a massive effect on policy. What examples are you thinking of, exactly? When, precisely, did a person/group assassinate someone and have that act push forward their cause? Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.) Or, maybe the idea that killing a random healthcare CEO and acting like that will solve the healthcare disaster is a childish idea that belongs in a movie like The Purge or a Marvel film? The world isn't that simple. It's incredible that people have such a one-dimensional moral worldview.

spencerflem 2y ago
Being charitable, it's not that it will *solve* the disaster, but that its justice applied. Does locking up a single drug dealer solve the war on drugs, or jailing a murderer solve anything for the victim of the murder?
- keiferski 2y ago
  No serious definition of justice includes shooting people in the street because they committed a supposed crime. This is literally the basis of civilization.
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    It is illegal, for obvious reasons, but justice is a moral question. We have trials to apply justice because it's not always clear who did what and it would be terribly unjust to lock someone up for something they didn't do.
    - keiferski 2y ago
      And precisely what wise, intelligent definition of "moral justice" includes shooting people on the street? The answer is: none. This wasn't some elaborate ethical act, nor is the pathetic justification of it online. It is boring old mob mentality, combined with class resentment and a number of other things.
      - spencerflem 2y ago
        Imagine someone has taken something of yours- would it be just to take it back, even if it could not be proven in court? I'd argue yes, though the trick is convincing everyone else that it was just. Imagine someone murders your brother. They are friends with the judge so they are let to walk. Have you been denied justice? Again, the reason not to shoot people on the street is not because it is always unjust but because its not always clear what is just and we would like a fair consistent way to decide that, in a way that's legible to other people. If you think the death penalty is fair, then you admit that you are fine with people being killed in the name of justice. The only question is, is the person the one who did the crime. Normally a judge would decide that but I don't see why that's a prerequisite
        keiferski 2y ago
        No, the reason not to shoot people on the street is because it undermines a basic function of civilization. Even when someone is clearly guilty, the legal system must still have a monopoly on violence. Otherwise, you get anarchy. This has been a basic assumption of civilization going back thousands of years. And there's still the question of exactly what culpability a CEO of a major insurance corporation actually has, what supposed crime he has committed, and what the appropriate punishment should be. As far as I can tell, pretty much no one applauding this act has any real understanding of how corporations actually work, or what this specific CEO did that warranted him being murdered. As I said above, there is no intelligent defense here. It's just populist street violence.