8 ms·

I thought it was a joke when I saw the posts on the Reddit homepage celebrating the murder and even the murderer. Partly because I thought Redditors were above

by kypro 2y ago

I thought it was a joke when I saw the posts on the Reddit homepage celebrating the murder and even the murderer. Partly because I thought Redditors were above that type of thing, but also because I thought it was against their TOS. It's a real reminder of how little sympathy people can have about people who they consider the enemy or the "other". I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too. Humans are so flawed. And I'm not suggesting for a moment I'm above it. I've often noticed how I don't care as much as I should when someone I dislike is harmed or suffers injustice.

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
I was even more surprised by the response on Bluesky because I naively expected it to be 'better' than that. But I saw vitriol and hatred directed at people for daring to suggest that other, unrelated CEOs shouldn't be shot. It was like a reflection of the worst elements of X, even though these people claim to be the 'good' side.
- purplethinking 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    That's part of my point: the censorship of death celebrations that I would expect is not happening.
    - bilvar 2y ago
      Twitter did not censor calls to violence from the left before Musk either.
    - purplethinking 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Bluesky isn't principled, only partisan. Little different in this respect from X or Reddit.
wongarsu 2y ago
A lot of people feel that he as the CEO of the health insurance with the highest rate of denied claims is indirectly responsible for the death of a large number of people. Thus killing him is justified as vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is frequently seen in a positive light when the justice system is unable or unwilling to act.
- toxik 2y ago
  These CEOs have found a way to game the system, but the system presupposes mutual respect. If one side reneges on this contract and says that technically they're following the rules, well, the other side will just disregard the rules. It's like the kid at the playground who won't play fair but insists that technically they follow the rules, ignoring completely the outcome -- kids just don't want to play with them anymore, and will probably be mean to the `cheater'.
- BoxFour 2y ago
  That may feel acceptable, but I hope those people remember it when someone controversial they admire meets a similar fate, greeted by applause from the other side. Once we start tacitly approving of extrajudicial killings, it doesn’t stop with just those you dislike or even just the outspoken figures. Consider how many completely innocent civilians died during the Troubles or the French Revolution, or how easy it would’ve been for someone completely innocent to get harmed here. It’s easy to approve of this in a vacuum, it’s just a path full of extreme cognitive dissonance.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    One of the many purposes of the justice system is to serve "justice" so people don't feel the need to take it in their own hands. The fact that so many people feel this murder is justified shows a clear breakdown of the justice system. Which should give everyone pause because that path does lead to the terrors you describe. But the path to solving that has to involve adjustments to the system that address this mismatch, not just condemning the act or creating some huge diversion in the hope people will forget about it.
greenie_beans 2y ago
some people believe the CEO's death is justice. engels called what insurance companies do "social murder" where these institutions and the state commits violence against individuals or kills them through policy or profit motives. and it's perfectly legal. it's only when an individual uses self defense against this social violence that it is considered wrong.
that_guy_iain 2y ago
Honest question, do you think there is a point where someone has earned death? For example, was the mission to kill Bin Laden wrong? Was the mission to kill the Iranian General in Iraq wrong? Is it wrong to kill someone via the death penalty for the rape and murder of a child? Many people fundamentally believe those things are good examples of killing other humans. And realistically, those people are responsible for less harm and suffering , not to mention deaths, that CEOs of healthcare providers being investigated by the DoJ. It’s not that there. Is a lack of sympathy, it’s overwhelmed by the feeling of justice. And not the injustice you think occurred.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  Only about a quarter of the world's countries have the death penalty so even if "many people believe that's a good example of killing other humans", most do not. While I abhor the nature of privatised healthcare in the US, I think judging—and, certainly, killing—people based on potential indirect harm they've caused is a very slippery slope.
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    I don’t know of a single country without a military nor a country that doesn’t allow law enforcement to use lethal force. So your statement that most people don’t think they are valid examples of a good killing of someone is disingenuous.
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      I was specifically referring to the death penalty.
      - that_guy_iain 2y ago
        But my point was about justice and if we think there is a point someone deserves to die. If we say there is, which I think it’s clear, there is. The whole question about people being happy is about them being happy that they‘re seeing justice. But you tried to side step that. Also, on the death penalty, I don’t think it’s ever gone to a vote where the people decided. So saying most people are againist the death penalty sounds hollow.
mft_ 2y ago
The actions of his company —which he led and dictated policy for— can be considered evil by a reasonably dispassionate measure - they deliberately caused undue suffering or shortened the life of countless thousands of vulnerable people. I (obviously) don’t support vigilante justice, and felt somewhat sad when Hussein and Gadaffi were hanged/lynched because despite their evil, I’d rather we don’t treat human beings like that. But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants; and as such, I can understand why many might be happy about what took place, especially if they had personal animus with the company.
- abnry 2y ago
  > But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them. Healthcare is more complicated because you have multiple causes at play: the health conditions of patients, the hospitals and what they bill, and the insurance companies. Money is a big factor here. People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person. I understand the resentment over wealth inequality, but someone recently calculated that the top 4 billionaires could only support healthcare for everyone for 3 months. Money is not an infinite resource. Rationing is unavoidable. But I get that there is a problem. Automatic denials and denials over treatments that have clear and significant benefits are a problem, absolutely. And the system could run more efficiently. But we also can't avoid death due to old age or sickness. Nor painless death. But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.
  - jplusequalt 2y ago
    When people are tired of a system and the powers that be, they take action into their own hands. I'd rather a few dead CEO's and a renewed zeal among the populace to address these issues, then roll over like a dog.
  - Tryk 2y ago
    What about deploying an AI that automatically denies 90% of appeals incorrectly? Is that Tyrannical or is that "complicated"? https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/unitedhealthcare-used-ai-to-deny-patients-health-insurance-coverage-lawsuit-says https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/unitedhealthcare-used-... There is no reason why you need middlemen between the people and healthcare, beyond enriching the rent-seeking middlemen.
_yb2s 2y ago
This overall dynamic has become very concerning to me- people have sorted themselves into echo chambers online that dehumanize anyone not in their group- to the point of justifying murder for just for not being in their specific group. This has happened universally across the political and ideological spectrum. Parts of Reddit for example has a seething hatred for anyone elderly “boomers” and/or well off “billionaires and landlords” with lots of extreme essays on why people in these groups should be systematically harmed or even executed becoming well liked. Anyone adding nuance to the discussion is attacked- empathy and nuance are labeled as themselves evil. Everything is based on a cartoonishly oversimplified model of the world with pure good and evil actors- not understanding that unfair outcomes are most often simply the banal result of bad planning and locked in structures that appear organically and can persist even when everyone involved wants them to change but can’t coordinate well. This dynamic is repeated everywhere and not unique to just the right or left. Nothing good will come off this.
- CrimsonCape 2y ago
  This is a spot-on description. The locked-in banality seems to be the source of fuel for many issues people are taking offense with. Housing cost too much? Oh well. Food costs too much? Oh well. Medical costs too much? Oh well, etc. etc. There doesn't seem to be many release valves other than "accept your fate" especially when you have seemingly little control over your own fate.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    When you have a complex locked in problem that most people genuinely already want to solve, it can be solved with good leadership- someone needs to have a clear and workable vision and get all of the players organized to collectively act at the same time. One doesn't need to be a politician to do this, but just as an example Obama was able to do this to make some improvements to the US healthcare situation. Unfortunately, the people most affected by these problems are probably not in a position to acquire the knowledge and skills to lead the entire field to a better solution like this.
NoGravitas 2y ago
> I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too. It's because they believe in justice that they are celebrating the murder.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  For some definition of justice. Maybe not the same definition the rest of us are using, though.
- goatlover 2y ago
  A kind of justice that hasn't ben particularly just in the past, which is why vigilante justice isn't legal. The point is to not have citizens deciding to carry out their own idea of justice. That's for the state, which in a democratic society, we vote on, they pass laws which judges interpret and so on. Because we can't trust everyone to deal out their own idea of justice without it turning into endless blood feuds and partisan killings. Not to mention all the lynchings and witch hunts. This doesn't even bring up the fact that most individuals don't have the resources or motivation to carry out a proper independent investigation. So then the wrong person gets hung by an angry mob, or beat to death by a family member of the victim.
  - Tryk 2y ago
    Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a successful healthcare insurance CEO.
    - chasd00 2y ago
      Brian Thompson was CEO for all of 3 and a half years. He was also only about 50 years old, I don't think he's quite the bond villain you want him to be.
      - Tryk 2y ago
        I don't follow your reasoning, 3 years is a significant time. Are you saying that you need to be above 70 to become a "bond villain", haven't seen that movie. But in any case he was working for United since 2004, according to Wikipedia.

by kypro 2y ago

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago

I was even more surprised by the response on Bluesky because I naively expected it to be 'better' than that. But I saw vitriol and hatred directed at people for daring to suggest that other, unrelated CEOs shouldn't be shot. It was like a reflection of the worst elements of X, even though these people claim to be the 'good' side.

purplethinking 2y ago
[flagged]
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  That's part of my point: the censorship of death celebrations that I would expect is not happening.
  - bilvar 2y ago
    Twitter did not censor calls to violence from the left before Musk either.
  - purplethinking 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Bluesky isn't principled, only partisan. Little different in this respect from X or Reddit.

wongarsu 2y ago

A lot of people feel that he as the CEO of the health insurance with the highest rate of denied claims is indirectly responsible for the death of a large number of people. Thus killing him is justified as vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is frequently seen in a positive light when the justice system is unable or unwilling to act.

toxik 2y ago
These CEOs have found a way to game the system, but the system presupposes mutual respect. If one side reneges on this contract and says that technically they're following the rules, well, the other side will just disregard the rules. It's like the kid at the playground who won't play fair but insists that technically they follow the rules, ignoring completely the outcome -- kids just don't want to play with them anymore, and will probably be mean to the `cheater'.
BoxFour 2y ago
That may feel acceptable, but I hope those people remember it when someone controversial they admire meets a similar fate, greeted by applause from the other side. Once we start tacitly approving of extrajudicial killings, it doesn’t stop with just those you dislike or even just the outspoken figures. Consider how many completely innocent civilians died during the Troubles or the French Revolution, or how easy it would’ve been for someone completely innocent to get harmed here. It’s easy to approve of this in a vacuum, it’s just a path full of extreme cognitive dissonance.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  One of the many purposes of the justice system is to serve "justice" so people don't feel the need to take it in their own hands. The fact that so many people feel this murder is justified shows a clear breakdown of the justice system. Which should give everyone pause because that path does lead to the terrors you describe. But the path to solving that has to involve adjustments to the system that address this mismatch, not just condemning the act or creating some huge diversion in the hope people will forget about it.

greenie_beans 2y ago

some people believe the CEO's death is justice. engels called what insurance companies do "social murder" where these institutions and the state commits violence against individuals or kills them through policy or profit motives. and it's perfectly legal. it's only when an individual uses self defense against this social violence that it is considered wrong.

that_guy_iain 2y ago

Honest question, do you think there is a point where someone has earned death? For example, was the mission to kill Bin Laden wrong? Was the mission to kill the Iranian General in Iraq wrong? Is it wrong to kill someone via the death penalty for the rape and murder of a child? Many people fundamentally believe those things are good examples of killing other humans. And realistically, those people are responsible for less harm and suffering , not to mention deaths, that CEOs of healthcare providers being investigated by the DoJ. It’s not that there. Is a lack of sympathy, it’s overwhelmed by the feeling of justice. And not the injustice you think occurred.

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
Only about a quarter of the world's countries have the death penalty so even if "many people believe that's a good example of killing other humans", most do not. While I abhor the nature of privatised healthcare in the US, I think judging—and, certainly, killing—people based on potential indirect harm they've caused is a very slippery slope.
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  I don’t know of a single country without a military nor a country that doesn’t allow law enforcement to use lethal force. So your statement that most people don’t think they are valid examples of a good killing of someone is disingenuous.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    I was specifically referring to the death penalty.
    - that_guy_iain 2y ago
      But my point was about justice and if we think there is a point someone deserves to die. If we say there is, which I think it’s clear, there is. The whole question about people being happy is about them being happy that they‘re seeing justice. But you tried to side step that. Also, on the death penalty, I don’t think it’s ever gone to a vote where the people decided. So saying most people are againist the death penalty sounds hollow.

mft_ 2y ago

The actions of his company —which he led and dictated policy for— can be considered evil by a reasonably dispassionate measure - they deliberately caused undue suffering or shortened the life of countless thousands of vulnerable people. I (obviously) don’t support vigilante justice, and felt somewhat sad when Hussein and Gadaffi were hanged/lynched because despite their evil, I’d rather we don’t treat human beings like that. But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants; and as such, I can understand why many might be happy about what took place, especially if they had personal animus with the company.

abnry 2y ago
> But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them. Healthcare is more complicated because you have multiple causes at play: the health conditions of patients, the hospitals and what they bill, and the insurance companies. Money is a big factor here. People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person. I understand the resentment over wealth inequality, but someone recently calculated that the top 4 billionaires could only support healthcare for everyone for 3 months. Money is not an infinite resource. Rationing is unavoidable. But I get that there is a problem. Automatic denials and denials over treatments that have clear and significant benefits are a problem, absolutely. And the system could run more efficiently. But we also can't avoid death due to old age or sickness. Nor painless death. But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.
- jplusequalt 2y ago
  When people are tired of a system and the powers that be, they take action into their own hands. I'd rather a few dead CEO's and a renewed zeal among the populace to address these issues, then roll over like a dog.
- Tryk 2y ago
  What about deploying an AI that automatically denies 90% of appeals incorrectly? Is that Tyrannical or is that "complicated"? https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/unitedhealthcare-used-ai-to-deny-patients-health-insurance-coverage-lawsuit-says https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/unitedhealthcare-used-... There is no reason why you need middlemen between the people and healthcare, beyond enriching the rent-seeking middlemen.

_yb2s 2y ago

This overall dynamic has become very concerning to me- people have sorted themselves into echo chambers online that dehumanize anyone not in their group- to the point of justifying murder for just for not being in their specific group. This has happened universally across the political and ideological spectrum. Parts of Reddit for example has a seething hatred for anyone elderly “boomers” and/or well off “billionaires and landlords” with lots of extreme essays on why people in these groups should be systematically harmed or even executed becoming well liked. Anyone adding nuance to the discussion is attacked- empathy and nuance are labeled as themselves evil. Everything is based on a cartoonishly oversimplified model of the world with pure good and evil actors- not understanding that unfair outcomes are most often simply the banal result of bad planning and locked in structures that appear organically and can persist even when everyone involved wants them to change but can’t coordinate well. This dynamic is repeated everywhere and not unique to just the right or left. Nothing good will come off this.

CrimsonCape 2y ago
This is a spot-on description. The locked-in banality seems to be the source of fuel for many issues people are taking offense with. Housing cost too much? Oh well. Food costs too much? Oh well. Medical costs too much? Oh well, etc. etc. There doesn't seem to be many release valves other than "accept your fate" especially when you have seemingly little control over your own fate.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  When you have a complex locked in problem that most people genuinely already want to solve, it can be solved with good leadership- someone needs to have a clear and workable vision and get all of the players organized to collectively act at the same time. One doesn't need to be a politician to do this, but just as an example Obama was able to do this to make some improvements to the US healthcare situation. Unfortunately, the people most affected by these problems are probably not in a position to acquire the knowledge and skills to lead the entire field to a better solution like this.

NoGravitas 2y ago

> I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too. It's because they believe in justice that they are celebrating the murder.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
For some definition of justice. Maybe not the same definition the rest of us are using, though.
goatlover 2y ago
A kind of justice that hasn't ben particularly just in the past, which is why vigilante justice isn't legal. The point is to not have citizens deciding to carry out their own idea of justice. That's for the state, which in a democratic society, we vote on, they pass laws which judges interpret and so on. Because we can't trust everyone to deal out their own idea of justice without it turning into endless blood feuds and partisan killings. Not to mention all the lynchings and witch hunts. This doesn't even bring up the fact that most individuals don't have the resources or motivation to carry out a proper independent investigation. So then the wrong person gets hung by an angry mob, or beat to death by a family member of the victim.
- Tryk 2y ago
  Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a successful healthcare insurance CEO.
  - chasd00 2y ago
    Brian Thompson was CEO for all of 3 and a half years. He was also only about 50 years old, I don't think he's quite the bond villain you want him to be.
    - Tryk 2y ago
      I don't follow your reasoning, 3 years is a significant time. Are you saying that you need to be above 70 to become a "bond villain", haven't seen that movie. But in any case he was working for United since 2004, according to Wikipedia.