2 ms·

The media is a core and very successful part of the power structure. It is in their best interest to promote the support of this action as "dark fandom". The tr

The media is a core and very successful part of the power structure. It is in their best interest to promote the support of this action as "dark fandom". The true problem for those in power is the following: 1. If they do nothing, they risk more problems/attacks 2. If they do something by improving healthcare, they create a clear-cut example that violence works So, the media needs to frame this not as an ideologically-motivated thing, but as someone unhinged and crazy, or just someone who had nothing else to lose: an isolated event that in no way is trying to make a statement.

b3ing 2y ago
The real problem is that they can’t fix the morality behind the original issue, money over lives is just wrong
ericmay 2y ago
I don’t need the media or anyone else for that matter to explain to me why we shouldn’t accept someone shooting dead on the street someone they disagree with who was not engaging in any illegal activities (and even if they were doing so that’s up to the state to prosecute, not the individual). Otherwise why not shoot dead the next BMV employee that made you mad or the claims adjuster who is specifically responsible for denying your medical claim, or anyone else who “screwed you over”? Maybe we should remove access to firearms so incidents like these don’t continue to happen, right?
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Not exactly. I don't think people "approving" of this shooting means people approve of shooting anyone. They approve of the act of finding a scapegoat to demonstrate that a fundamental shift of society is required. It's a lot subtler that either condoning or condemning arbitrary murder of those who did you wrong. I think the main point is that this guy reached an apex beyond acceptability for someone, which can be considered the first move of a revolution, and now people are waiting for the next step by the system. I don't think anyone would condone shooting people who make you mad or the claims adjuster -- there is no slipppery slope. It's just the beheading of a leader as has happened many times in the past.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    Like and subscribe to the TikTok GoFundMe Revolution to support killing of only the CEOs of healthcare companies to accomplish our goal of getting Congress to nationalize healthcare.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      That's not it either. In French, we have a quote coming from Beaumarchais, in Figaro's monologue: "Sans la liberté de blâmer, il n'est point d'éloge flatteur" (without the freedom to blame there is no flattering praise). Equally, without the possibility of violence from the weak towards the strong (who has the power), there is no real social contract: that's the basis of societies, they hold because their hierarchy is accepted and supported by its members. Violence is a (last resort) mean to refuse the hierarchy in place. A democratic society is precisely one that functions in a way to detect and fix discrepancies in this acceptance and support without (and before) going to extreme means such as violence. And... it's a bit difficult to argue that private companies may solve public matters, especially when negotiation comes into play, in matters of scale and efficiency. The same way that monoliths still often beat microservices. Now, when scale and efficiency is not the focus per se, you may consider it's a very valid option to involve private actors. But in matters of taxes (roughly speaking) and of health/lives, it's perilous (as we can see) to make shareholders profits enter the equation of "scale and efficiency".
      - ericmay 2y ago
        It’s just a surrogate activity. But it’s good we have the 2nd Amendment right? Otherwise how would these revolutionaries acquire their weapons to fight the strong?
        Juliate 2y ago
        Totally unrelated. The 2nd amendment does not exist in so many other democracies that run way better than in the USA.

b3ing 2y ago

The real problem is that they can’t fix the morality behind the original issue, money over lives is just wrong

ericmay 2y ago

I don’t need the media or anyone else for that matter to explain to me why we shouldn’t accept someone shooting dead on the street someone they disagree with who was not engaging in any illegal activities (and even if they were doing so that’s up to the state to prosecute, not the individual). Otherwise why not shoot dead the next BMV employee that made you mad or the claims adjuster who is specifically responsible for denying your medical claim, or anyone else who “screwed you over”? Maybe we should remove access to firearms so incidents like these don’t continue to happen, right?

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Not exactly. I don't think people "approving" of this shooting means people approve of shooting anyone. They approve of the act of finding a scapegoat to demonstrate that a fundamental shift of society is required. It's a lot subtler that either condoning or condemning arbitrary murder of those who did you wrong. I think the main point is that this guy reached an apex beyond acceptability for someone, which can be considered the first move of a revolution, and now people are waiting for the next step by the system. I don't think anyone would condone shooting people who make you mad or the claims adjuster -- there is no slipppery slope. It's just the beheading of a leader as has happened many times in the past.
- ericmay 2y ago
  Like and subscribe to the TikTok GoFundMe Revolution to support killing of only the CEOs of healthcare companies to accomplish our goal of getting Congress to nationalize healthcare.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    That's not it either. In French, we have a quote coming from Beaumarchais, in Figaro's monologue: "Sans la liberté de blâmer, il n'est point d'éloge flatteur" (without the freedom to blame there is no flattering praise). Equally, without the possibility of violence from the weak towards the strong (who has the power), there is no real social contract: that's the basis of societies, they hold because their hierarchy is accepted and supported by its members. Violence is a (last resort) mean to refuse the hierarchy in place. A democratic society is precisely one that functions in a way to detect and fix discrepancies in this acceptance and support without (and before) going to extreme means such as violence. And... it's a bit difficult to argue that private companies may solve public matters, especially when negotiation comes into play, in matters of scale and efficiency. The same way that monoliths still often beat microservices. Now, when scale and efficiency is not the focus per se, you may consider it's a very valid option to involve private actors. But in matters of taxes (roughly speaking) and of health/lives, it's perilous (as we can see) to make shareholders profits enter the equation of "scale and efficiency".
    - ericmay 2y ago
      It’s just a surrogate activity. But it’s good we have the 2nd Amendment right? Otherwise how would these revolutionaries acquire their weapons to fight the strong?
      - Juliate 2y ago
        Totally unrelated. The 2nd amendment does not exist in so many other democracies that run way better than in the USA.