3 ms·

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 demons

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.
      - ericmay 2y ago
        How is it unrelated? The topic was the shooting dead of another person on the street in broad daylight. If we abolished the 2nd Amendment, maybe the shooter doesn’t get access to a gun to shoot dead the CEO. That would be good right? Shouldn’t we prevent people from obtaining guns and shooting other people? Consider reading (or re-reading) the OP and my response - I don’t think it’s ever acceptable for anyone to shoot another law abiding citizen dead. The shooter isn’t the arbiter of justice and what he did was awful. America has lots of issues and it’s a very large country, as such it does run some things quite well (especially when allowed to do so), just as some countries run some things quite poorly.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  I think that's a simplification.
  - ericmay 2y ago
    Is it incorrect?

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.
    - ericmay 2y ago
      How is it unrelated? The topic was the shooting dead of another person on the street in broad daylight. If we abolished the 2nd Amendment, maybe the shooter doesn’t get access to a gun to shoot dead the CEO. That would be good right? Shouldn’t we prevent people from obtaining guns and shooting other people? Consider reading (or re-reading) the OP and my response - I don’t think it’s ever acceptable for anyone to shoot another law abiding citizen dead. The shooter isn’t the arbiter of justice and what he did was awful. America has lots of issues and it’s a very large country, as such it does run some things quite well (especially when allowed to do so), just as some countries run some things quite poorly.
vouaobrasil 2y ago
I think that's a simplification.
- ericmay 2y ago
  Is it incorrect?