3 ms·

>Kaczynski targeted "people he believed to be advancing modern technology and the destruction of the natural environment." (quoting Wikipedia). Did that change

>Kaczynski targeted "people he believed to be advancing modern technology and the destruction of the natural environment." (quoting Wikipedia). Did that change anything? The problem with that argument is that Kaczynski targeted random innocent people who had nothing to do with the faults in the system, while Luigi targeted one of the heads(pun not intended) directly responsible for the faults with the system, which is why a lot of the people support his actions.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Actually, Kaczynski did attempt to target those responsible for failings of the system, including a geneticist, computer store owners, etc. The reason why Kaczynski didn't have support is because he believed that all of advanced technology was a problem and of course he targeted "low-level" people compared to CEOs, and most people don't agree with his technology thesis anyway, whereas most people disagree that healthcare in the US is messed up.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  How are computer store owners responsible for the societal change occurring due to technology at the time? Weren't the likes of IBM, PayPal mafia, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates the ones more likely responsible for that?
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    That is true, and that was one of my points in the other thread, which is why Kaczynski didn't receive as much sympathy.
eesmith 2y ago
That is what I meant by "more qualifiers". You may need even more qualifiers. Violent radical environmental groups currently carry out sabotage rather than targeting those directly responsible for the faults with the system, perhaps due to personal ethics, but perhaps because because they think a lot of people would not support those more violent actions. A pro-lifer killed the doctor George Tiller, who was one of the few to carry out late-term abortions. Here too we see someone who considers the system so broken that it allows late-term abortions, and with others grateful for the murder, but we don't talk about that as a key moment. I think the best parallel is Charles J. Guiteau's assassination of James A. Garfield in 1881 is a moment, which was a "moment" which helped the decades-long transition from the spoils system to the civil service system. Sadly, it looks like the next administration prefers going back to patronage. BTW, I quoted how Kaczynski did not target random people (excepting, I think, Flight 444, which his Wikipedia article says he later regarded as a mistake because it was too indiscriminate.)
School-Cotton 2y ago
It’s not clear that insurance company CEOs are responsible for the problem. Insurance companies have rather low profit margins — even if they were non-profit, perfectly efficient, and all their employees worked for free, it would have a marginal effect on the system but not change it fundamentally.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Hollywood accounting has taught me to seriously distrust what "profit margin" means. If company X rents a building from company Y, and X and Y are both owned by company A, then X can have no profit on the books, even though A still gets the money. In any case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group#Finance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group#Finance says 2023 revenue was $371,622 million with a net income of $23,144 million. 23/371 = 6% profit margin. Verizon has a profit margin of 7.3% Walmart is about 3%. You are right - it won't fundamentally change thing. Medicare for all.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

Actually, Kaczynski did attempt to target those responsible for failings of the system, including a geneticist, computer store owners, etc. The reason why Kaczynski didn't have support is because he believed that all of advanced technology was a problem and of course he targeted "low-level" people compared to CEOs, and most people don't agree with his technology thesis anyway, whereas most people disagree that healthcare in the US is messed up.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
How are computer store owners responsible for the societal change occurring due to technology at the time? Weren't the likes of IBM, PayPal mafia, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates the ones more likely responsible for that?
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  That is true, and that was one of my points in the other thread, which is why Kaczynski didn't receive as much sympathy.

eesmith 2y ago

That is what I meant by "more qualifiers". You may need even more qualifiers. Violent radical environmental groups currently carry out sabotage rather than targeting those directly responsible for the faults with the system, perhaps due to personal ethics, but perhaps because because they think a lot of people would not support those more violent actions. A pro-lifer killed the doctor George Tiller, who was one of the few to carry out late-term abortions. Here too we see someone who considers the system so broken that it allows late-term abortions, and with others grateful for the murder, but we don't talk about that as a key moment. I think the best parallel is Charles J. Guiteau's assassination of James A. Garfield in 1881 is a moment, which was a "moment" which helped the decades-long transition from the spoils system to the civil service system. Sadly, it looks like the next administration prefers going back to patronage. BTW, I quoted how Kaczynski did not target random people (excepting, I think, Flight 444, which his Wikipedia article says he later regarded as a mistake because it was too indiscriminate.)

School-Cotton 2y ago

It’s not clear that insurance company CEOs are responsible for the problem. Insurance companies have rather low profit margins — even if they were non-profit, perfectly efficient, and all their employees worked for free, it would have a marginal effect on the system but not change it fundamentally.

eesmith 2y ago
Hollywood accounting has taught me to seriously distrust what "profit margin" means. If company X rents a building from company Y, and X and Y are both owned by company A, then X can have no profit on the books, even though A still gets the money. In any case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group#Finance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group#Finance says 2023 revenue was $371,622 million with a net income of $23,144 million. 23/371 = 6% profit margin. Verizon has a profit margin of 7.3% Walmart is about 3%. You are right - it won't fundamentally change thing. Medicare for all.