5 ms·

Vigilantism and violence is not merited because scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution. At some level of oppression violence is o

Vigilantism and violence is not merited because scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution. At some level of oppression violence is obviously indicated. The whole of the current Western order is premised on that. At some point it’s too far. Today is not that day.

stavros 2y ago
> scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution I feel like the murderer wouldn't be so widely commended if that were true. Justice is what is supposed to prevent vigilantism, and apparently lots of people here felt that the murder was just.
- benreesman 2y ago
  I’m still advocating for peace, but over time the argument isn’t getting any fucking easier to make, that’s for fucking sure. The Kleptocracy has a year, two at the outside to make some concessions near as I can tell, before they can’t walk the streets of NYC safely full stop. Or Chicago, or …
  - booleandilemma 2y ago
    There shouldn't be a kleptocracy.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Yeah, it really is getting ridiculous now. The pendulum has swung too far towards the elites, and we know what happens then...
- isoprophlex 2y ago
  Agreed, indeed: when the people feel that justice fails them, vigantilism takes its place. We'd all do well to, in our rush to decry the murder itself, be mindful of the mistake of losing sight of the reason behind the massive support for Mangione's actions.
  - benreesman 2y ago
    Let’s also remember that outright war is a bridge that can be crossed by not uncrossed. Measure twice and cut once on such things.
    - BitterCritter 2y ago
      I think it can be argued that once a seemingly decent, mentally healthy person murders rather than a pervert cannibal or social outcast then the justification for the murder should be reasonable.
    - stavros 2y ago
      One could argue we've measured many, many times.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > We'd all do well to be mindful of the mistake of losing sight of the reason behind the massive support for Mangione's actions. This is what I fear the most. It creates an ideological divide. Those who seem his action as justified do have reason to hold their beliefs. The justice system often fails people and we often hear and feel more and more these days. It is not about statistics, it is about "the vibe." At the same time, those who do not feel his actions are justified (myself included) have reason for their side too. Both sides have evidence and the truth is that the decisions are being based on different criteria. It's not even that we often disagree with the facts (of course, we often do too), but more that we care more or less about certain things. And if we can't at least understand why others have made their decisions, at least understand why others feel a certain way, then we have no hope of solving any of these problems that we both seem to care about. What I fear is that while screaming that vigilantism isn't ever justified, that this very same act justifies it.
- tptacek 2y ago
  It was not widely commended; that it looks that way is an artifact of how our media is structured. We tend now to look at the world through a band-stop filter that amplifies the most activating ideas.
  - benreesman 2y ago
    @tptacek I think people mean assassinations on tape are usually universally condemned. Luigi has tens of thousands of women lining up to marry him, multiple academics doing long pieces about how to achieve jury nullification, and saying he’s the bad guy is not a popular move basically anywhere with a lot of people in it. If it’s amplified then the amplifier is the public.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      You are describing a very small number of highly-activated people responding to a media environment. I think it's especially telling that you cite women "lining up to marry him"; his support, as you're depicting it, is characterized by deeply irrational behavior. I agree.
      - benreesman 2y ago
        I think I’m still openly condemning the violence without dismissing the fucking broad based anger around it. There are a large number of us who are very pissed off but still seeking compromise. There are a very fucking small number of people who own any significant equities, or have their interests actually materialize politically. That’s the group I’m lobbying to get your shit correct before Luigi is fucking everywhere.
        tptacek 2y ago
        I'm more interested in policy being adopted on its merits, rather than out of concern that The Joker will punish me for not supporting it.
        2y ago
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >I feel like the murderer wouldn't be so widely commended if that were true. Justice is what is supposed to prevent vigilantism, and apparently lots of people here felt that the murder was just. OK then, what crime did the CEO commit? Simply presiding over a business that people don't like, which he has no real power to change, is not a crime in any sense. Vigilantism only makes sense when there is no justice for real obvious crimes with known guilty parties. And even then, it has many downsides. A loud minority (or even majority) of people condoning this does not make it right. In the absence of an articulable crime for which the victim is responsible, this is simple murder. You can rationalize it all you want but your logic could be used to justify lynch mobs.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives? The Nazis couldn't claim "I was just running the concentration camp" as a defense. The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO".
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Comparing a CEO of an insurance company to a Nazi officer running a concentration camp is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. Insurance companies aren't overtly or covertly killing people. They might not be paying for their healthcare in every single instance where they should. As a business, they must decide what services to cover and at what price or they won't be in business for long. They face extensive regulation to ensure that they are not doing exactly the thing you're accusing them of. Yes that means everything has a limit. Luigi was a rich kid. Neither he nor his family had any business with this insurance company or the CEO, as I understand it. So this action on his part is the result of some insanity plus radicalization, perhaps by people like yourself who have the gall to compare 100% legal businesses to Nazi concentration camps. Our political discourse has really degraded in my lifetime, with one large faction now frequently accusing everyone they disagree with of being Nazis. No good can come of this. >The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO". Perhaps he could change something but you can't articulate what that is exactly, because you don't care. You just hate the industry as a whole. Even if the industry needs a lot of improvement, it is entirely legal and regulated, and not a charity. The CEO has no reason to leave because he's got a great job at what most people regard as an upstanding business. It could be argued that Luigi's murder of this CEO and the public reaction to it could make insurance worse. How? Think about it. What competent CEO-type would want to work at a company if it might put a target on his back? A lot of normal people would not want to. So you're less likely to get a competent and relatable CEO, and more likely to get a cutthroat or incompetent one. The kind of person who doesn't care that lots of people would celebrate his death just for having held the position. And an incompetent one could lead to more deaths, because insurance is basically a finance business that must make enough money to cover its expenses. If they go broke, then nobody is getting covered.
jnwatson 2y ago
The US political system is at all time low of responsiveness to the needs of its citizens. Congress has been dysfunctional longer than Mangione has been alive. It makes sense that a young man would lash out this way. Violence should indeed be the last resort, and for many folks the alternatives are dwindling.
- benreesman 2y ago
  Let’s try everything we can before resorting to violence? Once that starts, that’s a forest fire that burns in ways no one can control.
  - hackable_sand 2y ago
    Violence is literally always a last resort.
    - hex3 2y ago
      [dead]
    - benreesman 2y ago
      Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. We can take down this cancerous thing via more civilized means. It’s that civilization that separates us from the thugs we oppose. Otherwise we’re just the new thugs.
      - hex3 2y ago
        [dead]
      - benreesman 2y ago
        In case I haven’t been clear enough on this point: I want no part in any revolution in which the revolutionary has no goal bigger or better than a purely local shuffling of advantage to themself. The only revolution I’m willing to die for is one where the goal is a better model: a better way for people to live. I cannot see a way that killing people is a path to a better world. Killing people without thought or empathy is what the adversary does. I think we can flip everything upside down via wit and endurance and humanity and sheer will. Violence is for people who fail in all of that.
lowbloodsugar 2y ago
You seem to be working from some kind of principles like justice? Or fairness? We do not live in that world. I was just reading today another story in the Washington Post about how the US stole Native American children and many died. The US isn’t a society governed by justice, fairness, or even the truth. The rich should be scared because so many support this “execution”. Of course, they are way ahead, and Robin Hood’s merry supporters will find out that prince john has an army of mercenaries happy to take his coin.
yetihehe 2y ago
> At some point it’s too far. Today is not that day. It's not a switch. When your level of oppression rises, the probability of violent acts increases. When the level is high enough, you have a sudden cascade of events releasing pent up anger, which we typically call a revolution. You can't predict the moment exactly. We don't have a revolution yet, but tensions are rising.
politelemon 2y ago
The 'point' differs among individuals. In turn it is dependent on their circumstances and ideals. There isn't one specific moment where there will be collective agreement on its justification.

stavros 2y ago

> scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution I feel like the murderer wouldn't be so widely commended if that were true. Justice is what is supposed to prevent vigilantism, and apparently lots of people here felt that the murder was just.

benreesman 2y ago
I’m still advocating for peace, but over time the argument isn’t getting any fucking easier to make, that’s for fucking sure. The Kleptocracy has a year, two at the outside to make some concessions near as I can tell, before they can’t walk the streets of NYC safely full stop. Or Chicago, or …
- booleandilemma 2y ago
  There shouldn't be a kleptocracy.
- stavros 2y ago
  Yeah, it really is getting ridiculous now. The pendulum has swung too far towards the elites, and we know what happens then...
isoprophlex 2y ago
Agreed, indeed: when the people feel that justice fails them, vigantilism takes its place. We'd all do well to, in our rush to decry the murder itself, be mindful of the mistake of losing sight of the reason behind the massive support for Mangione's actions.
- benreesman 2y ago
  Let’s also remember that outright war is a bridge that can be crossed by not uncrossed. Measure twice and cut once on such things.
  - BitterCritter 2y ago
    I think it can be argued that once a seemingly decent, mentally healthy person murders rather than a pervert cannibal or social outcast then the justification for the murder should be reasonable.
  - stavros 2y ago
    One could argue we've measured many, many times.
- godelski 2y ago
  > We'd all do well to be mindful of the mistake of losing sight of the reason behind the massive support for Mangione's actions. This is what I fear the most. It creates an ideological divide. Those who seem his action as justified do have reason to hold their beliefs. The justice system often fails people and we often hear and feel more and more these days. It is not about statistics, it is about "the vibe." At the same time, those who do not feel his actions are justified (myself included) have reason for their side too. Both sides have evidence and the truth is that the decisions are being based on different criteria. It's not even that we often disagree with the facts (of course, we often do too), but more that we care more or less about certain things. And if we can't at least understand why others have made their decisions, at least understand why others feel a certain way, then we have no hope of solving any of these problems that we both seem to care about. What I fear is that while screaming that vigilantism isn't ever justified, that this very same act justifies it.
tptacek 2y ago
It was not widely commended; that it looks that way is an artifact of how our media is structured. We tend now to look at the world through a band-stop filter that amplifies the most activating ideas.
- benreesman 2y ago
  @tptacek I think people mean assassinations on tape are usually universally condemned. Luigi has tens of thousands of women lining up to marry him, multiple academics doing long pieces about how to achieve jury nullification, and saying he’s the bad guy is not a popular move basically anywhere with a lot of people in it. If it’s amplified then the amplifier is the public.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    You are describing a very small number of highly-activated people responding to a media environment. I think it's especially telling that you cite women "lining up to marry him"; his support, as you're depicting it, is characterized by deeply irrational behavior. I agree.
    - benreesman 2y ago
      I think I’m still openly condemning the violence without dismissing the fucking broad based anger around it. There are a large number of us who are very pissed off but still seeking compromise. There are a very fucking small number of people who own any significant equities, or have their interests actually materialize politically. That’s the group I’m lobbying to get your shit correct before Luigi is fucking everywhere.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I'm more interested in policy being adopted on its merits, rather than out of concern that The Joker will punish me for not supporting it.
        2y ago
wakawaka28 2y ago
>I feel like the murderer wouldn't be so widely commended if that were true. Justice is what is supposed to prevent vigilantism, and apparently lots of people here felt that the murder was just. OK then, what crime did the CEO commit? Simply presiding over a business that people don't like, which he has no real power to change, is not a crime in any sense. Vigilantism only makes sense when there is no justice for real obvious crimes with known guilty parties. And even then, it has many downsides. A loud minority (or even majority) of people condoning this does not make it right. In the absence of an articulable crime for which the victim is responsible, this is simple murder. You can rationalize it all you want but your logic could be used to justify lynch mobs.
- stavros 2y ago
  Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives? The Nazis couldn't claim "I was just running the concentration camp" as a defense. The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO".
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Comparing a CEO of an insurance company to a Nazi officer running a concentration camp is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. Insurance companies aren't overtly or covertly killing people. They might not be paying for their healthcare in every single instance where they should. As a business, they must decide what services to cover and at what price or they won't be in business for long. They face extensive regulation to ensure that they are not doing exactly the thing you're accusing them of. Yes that means everything has a limit. Luigi was a rich kid. Neither he nor his family had any business with this insurance company or the CEO, as I understand it. So this action on his part is the result of some insanity plus radicalization, perhaps by people like yourself who have the gall to compare 100% legal businesses to Nazi concentration camps. Our political discourse has really degraded in my lifetime, with one large faction now frequently accusing everyone they disagree with of being Nazis. No good can come of this. >The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO". Perhaps he could change something but you can't articulate what that is exactly, because you don't care. You just hate the industry as a whole. Even if the industry needs a lot of improvement, it is entirely legal and regulated, and not a charity. The CEO has no reason to leave because he's got a great job at what most people regard as an upstanding business. It could be argued that Luigi's murder of this CEO and the public reaction to it could make insurance worse. How? Think about it. What competent CEO-type would want to work at a company if it might put a target on his back? A lot of normal people would not want to. So you're less likely to get a competent and relatable CEO, and more likely to get a cutthroat or incompetent one. The kind of person who doesn't care that lots of people would celebrate his death just for having held the position. And an incompetent one could lead to more deaths, because insurance is basically a finance business that must make enough money to cover its expenses. If they go broke, then nobody is getting covered.

jnwatson 2y ago

The US political system is at all time low of responsiveness to the needs of its citizens. Congress has been dysfunctional longer than Mangione has been alive. It makes sense that a young man would lash out this way. Violence should indeed be the last resort, and for many folks the alternatives are dwindling.

benreesman 2y ago
Let’s try everything we can before resorting to violence? Once that starts, that’s a forest fire that burns in ways no one can control.
- hackable_sand 2y ago
  Violence is literally always a last resort.
  - hex3 2y ago
    [dead]
  - benreesman 2y ago
    Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. We can take down this cancerous thing via more civilized means. It’s that civilization that separates us from the thugs we oppose. Otherwise we’re just the new thugs.
    - hex3 2y ago
      [dead]
    - benreesman 2y ago
      In case I haven’t been clear enough on this point: I want no part in any revolution in which the revolutionary has no goal bigger or better than a purely local shuffling of advantage to themself. The only revolution I’m willing to die for is one where the goal is a better model: a better way for people to live. I cannot see a way that killing people is a path to a better world. Killing people without thought or empathy is what the adversary does. I think we can flip everything upside down via wit and endurance and humanity and sheer will. Violence is for people who fail in all of that.

lowbloodsugar 2y ago

You seem to be working from some kind of principles like justice? Or fairness? We do not live in that world. I was just reading today another story in the Washington Post about how the US stole Native American children and many died. The US isn’t a society governed by justice, fairness, or even the truth. The rich should be scared because so many support this “execution”. Of course, they are way ahead, and Robin Hood’s merry supporters will find out that prince john has an army of mercenaries happy to take his coin.

yetihehe 2y ago

> At some point it’s too far. Today is not that day. It's not a switch. When your level of oppression rises, the probability of violent acts increases. When the level is high enough, you have a sudden cascade of events releasing pent up anger, which we typically call a revolution. You can't predict the moment exactly. We don't have a revolution yet, but tensions are rising.

politelemon 2y ago

The 'point' differs among individuals. In turn it is dependent on their circumstances and ideals. There isn't one specific moment where there will be collective agreement on its justification.