5 ms·
>What precedent are we setting by explicitly making "murder someone" a viable path to making progress on your personal political agenda? No one's setting it. T
by viccis 2y ago
>What precedent are we setting by explicitly making "murder someone" a viable path to making progress on your personal political agenda?
No one's setting it. Things have been that way in the past. A lot of laws now are designed to avoid allowing organizations to brutalize people so badly that those people view violence as the only recourse.
When there are no judicial penalties for running a vast machine of death like UnitedHealthcare, then eventually people seek extrajudicial ones. Our goal should be to make sure that this doesn't happen. Luigi is a symptom, not the sickness to be treated.
- lolinder 2y agoWhen was the last time we named a law—informally or otherwise—after someone because they committed a high profile murder and wrote a manifesto about it?
- harimau777 2y ago[flagged]
- lolinder 2y agoOr maybe it's only a problem when it happens on the right? I and others swarm on here to shut down people who try to justify the crimes committed by right wingers motivated by the same reasoning. It's only when it comes to Luigi Mangione that I feel suddenly alone.
- harimau777 2y ago[flagged]
- hobs 2y agoAnd unfortunately for y'all they are currently criming up a storm with no end in sight, making it easier for corporations to poison and murder us, and packed the courts to make sure there's no response possible. What is the next step in your mind?
- gruez 2y ago>When there are no judicial penalties for running a vast machine of death like UnitedHealthcare, then eventually people seek extrajudicial ones. Our goal should be to make sure that this doesn't happen. Luigi is a symptom, not the sickness to be treated. Where do you draw the line between "When there are no judicial penalties [...] eventually people seek extrajudicial ones" and "some nutjob went on a shooting spree"? There's no shortage of people killing because of "the great replacement" or "pedophile elites", issues the government aren't exactly in a hurry to address. Are those also examples of "When there are no judicial penalties [...] eventually people seek extrajudicial ones", or can we just chalk them up to the shooters being nutjobs? Is the former just what people say when they're sympathetic to the shooter, similar to how terrorists you support are "rebels" or "freedom fighters"?
- harimau777 2y agoOne big difference is that one is true and the other isn't.
- lolinder 2y agoTruth doesn't matter when the question is what kinds of tactics we want to officially endorse for moving the political needle. Any tactics you adopt become fair game for your opponent, and if we start seeing laws named after Luigi we will start seeing laws named after the next conspiracy theorist killer.
- gruez 2y agoIf the framing is merely "When there are no judicial penalties [...] eventually people seek extrajudicial ones", then it doesn't really matter whether it's objectively true or not, only whether people think it's true or not. And to the people who are aggrieved by "the great replacement" or "pedophile elites", they most certainly think it's true. Moreover, it's not hard to think of steelman versions either conspiracy theory that are true. For instance there might not be an actual coordinated conspiracy to replace white American voters with foreigners, but there's certainly a push on the left to allow for more migration, and just a decade ago Democratic strategists were bragging about how demographic change was going to mean they were going to be assured victory for the next few decades.
- buzzerbetrayed 2y agoAnd just like that, the justification.
- thierrydamiba 2y agoIt’s been interesting watching feathers get ruffled over this justification, while the justification of the healthcare industry sees no push back. Humans are so interesting when you put them in groups.
- buzzerbetrayed 2y agoThe healthcare industry gets an enormous amount of pushback in the US.
- thierrydamiba 2y agoI don’t disagree
- viccis 2y agoMy comment wasn't an implicature. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion other than a desire to make this discussion more inflammatory.
- didgeoridoo 2y ago> vast machine of death UnitedHealthcare was my health insurance provider when my daughter got her heart transplant. They paid over $2M over several years, without a single hitch. I think the only thing we were rejected for was when we asked them to cover baby formula (it was a long shot). Mangione wasn’t even a UHC customer. The only machine of death here was in that lunatic’s hand.
- AngryData 2y agoIt is a lot harder for an insurance company to deny a need for a heart transplant than many other conditions that aren't imminently fatal or with a fairly straight forward solution to a problem. Just because your particular case went fine doesn't mean there isn't a problem though.
- viccis 2y ago[flagged]
- didgeoridoo 2y ago[flagged]
- viccis 2y agoUHC is responsible for thousands of cases of underinsurance, including some heinous ones that involved denial of coverage for life saving procedures in the ER. It's the number one provider in denials of coverage, and it has used algorithms to do so with no human insight, leaving people to languish and/or die at the whims of a computer model. And I never attempted to support anything. In another comment I pointed out that it wasn't an implicature, and peoples' inability to discuss this without it being so, and in anything other than normative statements, is pretty poor discourse. The fact that you dragged up your daughter's open heart surgery to try to "make [me] look ridiculous" is honestly one of the more disgusting things I've read in the comments here, no other way to put that (I'm not gonna do the reddit "have a nice evening" games after something that depraved). Real sick stuff man, I hope that's not a trend. Kinda depressing to read.