If they can elect a felon to the white house, so could we.
Edit: Better image, thanks to @[email protected]
Actually… Shit. That’s kind of a good point. His approach was the non-violent solution.
If we’re fighting with the same weapons, then Biden’s last act should be a pardon for Luigi…
Biden is not on our side on this issue, that’s part of the problem. He is and was the candidate that the people who didn’t want healthcare reform pushed in to block Bernie from putting the issue on the ballot by running on it.
I keep hearing this idea floated, do people really think that Biden is not on the same side as the health insurance companies??
And when he doesn’t, that means we’re not fighting with the same weapons.
I think accepting a pardon implicitly admits you did the thing, which could have complications for states prosecuting.
He hasn’t been convicted yet. You cannot pardon someone who doesn’t technically have a record.
Incorrect. Example, hunter was pardoned for everything he might’ve done in the past 11 years, not just what he was actually convicted of.
I stand corrected. That was quite a misinformed post I made.
Nixon was preemptively pardoned.
Didn’t Trump already issue pre-emptive parsons last time around? Or at least try to?
Yes. Steve Bannon.
Didn’t try. Did.
Mangione (similar to Bannon) has a mixture of state and federal charges levied against him, and Presidents cannot pardon state charges.
Sure. I also don’t imagine for a second that Biden would do it. I was just trying to recall if it was actually accurate that you can’t pre-emptively pardon (or, at least, that there’s no precedent for it; what Trump has done hardly seems to be a guideline for what presidents should be able to do).
Gaetz asked for one, but got denied
Yep. Sometimes it’s good to remind the bourgeoise that they should be scared if the mistreatment of the working class grows unacceptable to the latter, with no way to change things from within the system.
They seem to forget every few decades, maybe it’s time we reinvent the guillotine?
I fear we’re already doing it and it’s going in the wrong direction. Bipartisan support for Luigi is a good example. The entire base of the MAGA movement are disgruntled working class racists who are voting the way they do to fuck up the system. They’re just too nearsighted / indoctrinated / uneducated / racist / greedy / plain stupid to see that the felonious oligarch they are putting into office is just another crocodile and has no interest in draining the swamp, in fact the water may rise so he and his fellows can eat more of them.
Lets make the word “Guillotine” trend on amazon and google…
Although they are cowards, they are also risk takers by nature, especially when the economy is going their way, so naturally they will always push things too far until it’s too late.
if we nominate him, lawyers can drag out his case until …
Holy shit yeah it’s a get outta jail free card right?!
not for everyone. one of these felons helped the rich. that’s how you get the card.
the other is just an allegation btw. if cops say he did it he probably didn’t. but that alone is the worse crime.
Here is a better version.
Thank you, edited.
I upvoted, but these kinds of posts make me uncomfortable. Luigi was a wealthy crypto bro working though a mental crisis. Luigi is not lefty batman.
I am very happy about the discussions his actions are creating and the overreaction from the upper class, but I am not sure it is a good idea to glorify Luigi.
Crypto bro working through a mental crisis… not lefty batman…
Batman was a rich bro with severe mental trauma. Any modern reboot would have no problem making Wayne a crypto bro.
If you’re waiting for perfect, you’ll be waiting for ever.
I mean if people are gonna have guns and people with mental crises who go and murder other people, then let’s choose the lesser evil:
a) Sandy Hook style shooting up a school, killing many kids and teachers
b) New Orleans style driving a car into a public event, killing many partygoers
c) Luigi style murdering a single person who is arguably themselves guilty of causing the legal death and suffering of thousands
Now what would be the lesser evil in this scenario?
Obviously, I prefer no dead people, which would require regulating guns and providing mental healthcare and a social safety net to people, but alas, that option seems to be impossible.
unfortunately it is also a bad showing of the left because this guy ends up taking more action.
“the point of theory is to change the world” -Marx. If the left does nothing then the left has failed us. Luigi isn’t perfect, but he is a real person who was willing to sacrifice everything, to walk away from a life of comfort and privilege, just to take a stand against evil and to show the entire world that even a god king can bleed (300 reference)
Explain how Batman was not a wealthy crypto bro working though a mental crisis ?
lmaooo
tangentially I feel like Batman could never jive with leftist ideology anyhow. His whole thing is beating and scaring the crime out of people, which is in contrast to the leftist idea that crime happens because the needs of individuals (physical, psychological, and social) are not met by their material conditions.
the leftist idea that crime happens because the needs of individuals (physical, psychological, and social) are not met by their material conditions.
Like, why do people always jump to thinking there can only be one correct option out of multiple choices?
I am sure there are many people committing crimes because they can’t fulfill their basic needs any other way.
But do you think Trump is lacking in material conditions? People are diverse and they commit crimes for diverse reasons.
Because crime to account for material needs is the easiest route to lowering crime you just need to have a government that represents the people and not private interests, also consider that living in a corrupt unforgiving oligarchy isn’t doing a god damn thing for mental health either.
You do realize none of what you wrote answers my question nor contradicts anything I wrote, right?
Lol responded to the wrong comment.
Nah, you’re right, it definitely isn’t as simple as all due to the material conditions, although I do tend to think the majority of crime is due to them. At the same time, I’m not sure I’m using material conditions in the correct technical sense, and was thinking about including a , “someone feel free to correct my usage” note in my comment. I also wasnt really itching for a super in-depth conversation about it, even though your question
do you think Trump is lacking in material conditions?
is a really interesting one that I’d need to think and talk about a lot. I think if we had appropriate non coercive controls against accumulation of property, while also living in a society that met the physical, psychological, and social needs of its people, Trump perhaps would not be a criminal.
This comes from my tendency to think people are more inherently good than evil, and that much of the evil comes from the patriarchal culture of accumulation
Good point ☝️
Also batman didn’t change the systemic issues with Gotham.
Also batman didn’t change the systemic issues with Gotham.
This is exactly what I have been saying since the assassination. You cannot fix systemic problems with vigilantism.
Did anyone’s coverage go down? No. Did UHC just deny the claim of a woman in a coma? Yes.
You cannot fix systemic problems with vigilantism.
Well you can’t fix it from within the system. You can’t fix it with vigilantism, but it can be fixed as every other country in earth has fixed this problem.
The fuck do you people want then?
Fix it within the system using the threat of vigilantism as the or else.
That’s how we got worker rights… threat of communism.
There was time to fix it from within the system. That was before the fascist dictator was elected. There is no fix at this point. The good news is it will almost certainly come all crashing down due to incompetence and you only have a few years before global warming because a much bigger problem than healthcare anyway.
What do I want? A socialist utopia. I’m just not under any illusions about it happening in America.
No, there demonstrably wasn’t. This happened under Biden.
Sorry, do you think time began in 2020?
Batman repeatedly made attempts at systemic change using his wealth. It’s kind of his arc - he starts young out of anger and rage with his only limit being he would not kill. As he ages, his various funds and programs he starts run into roadblocks from criminals seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in then to enrich themselves. But his biggest problem (in Gotham at least) is that there are many villains who simply want to fight progress because it makes them feel good. His money can do a lot of the work, but his particular skills allow him to apprehend some of the biggest challenges to his goals.
But he’s still human. He’s still deeply flawed. That’s sort of the whole point. He’s not fixing everything alone, he can’t. None of us can.
Lets be real, Batman’s method of vigilantism was to beat up the people being hurt the most by the system, the poor, the lonely, the mentally unhinged, he didn’t really participate in going after the people responsible for sad state of affairs in Gotham.
Also you cant fix this country with a fully captured government either, so is your point that we should just give up?
Or will you accept that in this case, the plural of vigilante is revolutionaries.
Ah yes, the great revolution that’s been coming any day now my entire life that will set everything right.
Weird how this revolution didn’t happen before the fascist dictator got into power when it might have had a much greater chance of success.
I don’t really care what you do. Feel free to think America will be a socialist paradise with permanent Republican rule and if it isn’t, the people who either voted for Trump or didn’t give enough of a shit to vote at all will totally rise up and change things. Sounds probable.
Luigi was a wealthy crypto bro working though a mental crisis. Luigi is not lefty batman.
That sounds a lot like Batman.
That’s why I use Saint Luigi. It’s a ignore all the things that don’t line up with the ideal, and only focus on those that do kind of thing. Just like the churches do with thier saints. Lol
Lefty Batman is inherently contradictory too. Because a real leftist Batman would use his money to fix the systemic problems of Gotham, and are you still really Batman if you’re not out beating the shit out of poor mentally ill people?
Or you could make the argument that Batman solves his problems with violence, in which case Luigi is fucking literally Lefty Batman for targeting a person far closer to the problem than Batman ever normally would.
Because a real leftist Batman would use his money to fix the systemic problems of Gotham
The last Batman movie makes explicit this contradiction in Batman. Batman acts in a vigilante manner to save individuals. Yet, the fund Bruce Wayne is custodian of is the source of the cancer at the core of Gotham.
I don’t think he’s a hero, but his actions are the inevitable outcome of our system.
When justice can no longer be achieved through peaceful demonstration or the legal system, people will increasingly turn to violence as their only option.
While I won’t celebrate violence, I do prefer targeted violence upon those causing the damage to mass murders of innocents.
If you’re going to murder someone - don’t. But if that doesn’t stop you, I’d rather the victim be someone who damages the world instead of schoolchildren and churchgoers.
The NOLA NYE terrorist attack on random party-goers is also an inevitable outcome of our system.
A lot of people on Lemmy believe that a wealthy elite controls the whole system. I think it’s far more likely that no one controls the system. Sure, some people are able to get rich off the system and carve out a little niche for themselves but the whole state apparatus is just a big tug of war that’s long since pulled everyone into the mud pit.
Political gridlock was long ago designed into the system as a way of preserving the compromise between ideologically disparate groups. Now we’re reaping what we sowed.
A lot of people on Lemmy believe that a wealthy elite controls the whole system. I think it’s far more likely that no one controls the system. Sure, some people are able to get rich off the system and carve out a little niche for themselves but the whole state apparatus is just a big tug of war that’s long since pulled everyone into the mud pit.
The closest I’ve seen to that is people explaining that the upper owning class has influence and control over many aspects of society, like politicians and mass media, but this does imply a conspiracy, that any one group has a cohesive agenda or control. It’s more about acknowledging a mutual class interest among the owning class which trends towards certain outcomes despite that tug of war among them.
It’s not glorifying Luigi. He’s a vigilante. The health insurance companies are criminals in the eye of the majority, and the majority can’t get it changed through legal peaceful means. The vigilante sees an injustice and takes it upon themselves to enact justice extrajudicially.
As we have seen, the majority appears to to support his actions. His background is unimportant. Humans are very grey. That’s one of the things that democracy can account for.
Think of it this way: if he was willing to risk all that he had to enact justice once does that not make him better than many of us? How many of us have smaller amounts of excess, are directly impacted by the health insurance companies, yet have done nothing but take steps that have not helped anyone else? That’s the definition of sacrifice rather than compromise.
Does the meme not imply that Luigi should be the next Presidential candidate? Is that not glorifying Luigi?
No.
The meme is pointing out that the non-violent solution didn’t work. The “common cultural knowledge” that makes it humourus is that a wealthy guy with 37+ felony convictions and no interest in the common people. Luigi killed one dude that had it coming.
It’s not glorifying a thing. It’s the common millennial Gallows Humor.
Ah, my bad. This is what I get for posting while sick. Sorry.
There will never be the perfect Robin Hood. Engels was wealthy, Bernie is a millionaire.
Really the point is that Luigi is (allegedly) right, and represents a justifiable sentiment of disdain for the system and class solidarity.
I agree. Do we really want to make Luigi a political leader then?
I think this is less about actually making Luigi a political leader and more about reminding everyone that the actual political leaders the working class puts forward deserve consideration as a compromise by the powerful people in the system, because the working class could at any point decide to stop compromising.
The System works by compromising, should the system through fuckery stop delivering acceptable compromise, the (by far) larger class has other ways to defend its interests.
I voted for someone who wanted to continue a genocide in order to keep her popular vote count higher than Trump’s (I live somewhere where my vote does nothing). ¡Viva Luigi!
Yeah, he’s only (allegedly) killed one guy. That’s not even close to rookie numbers for political leaders.
Well if the OP does literally mean to imply that they want Luigi to run or something I do disagree there, but I’m pretty sure they’re just making a point.
It’s hard to say. There are people out there who literally believe Luigi should be the President. I don’t know how to tell the difference.
Speaking of the devil https://midwest.social/comment/14439838
I appreciate you trying to shift the narrative and demonize our modern day folk hero, but it’s probably not going to work.
Demonize? What have I said that was incorrect?
Just because he’s your “modern day folk hero” doesn’t make him or his actions immune to scrutiny. This way of thinking opens doors that people like you tend to stand firmly against.
No one should ever stand above our laws, our standards of morality, or our ethical codes of conduct without question. And propping someone up to such a height makes you every bit as bad as those you accuse of doing so.
Lol WTF.
They said it makes them uncomfortable, and explained why.
Don’t bring this kind of conversation shutdown, bad faith misinterpreting, toxicity BS from reddit.
When has Batman been lefty?
His generally agreed upon biography is a wealthy billionaire trust fund baby who suffered great emotional loss and broke, who now spends the rest of his life and fortune fighting injustice
I didn’t intend to imply that Batman was lefty.
Honestly, I feel about the same. Meme is funny, and I thoroughly enjoy the discussion, which is why I posted it, but I want actual leftist leaders in charge, not actual Luigi.
The point though is: Bernie was the working class trying to better the system from the inside. If the system keeps fucking us over, the system CAN be overthrown through different means.
The political class better realise that it’s in their favour to have us change the system non violently.
That’s the point though- people tried playing by the rules, the system shat in their faces. Now you have people snapping and going vigilante with guns and that’s called consequence.
You break the socialist contract, bad things start getting lauded
Yeah, I get that this is an inevitable outcome. But now that we’re talking about it, instead of putting every CEO’s head on a spike, let’s try to do something more constructive. You know like creates systemic change to close the wealth Gap.
I’m still proposing that we take the richest person in the US every year, and confiscate 50% of their wealth and use it to fund healthcare, housing, education and food (all basic needs that the top 1% has stolen from us). Then we build a statue in their honor somewhere, labeling them as “This Year’s greatest winner and Patriot”.
It’s a symbol. People are attracted to the idea that someone could coolly shoot an evil guy and (for a couple days) get away with it.
If he had hurt innocents or fumbled the execution (pun intended) he wouldn’t be so popular.
Also consider how our institutions are failing us. People feel, often rightly so, that the systems aren’t working for them. The supreme Court is openly corrupt and makes wildly unpopular decisions. Health care is a shit show. The police somewhat routinely kill innocent people and their dogs. Plus a bunch of stuff that’s not true but people believe. It feels like there’s no path forward, and then some smooth guy just shoots one of the perpetrators dead? Amazing.
I agree. The symbolism is good here. I just don’t like making a symbol of just violence a leader.
He was not wealthy if he couldn’t afford the health care…
All I know is that his family is very wealthy. I hadn’t heard that he couldn’t afford healthcare. Do you have a source on that?
I thought the dead healthcare CEO was the source.
You can kill an insurance CEO while being covered by said insurance.
In the manifesto I read he had coverage. It didn’t matter because the claims were denied.
Do you have that link? When I search for the manifesto I get this one: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto and it doesn’t say anything about coverage or getting denied.
Now I’m not completely sure the source is reliable, so I refrain from posting it.
He’s a symbol of an idea.
He’s part of the reason I hate phrases like “Kill all billionaires”.
Yes, most rich people are pretty evil, and I’d like them taken to task. But simply being born into fortunate circumstances doesn’t make someone evil; it’s the things they DO to keep that wealth that make them a greater or lesser evil. Ideally, everyone would have at least that basic quality of life that he did. Investing in crypto is one thing, but if he committed some atrocity using crypto I’ve yet to hear about it.
Mental health crises are very common now. They don’t necessarily make the act “not brave”.
I have the position that murder is the least ideal form of change, but as the post states all less violent options have been removed from the table at this time. It’s sad that CEO (person) was killed, but it may have been an inevitable outcome.
It’s sad that people with for-profit health insurance are forced to buy it and then killed when they can’t use it. Then I feel bad for CEOs who kill their clients some time later I imagine.
What’s important is what you do.
Not what you claim to be, or what others say you are.
That’s why identity politics are a failure. Classifying people between good or bad by a bunch of meaningless labels. The only classification that matters is what one is doing or not doing.
I’m not classifying Luigi as good or bad as a whole. I am just saying that making Luigi out to be some lefter version of Bernie is not a good comparison. I don’t think we want kill CEOs to be the message of left leadership. The idea scares me, like the pendulum is swinging to far the other way.
I don’t think we want kill CEOs to be the message of left leadership.
Spoken like an agent provocateur. A key aspect of decent humans (what you call left) is that there is no (moral) authority. That’s a concept of asshole humans (a.k.a. “right”).
You could argue that Luigi killing the CEO from a utilitarian perspective is a net positive. Things are still playing out, so it is hard to say.
What i feel strongly about is making Luigi a leader would be a net negative from a utilitarian standpoint.
I wasn’t arguing in favor of making him a leader, just objecting to the trolling about a “left leadership”. The very concept of empathetic people (a.k.a. “left”) is to not crave leadership and to encourage diversity in opinions, which also means that we typically never agree on many things. That’s the main weakness of people with a conscience versus those who follow an authoritarian cult.
You are correct. I messed up. I miss interpreted the post as suggesting Luigi become a leader. This is on me. Sorry.
After having used reddit until the API changes, lemmy seems way too civilized ;) No biggie, have a good day!
Spoken like an agent provocateur
Spoken like an agent provocateur.
I think this kind of exemplifies our problem. We’re more focused on keeping up partisan divides than we are on celebrating what brings us together. I’m guilty of it too, but it’s not supposed to be Left vs. Right, it’s a class struggle and we’ve let them create a situation where all we want to do is fight amongst ourselves.
I’d vote for him. Or against his conviction, if I was on his jury.
Btw is Lemmy.world finally cool with that opinion yet?
Yeah, there was clarification a few days after the assassination that discussing jury nullification for crimes already-committed was not a violation of the TOS, contrary to the claims of some of the mods (not admins).
I haven’t had anything deleted and I’ve said more than a few things about Luigi and death to CEOs
Excellent 😈
Got blocked from contributing over the. Oh well. New account
Lemmy.world was never not cool with that opinion. There was an issue about talking about jury nullification which, it turned out, did not apply to this case, and it is not legal to call for assassination in The Netherlands, where the server is based, so those posts get removed because, and I really don’t know why people don’t get this, we want Lemmy.world to continue to exist.
Hey I appreciate your explaining the nuance. Thank you.
Yes, thank you! There’s an important difference between “I can understand why he did that, the system indeed is fucked” and “More people should do this”.
Empathy isn’t necessarily a call to copy that behaviour and reminding people that a system that mistreats people will create suffering on all sides isn’t the same as endorsing the suffering of one side.
It’s not even an ethical issue in this case. It’s literally that we have to obey the law if we want to exist.
But he can’t run because by the time of the next election he’ll be a convicted fe-
-Oh wait, never mind.
I love this.
This is frickin’ genius. Let’s get some yard signs pronto - Etsy people, Assemble!
Disgusting. This is as bad as championing Trump. Rape, murder—what’s the difference?
Who you murder matters.
I have zero problem with all the Nazis the Allies murdered in WW2.
This is a class
waroccupation. The Class war was lost in the 80s, the people were tricked into surrendering without terms. Luigi, an alleged traitor to his class bless him, tried to foment a resistence/revolution to the class occupation most of us suffer under.The idea that change must be nonviolent is something that the oligarchs put in our heads to maintain their control, which includes violence using captured government force against us. Most nations were founded using violence, including this one. Further, the oligarchs have captured both major parties, leaving us to bicker on social issues, and without a vote on the shape and priorities of the sociopathic economy both parties are well paid to defend from us, the people that suffer it. Our nonviolent options have been taken away, as we’re encouraged to be divided and hate our fellow laborers on every conceivable wedge so we never look up. Divide and profit.
Brian was murdering Americans in swaths. His murder weapon was snake oil, a con: “buy our service as your preparation for inevitable illness! Just give us your money every month, and you’ll be prepared when you need life saving care…” “… Oh you’re sick now? You’ll die without care you expect us to pay for? Whatever gave you the idea we’d pay for your care? Thanks for all the premiums, fuck off and die, poorie sucker.”
cough India’s independence, Jim Crow Laws. cough cough
Neither of which were achieved through purely peaceful means.
Ghandi had violent freedom fighters supporting the same cause, which are never mentioned in today’s history books. And the civil rights movement had Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and riots.
Violent flanks are associated with higher success rates of social movements:
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666?login=false
“India’s Freedom Struggle (1857-1947) was shaped by influential leaders who are called Freedom Fighters of India like Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered nonviolent resistance”
Those riots wouldn’t have had any influence whatsoever, along with so much of all the other things done outside of the influence of MLK’s nonviolent influence, if it wasn’t for him sitting down with the president himself, and pressuring him via calm mindedness logic and reason, not to mention organizing the biggest moment in the entire movement by far.
If only the leader of Poland had sat down at a table and calmly negotiated with Hitler to not invade.
That’s obviously not what I’m saying exactly. If you’re interested check out Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God Is Within You
You’re so close to getting it.
I hope someday I can say the same for you my friend.
India’s independence
There was plenty of violence there, even in the Quit India Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi.
Violence didn’t result because Gandhi ever advocated for it, it was something that happened as a result of it. Because again non-violence isn’t just standing by and doing nothing, it’s about resisting evil via non-cooperation. Resisting it by not obeying it; not retaliating, but never to submit to evil at the same time.
Why does this argument assume violence is always evil?
There are plenty of situations where non-violence is not effective, where an attacker does not want or need co-operation, making non-cooperation merely non-resistance to evil. Sometimes the only realistic way to disobey violence is with targeted counter-violence or the threat of counter-violence, we don’t always have the luxury of non-violent tactics available to us.
Even groups like antifascist orgs emphasize that non-violent tactics are generally preferred, and I agree completely, but ultimately, there are many real-world situations where non-violent methods just aren’t applicable. This is important to realize if we want to stop evil.
“Where an attacker does not want or need co-operation.” That’s the context in which I’m speaking. That’s the whole point, to not submit to both your inherent need to retaliate and there demand for you of something; to not just sit there and do nothing, but resist—non-violently. To not submit to them taking your land, your children, but to do so non-violently. To resist the aggressor, by never giving them your obedience, which includes allowing them to harm you or your loved ones, but without literally fighting back, but by never backing down at the same time.
👊🏻 fuck yeah
Luigi didn’t change anything. He just killed a guy, who will be shortly and largely painlessly replaced by another stooge to do the bidding of the owners of society.
Real resistance must be organized to achieve anything. This Rambo shit is a Hollywood fantasy. And yes, organized nonviolent resistance can work and has worked many times, including in regimes far more repressive than the US.
I recommend reading Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know for those interested in how resistance movements an actually win real change.
Luigi didn’t change anything.
- Overnight sense of fraternity and class solidarity amongst the working class
- Billionaires and execs are already second guessing their safety
- Would be school shooters types were taught there is a better outlet for their anger that will get them national love, attention, and legal donations
- Reinvigorated interest in gun ownership amongst everyone
- Started a national conversation about how the rich are robbing us blind and killing us in mass, a conversation that is still going a full month later despite the media’s constant distractions
Yeah, absolutely nothing changed. 🙄
I think you are way overestimating the reach of these changes due to echo chambers. Most people don’t support Luigi outside of terminally online political radicals (no hate, that’s me as well). Loud but small in numbers.
It’s possible his action will take on a symbolic importance that leads to bigger changes in the future. But that remains to be seen, and I think ordinary people are already forgetting about this story. Again, without sustained organization this leads nowhere.
My 80-year-old Trump voter MIL recently told my wife we need more Luigis in the world. Anecdotal but I think it’s probably more commonplace than you’re imagining.
There was a poll posted indicating 70% of those surveyed view united health care’s CEO as “kind of asking for it”, not that uncommon.
Most people don’t support Luigi outside of terminally online political radicals (no hate, that’s me as well). Loud but small in numbers.
They don’t need to support him for the above changes. But now that you mention it, a rather significant number of people support him even if they’re in the minority:
Again, without sustained organization this leads nowhere.
I agree. But it’s absolutely silly to think nothing changed.
But that remains to be seen, and I think ordinary people are already forgetting about this story.
I’m not even in the USA and that’s not the case here.
Again, without sustained organization this leads nowhere.
Yes, but this is very different from saying it didn’t change anything. It evidently has. We’re not pretending this is the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the flashpoint of a new era. No, this is one of the small little steps where organizing becomes more viable, when the “”“public debate”“” shifts from ‘is it ok to punch nazis?’ to ‘is it ok to assassinate the worst capitalists?’. For many, it’s provided a real window into the corporate mass media’s alienation from the people on the ground.
I mean, if actually meeting your end at the hands of a customer your company fucked over becomes a perceived risk to the job, C-suites might think twice about anti-human profit-seeking decisions for their companies
Maybe, but that’s only going to happen through a broader movement and not through a single killing. And organizing a movement to kill enough people will be difficult or impossible (and I believe unethical but I understand I’m in the minority there). OP had it backwards—nonviolent resistance is actually much easier because of state repression, not in spite of it.
Also, I think without deconstructing the structures that produce such outcomes, it would be at best a temporary improvement.
Luigi wasn’t working in an organised group though… he was a disgruntled citizen fucked over by our healthcare system like many, many others in this country. You don’t need to organise shit when you’re denied life-saving treatment and have nothing to lose by offing another greedy billionaire. Wouldn’t surprise me if we start seeing more Luigi’s until our government and the billionaires who control it start listening.
https://www.npr.org/2024/12/05/nx-s1-5217617/blue-cross-blue-shield-anesthesia-anthem
To those patients… it matters.
It’s unclear if this is related to the assassination. There were a lot of efforts pushing back against this horrible policy so attribution is difficult without knowledge of their internal deliberations.
Given the timing, and the general apathy and march towards even more malice towards their customers, that would be an unbelievable coincidence.
The day before, they simply had no fear to rescind a profitable new policy. It also happened at the same time BCBS took down all their executive profiles from their website. Was that also just coincidence? Or do you concede that was because of the shooting?
No I think that clearly was. But you are ignoring pressures by various elected officials and civil society on the anesthesia policy. Luigi may have been a factor but he clearly wasn’t the only factor.
I don’t think most of these decision-makers really understood why Luigi did what he did, or why so many people supported him. They think they’re the good guys. And it’s not at all clear that this policy change will protect them from the kind of person who does this anyway. So the causal link is not as clear as you imply.
That said, I’d be interested to hear health care execs talk about how this made them feel or behave, if any are willing to be honest. Maybe I am wrong, it’s difficult to know.
But you are ignoring pressures by various elected officials
Seriously? Both parties are very well bribed to protect their sociopathic corporate greed from civil society.
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/industry-detail/F09/2024 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/unitedhealth-group/summary?id=D000000348
If there were elected officials working against them, there were a hundred elected officials being called by the companies telling the parties to get their spoiler members, because the DNC and RNC only promote on your ability to get the bribe money aka “fundraise,” back in line.
My question still stands: rape regarding trump, and murder in this circumstance—what’s the difference?
It wasn’t the oligarchs that suggested nonviolence, sweet lord; hate only ever breeds more hate, evil only ever makes more evil. Love (selflessness, i.e., logic and reason) is the only true remedy, as proved in gaining India’s independence, and in eliminating the Jim Crow Laws here in America as a couple examples; not to mention leading to mankinds first experimenting with Democracy in ancient Geeece: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus
Most of Greece fell to Tyrant rule for the next 400ish years, while Athens stood tall to practice this system of Archons, leading to 9 more positions regarding things like their judiciary system and religion.
Do you think we could have loved the Nazis into standing down and stopping their genocide?
Do you think you can love a sociopath capitalist murdering for profit into no longer doing so?
Do you think plotting to run up and Hug Brian would have saved a single life? Because BlueCross, at least for now, reversed a policy to deny enough anesthesia for surgeries because of what Luigi allegedly did. He brought about positive change to some, for now, however temporary.
I don’t believe in justice in another life there’s no evidence of. Loving hate just gets you mowed down, this isn’t a fairy tale or a movie. If we want to turn an unjust world into a just one, good vibes won’t cut it when the people in charge don’t even view us as people due to no meaningful net worth.
Yeah, I can assure you, returning good for evil done is far from a fairy tale or movie, and a slap in the face to all the people that have given their lives for its cause and its potential.
We’ve always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone’s lap. The tickle of love or hate in the world both begins and ends with the individual.
You say that as if this is a retaliation, then peace, then retaliation.
United Healthcare murdered people for profit yesterday. They are today. They will tomorrow. This is an active attack. An active slaughter is upon the people, though the owners just call it business, whether we would fight back or not.
Don’t confuse quiet for peace. We haven’t had peace here in decades.
No amount of murder justifies the murder of even one.
I’m not sure what you mean by the peace retaliation bit, can you explain?
Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
We’ve always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone’s lap.
Who retaliated on the Allies for winning WWII?
Did the world get worse when the war ended?
Did the Nazis stop of their own accord, or did someone have to fight them?
You’re pretending as if you’ve never heard of Popper’s paradox of tolerance or indeed understand that justifies self-defenses can’t exist.
If a 50kg woman was regularly raped and beaten by their 200kg muscly husband and never allowed to leave the house, would it be unreasonable for the woman to kill the man in his sleep? In this hypothetical she can not run or contact anyone for help.
She should be a peaceful individual and accept that it’s her responsibility to be non-violent so the world is a better place and to to keep just taking the beatings and the rapes?
We have yet to see. 9/11 ring any bells?
What does that have to do with the relevance of returning the evil of that war with good?
This still doesn’t prove the irrelevance of it becasue who can say what else would’ve happened if evils to this degree were met with equal parts good?
I thought we were talking about war here? More specifically even murdering a CEO as a matter of fact. Of course that person should be trying to escape, people have a tendency of not looking at this idea reasonably, and especially to ge off topic and use these specific situations where of course we should be using any means necessary to get ourselves out in that situation. I didn’t realize world peace rested on this women trying to change the mind of this one serial killer apparently, I’m assuming.
9/11 has nothing to do with WW2 and everything to do with punishing america for its military adventures in the Middle East where it hurt - the center of the financial system.
You sound young and naive and probably not around for the pre 9/11 world. In summary, bin Laden won.
deleted by creator
In what world is a 50kg woman obese??
We wouldn’t be appealing to the Nazi’s in this regard, we would’ve been appealing to the people of Germany, and the soldiers—the men that made up the Nazi regime.
My question still stands: rape regarding trump, and murder in this circumstance—what’s the difference?
How many examples of public political rapes can you find?
Lt. Commander Data: But if that is so, Captain, why are their methods so often successful? I’ve been reviewing the history of armed rebellion, and it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Yes, it can be. But I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
Lt. Commander Data: Yet there are numerous examples when it was successful: the independence of the Mexican state from Spain, the Irish Unification of 2024, and the Kenzie Rebellion.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Yes, I am aware of them.
Lt. Commander Data: Then would it be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable, when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Data, these are questions that mankind has been struggling with throughout history. Your confusion is… only Human.
How does this answer my question? I’m not following.
How many public political rapes in history can you mention?
I can list you pages and pages and pages of political murders.
How does naming all of that answer my question?
Removed by mod
It was literally just explained to you.
I tried to 🤷
You got more patience than I do, so props to you.
You didn’t though. If so, would you care to explain further? And make sure to answer the question directly this time.
I can repost my at length response as to who is murdered and why matters, your response to it would indicate you don’t see the someone murdering an active murderer, or a member of a mass murder movement, as any different than any random murder of hatred or convenience.
Eva Braun apparently just didn’t love Adolf enough to mend his heart.
So who you rape matters? So if Trump raped what he considers as the worst of the world or someone he considers that deserves it and that it’s unquestionably justified for doing so, that makes it okay?
No it wasn’t. If so, please kindly reply to me with it quoted so I can understand more clearly. Thank you.
Who you murder matters.
I have zero problem with all the Nazis the Allies murdered in WW2.
So who you rape matters? So if Trump raped what he considers as the worst of the world or someone he considers that deserves it and that it’s unquestionably justified for doing so, that makes it okay?
The conversation is about murder, not rape. The purpose of rape is to personally gain sexual satisfaction, or to hurt someone for the sake of it. That is not the case here, and it’s a false equivalency.
Bootlicker.
When will leftists face the fact that Bernie simply wasn’t popular enough to win not one but two primaries?
Love Luigi, (may he live forever), but this delusion around Bernie is hilarious.
The DNC fucked over Sanders. All of the super delegates were on Hillary’s side before the DNC even had its first primary making it seem like Bernie was not a real choice, while the media downplayed him constantly (the billionaire owned media? shocked pikachu face). This was such clear bullshit that the DNC even changed their rules in 2018 to make it so the super delegates cant vote on the first primary ballet, but I believe its because it doesnt make a lick of difference either way. The people who run the country would never allow us to move in a direction of fixing the problems of unregulated capitalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/25/democrats-rules-superdelegates-sanders
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html
I don’t know why you’re surprised or confused about this. Bernie was an independent and not even a member of the DNC until just before the election.
He was an unknown. Hillary has been a part of the party for decades. That’s like complaining that the DNC didn’t throw full support behind a Green party candidate that switched just before the election. That’s not bullshit. That’s just how politics works. Bernie didn’t lay the foundation of trust needed to get the DNC to back him.
Your argument was that he wasn’t popular enough, my argument is that he never stood a chance In the DNCs primary regardless of popularity with the voters. Now if you wanna say Bernie couldn’t win against the entrenched DNC superdelegates, then yeah obviously. But if you wanna say he couldn’t win the popular vote in the election, well I’d love to show you Hilary, someone even diehard DNC voters didn’t give a shit about to the extent that she lost to an orange toddler, and that’s who the DNC went with.
As an aside the reason Bernie losing pisses people off so much is he is the only candidate for president that has existed in decades that actually ran on a platform of representing the people, with a proven track record of being on the side of the people, and not just pretending to while gobbling billionaire dick.
Two things can be true. He was both not popular enough and didn’t lay the foundation to succeed within the DNC.
Even three things can be true. The two above and Hillary was also unpopular outside of the Democrat party. But she was still popular enough to win the primary.
When will leftists face the fact that Bernie simply wasn’t popular enough to win not one but two primaries?
That doesn’t mean that Bernie didn’t represent a rising appetite for change in the system, which is what this meme is pointing at.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not he legitimately lost those primaries (which is certainly debatable at least in 2016), I think he would have not been a very effective president because both parties in congress and the judiciary would have done everything in their power to oppose any social welfare policies he might have tried to get implemented.
Obviously, he would have been better than Trump, but I do not think he would have achieved much. In fact, I think he would have achieved less than Carter.
I agree with your point to everyone working against him. Btw I love Bernie and voted for him both times. But I’m just tired of leftists shooting themselves (and all of the rest of us) in the foot by spreading anti-Democrat propaganda during and between every election and being all shocked Pikachu when literal billionaires take over the government as a result.
It’s usually privileged white leftists who think their political puritanism is justified.
You do know the meme doesn’t say “Bernie would have won” or anything like it, yes?
We all know you lefties think Bernie was “plotted against” by the DNC or some other victim mentality bullshit you guys love so much. Lmao.
*plonk* <º)))))><
The Democratic Party primary doesn’t choose the President, though. The electoral college does. At least one analysis of the polls concluded that Sanders could have won the EC.
Why russian flag?
I did not create this meme, but if you’re referring to the colours, blue red and white are the colours of the US flag. Afaik all design elements and colours are directly taken from irl Bernie-posters.
Huh.
Btw. this apparently russian flag seems to be an accidental result of the design language of those posters. On posters with a white background the top stripe is blue instead of white. The design simply tries to use the 3 american colours and retain the appearance of 2 stripes.
This seems to be the original design and was simply adjusted to a blue background with this unintentional side effect of creating the impression of a russian flag.
And an American flag is a nightmare in terms of graphic design. It’s asymmetric, both the stars and the stripes are distracting and, honestly, it’s just ugly.
Too many flags are red, white and blue
Red white and blue are actually the colors of the Russian Federation’s flag. It shouldn’t be my job to educate you /smdh
Sorry the /s stands for just kidding.
Do you recognize this flag? Can you tell me what the colors on it are?
That looks like a French flag that was put in a blender.
Wow, y’all just became, un ironically, Unabomber stans?
Holy shit, losing the election surely fucked everyone up in the head
As far as I know, Luigi’s popularity is not limited to one political side.
It could also be referring to overall election loss, or DNC primary loss.
that is some impressive mental gymnastics to equate those two things, keep huffing the copium.
The Unabomber was anti-technology and explicitly anti-leftist, besides mainly targeting random civilians, so idk how he’s at all comparable to Luigi, whose (alleged) manifesto is simply right, and who (allegedly) killed one CEO of the most stingy healthcare insurance company, who was also being accused of insider trading and fraud.
I’m probably going to get downvoted into oblivion for this, but I don’t care. The “left” fawning over Luigi is the same energy as the “right” fawning over Kyle Rittenhouse.
Except one fought an oppressor, the other took a trip to do some oppressing themselves.
Sure and I think the system should change for sure. But in both cases they are persons that murdered people their backers thought should be murdered. The right wants to oppress, so killing in the name of oppression is right for them. The left wants to break the oppression, so killing in the name of breaking oppression is right for them.
But the truth is, both were wrong, killing someone is never the answer. Preparing to go kill someone, planning to kill someone is a sign of mental health issues.
Nothing is going to be fixed by this. It only further polarizes the world. It only escalates the conflict. We need actual solutions and people in charge that know what they are doing and can bring about systematic change. Maybe using the guillotine in the late 1700s was the right solution back then, but I hope we as a society have evolved way beyond that point. Plus when it comes down to a fight, the people in charge of, you know, literal armies would probably win.
Elevating a literal murderer to the point people see them as a viable political candidate like in this meme is simply insane. We need more tree huggers like Bernie, not insane gun wielding thugs that think violence can solve anything.
That’s just not how the world works, or has ever worked. It’s just a disarming thought thinking nonviolence will save the planet when clearly the powers that be have never had any intention to listen to nonviolent efforts. Killing people may not be necessary, but the threat of violence undoubtedly is. If you cannot show you are able to defend yourself, there will always be a power ready to exploit that lack of defense.
Nonviolence only works when your opponent has humanity. Capital and the state do not, and never had any humanity in their ideological framework. This cannot be solved if you avoid shows of force, a war cannot be won with nice thoughts and prayers. A war is fought, and we haven’t been fighting in a long time.
It’s a depressing thought, and it shouldn’t be like this. But so it is, and the only way we save this world might be if we taint our own hands, this revulsion from violence will be our death otherwise
Respectfully disagree. Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone. Sure there has been conflict and there still is, but nothing like what it was before.
There are less wars, less murders, less crime than ever before. Prosperity is up across the board. Sure it’s not perfect and we have a long way to go, but there is so much we have done.
The current disparity between the ultra rich and the general population is a huge issue that should be addressed asap. But it should be done using the right means.
I refuse to believe the only way to stop being oppressed is to become the oppressor. It might be the US is lost in this regard, but I hold out hope. But I’m sure in Europe we can deal with it the right way, without getting violent.
It’s not an oppress or be oppressed issue.
Nonviolence only works when your opponent has humanity.
The point of this is that both sides need to be engaged in making a nonviolent solution happen. If only one side is on board with the process, then the result is either a lack of change or one sided violence.
Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone.
In Europe, both sides are engaged in nonviolence. Both sides are interested in diplomacy over violence, so progress can be made.
The situation between American’s and corporations (and increasingly corporate controlled government) is one where nonviolence has been met with inaction. That is a single sided engagement. The lack of both parties being engaged means the approach isn’t working anymore.
The problem is that in america, the oppressors they are trying to overthrow own literally all of the means. A select few people and corporations own virtually all of the media, virtually all agriculture (and seed producers have all farmers in a stranglehold of corruption, that is a huge rabbit hole), a very large surveillance system, virtually all popular means of organizing and communication, a majority of politicians (I consider giving public bribes to politicians directly correlating with votes on policies bought politicians), and the entire police force (see: luigi resources used vs every single other shooting every day, a special emergency line for the rich, protection of corporations like amazon in strike breaking, and the long history of the police killing union members and strikers for literally >150 years). Not to mention that now, technology has reached the point where it is engineered to be so addictive as to be detrimental to in-person communities that throughout history have done the vast majority of reform and revolution organization. Now they literally don’t even have to provide for the basic needs of people because a very small group of people control and have very deep insights into every single part of peoples’ lives.
If you look at extremely influential and corrupt entities in the EU such as deutchebank, ING, nestle, and other special interest groups in europe, they have struck a much better balance of providing for the peoples’ basic needs while still owning and controlling absolutely massive amounts of influence, laundering money, implementing governing policies directly benefiting them, etc… while not upsetting the balance enough to spark a movement. Part of this is due to the fact that compared to america, the police states in europe don’t have near the control and freedom over the general population, but that is even changing in some places here. Even then, look at the difference of nice orderly law-abiding, unintrusive protests in the EU vs the US. If people’s needs are cared for, you can pick their pockets and they will not be nearly desperate or angry enough to organize against you. Unions are being gutted all over the EU, and union membership is falling sharply while wealth inequality is again starting to rise in many places which was exactly the thing that started america down their path.
Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone.
You say that as if that diplomacy isn’t backed by the implicit threat of NATO’s proverbial ‘big stick.’
I think it’s always important to remember who is most in control of a situation and place all of the blame there.
My psych patients say awful shit to me. Some of them do awful shit. I’ve seen and experienced multiple attempted sexual assaults and even a guy who cornered a pregnant staff member to kick her in the stomach. I think about those kinds of things a lot when I see news stories about people dying in psych wards from things like extended or improper restraint. I wonder what they did that the staff members were so angry about and scared of that made them fuck up that bad. I’m sure it’s the same as when other authority figures like police see stories of police brutality but that brings us exactly to the point:
The next thing I think (because it’s critical that I remember it) is that the staff are still the ones with the power. In addition to a moral imperative to not abuse their power, the staff members are the only ones who CAN change the situation, almost as a matter of physical possibility. The patients are gonna do what the patients are gonna do and the only changeable factor is what the staff do about it. That’s just the nature of power and control. The people who have it are ultimately the most responsible for how a situation plays out. Always.
The rich have the power here. They had the option to give some of it back in exchange for peace. They chose to specifically block that avenue. They chose violence by blocking all other options. Almost every nonviolent crisis deescalation class I’ve attended over the last decade has included this specific quote somewhere in the curriculum:
“A riot is the language of the unheard.” - Martin Luther King Jr (you know, the nonviolent protest guy?)
The rich chose this. They chose not to listen. And honestly I’m actually pretty mad at them for it. They’ve created murderers. Trying to project that blame back on the poor is just another of their tricks. I don’t have to advocate for violence to see it as the natural progression of the path the powerful have chosen for us. In fact me advocating for it would do just as much good as me advocating against it. I am not someone with the power to have any choice in this matter. All I can do is watch and to a certain extent I’m actually a little scared; I think we’re about to enter a profoundly violent era of human history and I doubt it will be comfortable for me. They have chosen to lead us towards violence and for them to turn around and complain about it is laughably and terrifyingly insane.
You are wrong, in all your paragraphs. And with one exception* in all your statements.
There is no debate here, history has shown you wrong again and again, for thousands of years, in every state, every idea, every example of oppression.
Your take that the The Adjuster was part of some movement is bullshit, he was a lone terrorist for a cause resonating with the public, this is the spark of revolutions. Him not being organised is the opening for this revolution to be quelled before gaining momentum.
*The only statement of yours I’m willing to cede is that yes, political violence is typically justified against a lens of values. Societally the US norm has been that oppression and murder is bad, thus Rittenhouse and his movement are worse than the one killing. Then again the multi-weekly school shootings seem not to be bad, so maybe killing isn’t bad any longer?
“Violence has never solved anything, as long as you discount the entirety of human history.”
Instead of comparing Mangione to Rittenhouse, why not compare him to the health insurance industry?
Refused coverage kills, IIRC, about 45,000 people a year. Why are those lives less important to you than one CEO? Why is it that you have it in you to condemn Mangione and Rittenhouse, but not Brian Thompson?
Is it because did not personally kill those people? Is it because the laws of his country don’t consider those deaths murder? If those are your standards you would also have to agree that Hitler was innocent too.
Your accusations of moral inconsistency fall short, because you do not understand that we are judging purposes, not methods. Killing innocent people is wrong. Killing mass murderers (as Mangione is alleged to have done), when every other option has failed, is entirely reasonable. Unpleasant, but not unjustified.
It took MLK and Malcolm X to get civil rights. There must always be the offer of the peaceful resolution, but in reality the peaceful resolution is usually ignored until the other side understands that without peace, all that’s left is violence.
Yousa thinking yousa people ganna die!?!?
killing someone is never the answer
The your nation’s army and most law enforcement disagrees with you.
We need actual solutions
Yep, Bernie was the proposal, and it got rejected. We still need actual solutions. As in not pure idealism.
but I hope we as a society have evolved way beyond that point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsBx58GxYY - Read history, millennia old philosophers are way ahead of you.
So… By this logic, slave uprisings are always morally wrong, and will always fail?
People who oppress are happy to murder to maintain their hold on power, and won’t give up power without a fight.
How do you expect to take it from them?
I wish I could agree with you, but the Nazis already invaded Poland.
Don’t lose hope, there is a chance yet!
deleted by creator
i think that’s implied.
First, the right is also fawning over Luigi.
More importantly, you’re missing the underlying point of this meme. It’s displayed in the other pieces of text. We wanted Bernie and would’ve been happy to make that much progress nonviolently, but the DNC did not allow that. And “oppression makes revolution inevitable” because there’s no such thing as negotiating with your oppressor. Think of a hostage situation. The people who successfully negotiate away that situation are the police because they are backed with the threat of violence. Those who crave power will never give it up voluntarily.
We wanted Bernie . . . but the DNC did not allow that.
No. Bernie didn’t win. The DNC was a part of that, but he also didn’t get the votes to suggest he could win, other voters didn’t support him - which is how primaries work. I wish he would have won!
And to add to that, Bernie’s an Independent, not a Democrat. If I ran in a republiQan primary and they did some bullshit to make it harder for me - plus the real issue that enough republiQans didn’t vote for me - that’s not the RNC’s fault. That’s hardly “I didn’t win becaus the RNC didn’t let me”.
I just don’t want “Bernie didn’t win because the DNC prevented it” to become some sort of arguable fact - it is part of a larger picture, but a pretty small part.
The DNC’s role was not small lol
You can say that he wouldn’t have won the presidential election if you want but he was absolutely pushed out of the nomination in favor of a more-corporate candidate.
Getting over half the country to vote for someone as out of touch and unlikeable as Hilary Clinton is proof that the most Democrats would have voted for anything to avoid Trump. And this November was further proof that moving to the center does not win elections.
Bernie had momentum and was VERY popular with the youth. Clinton’s ignorance of the working class was the subject of memes…
Yeah, that’s the easy narrative for people to hate Democrats with but I don’t think it’s true. Furthermore, it seems like most of the people who promote that idea either weren’t of voting age at the time or aren’t US voters.
I’d be interested to see it as a post where we can slug it out. Start with the news reports and then make your case as to why you think that. We’ll see if there’s anything to learn.
he was absolutely pushed out of the nomination in favor of a more-corporate candidate.
By who? When? What did he say about it?
You don’t have the actual answers to that. But if you think you do - make a post, let’s see it.
Technically you’re right that it wasn’t the DNC alone. It was the democratic party as a whole and the media machine they influence. Sure the DNC gave Hillary decision making power after she paid them a bunch of money, and also gave her a special funding agreement. But the hundreds of unelected superdelegates that supported her before voting even started were probably more influenced by party elites than the DNC. And it’s not like they specifically paid for the opinion pieces telling Bernie to drop out. But it’s not actually illegal for a party to rig a primary so we don’t need to do any real investigation into it.
Kyle Rittenhouse was a moronic murderer who actively wanted to kill someone for some pathetic reason and was crying like a little bitch when he was in court. He provoked a fight with some random guy and when others tried to apprend him (and they were in the right to do so. If Kyle was shot then and there as he should have, the shooting had strong elements of legal self-defense). Luigi set out purposefully to kill a powerful person who kills tens of thousands of people a year with paperwork and wants to kill even more. He can be replaced, sure, but his killing sent out a powerful statement to the wealthy.
Also Kyle is so fucking stupid that he failed the USMC aptitude test so badly that he was not allowed to take it again. Given that normally you are allowed three tries and it isn’t that difficult of a test, that is saying a lot.
You can’t possibly believe that is true. You’re just looking for controversy.
Except rotten house has incel energy while luigi has mega chad energy.
Billionaires and their well paid .1% millionaire lap dogs are our oppressors. Rittenhouse went fully armed with the intentions of shooting unarmed blm protestors
“Yeah but he hot tho” must be the most insane defense for murder I’ve ever heard. Surely that will hold up in court, because of your giant chad energy you are acquitted of all crimes and will run for president. With how insane the last 10 years have been I might actually believe it.
Go back to late 18th century versailles and you’ll see the level of wealth inequity today is just slightly worse than it was at that point in time so i dont see anything too crazy as far as this whole uhc ceo execution and the public response to it.
Yeah you should stick to the nonviolent argument. This one isn’t good.
Nobody on the right is fawning over Luigi, huh?
I don’t fucking think so…
Yeah, totally the same thing. No critical thought at all.
Explain how it’s different beyond “I agree with them”
It’s clear that you’re unable to educate yourself, but how is that other people’s responsibility?
In any case: opinions on Rittenhouse were mostly divided on a political “left-right” axis, but either by ignorance or malice, you completely miss the point that Luigi is dividing society based on wealth - the rich and their sycophants, vs the working class and the poor.
Do reply back, so we know which one it was…
I think you completely missed the point I was making.
In both cases a murderer is elevated to a higher stature because the people backing them believe the victims deserved to die. This is to me inherently wrong.
With the right I can understand them supporting someone for shooting protesters, because they believe they have the right to oppress others. And I can understand the right fawning over Luigi, because they think justice with a gun is the way to go.
What I can’t understand is the left taking the same opinion. The side who is against oppression, against guns, against violence. The side that has done the most through better regulation, union, strikes etc. Non violent solutions instead of violence like in centuries past.
Some misguided people may think Luigi will trigger some sort of revolution where the people holding all the money and all the power somehow capitulate, because one of them got shot? I’m sure a lot of misguided people on the right thought Kyle’s actions would usher in a civil war, where it’s open season on blm protesters and anyone they didn’t like. Luckily that didn’t happen, but in the same vain I don’t think Luigi will trigger some revolution.
And when it comes to revolution, I would prefer if we threw our shoes into the machines of industry in the form of sabotage, protests and strikes. Not in the form of an all put civil war where killing someone is the norm. Not just because to me that is morally repugnant, but also because the wealthy control most of the guns and power.
Yes, it is a good thing the deep problems in our modern society have been given a spotlight. But it’s not like these things were a secret. It’s been a hot topic for a long time now. And given the chance to vote for someone to be in charge, people have voted for the ones who amplify these problems. Not just in the US, but over a lot of the Western world. Far right is gaining power fast and they are very clear they want to oppress people even more and elevate the billionaires to not be the de facto ruling class, but the actual ruling class.
Elevating these murderers to something they are not is never a good thing. Kyle was just a dumb idiot with a lot of hate and a gun. Luigi was a guy that was pissed off (rightfully so), but chose to act out with a gun. Neither one was a fighter for their side, they had their own motives. They were both very wrong in the things they did and do not deserve any of the praise or attention they’ve gotten.
What makes you think the left is against guns and violence? Sounds more like liberal garbage to me
A ignorant peasant killing other peasants is just another Thursday in the Us.
The firearms industry is super profitable after all.
Sounds like you do care blud
