In the wake of the killing, widespread public animosity towards health insurers ― and UnitedHealthcare specifically ― may explain why the company quickly limited who could comment on their tribute to Thompson.
Still, people still found a way to express how they felt ― to the tune of more than 90,000 laughing reactions as of Friday.
Oh my fucking god - Facebook has redacted the number of reactions.
Little pissbabies.
I don’t care if banned from LW I’m done w this instance
Billionaires, and those like this guy who enable them, must face consequences
This is a ripe time for a movement
We must capitalize on this now. The trump trash have dominated any sense of a movement for far too long
Death to tyrants
Bats to bootlickers
Because I already was, albeit temporarily
“Seems like justice was served” was all I commented to be banned
This is my last comment from the instance in done w it. I encourage all to change instances
Posting about it is one thing.
Specifically calling for violence is against LW’s TOS, and they seem to be ban happy when the violence is directed at the owning class.
As for people calling for violence being posted, I’ve seen very few comments more than 30 minutes old on LW doing that, but plenty on other servers. I’m not sure how LW is handling other instance comments though.
In what world is: “An individual who has been earning millions from allowing preventable deaths to take place deserves to die” extremist rhetoric?
Billionaires, and those like this guy who enable them, must face consequences
I would propose the following approach:
You need to put them on trial in a legitimate court (i.e. exclude compromised judiciary systems).
If the oligarch/senior lackey is found guilty, you could use real rehabilitation methods that would creates incentives for good behaviour for other criminals:
- Full asset seizure (every last cent, home, house, everything).
- Extended family and business partners being required to sign affidavits detailing their knowledge re: assets in [1], with an understanding that if the affidavit was found to have not been signed in good faith, they will be subject to full asset seizure and their own family and business partners will also have to sign similar affidavits for their own case. No statue of limitations for affidavits.
- 20 years mandatory live-in community service as junior support person at a hospice centre (minimum wage). Exact focus of community service would depend on crimes committed.
I am not saying this is currently possible. Just pointing out that there are “win win” approaches that do not require extra-judicial killings (albeit the nature of human history is such that sometimes people are left with no other options).
I agree that’s a more proper response. I was super drunk last night but there is no longer a court in America that isn’t corrupted because the Supreme Court is corrupted and they overrule
One could leverage fully independent courts/tribunals. I believe the ICJ has done something similar for countries with non-functioning judicial systems.
You could start with the corrupt members of the highest court. This would be a good “shit just got real” moment for the oligarchs and their senior goons.
I heard US supreme courts judges feel they are capable of working on complex cases past their 80s. They should be able to do a few more decades providing full-time community service para-legal support for honest pro bono lawyers as part of their rehabilitation program. 😀
I am being glib of course. I recognize the challenges with my proposal in context of the US. But then again, every movement towards progress typically starts with something very simple, sometimes as simple as formulating and brain-storming ideas.
There’s no doubt in my mind that if I end up homeless on the back of some billionaire getting richer, I’m on a fuckin hunt.
Bring me to jail, what, you think I don’t want that piece of dick cheese dead AND a roof over my head? Don’t tempt me with a good time.
Politicians but especially rich people seem to forget that when we have nothing to lose, that’s when revolutions happen.
JFK’s quote has been ringing in my head since all this has happened: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
These assholes have stacked our government against us. Sure we have some good eggs but the level of progress especially in the last 20 years has slowed to a crawl.
UHC shooter is the beginning.
Remember: the 1% made the rules.
Fun fact; I caught a 30 day ban once off /r/politics for a comment that was explicitly that quote by JFK, attributed to him. “Promoting violence.”
The fuck are you still doing on reddit?!
I haven’t looked back since I left and absolutely enjoy Lemmy.
“Don’t half ass two things. Whole ass one thing.”
As far as I’m concerned people like this are worse than Osama Bin Laden, so if you were dunking on him dying then why should this be any different? Because what he did was legal? At least Bin Laden had an ideology; he thought he was the goodie, no matter how fucked up that was. This guy profited from people’s death and suffering.
I will preface this comment by saying that due to my ethnic background and atheism, I would probably be one of the first in line for a theocratic equivalent of the gulag. I will also add I am not American, but I have lived and traveled in North America, Europe and Asia for many years.
The functional outcomes derived from the actions of US oligarchs and Osama Bin Laden are largely identical. Mass suffering, mass death, condemning many millions of people to a life of misery. If anything US oligarchs have an edge on Bin Laden due to the scale inherent to operating in the US and protection provided by the local judicial system and social attitudes.
Consider Zuckerberg’s involvement in the Rohingya genocide.
Now I don’t think Zuckerberg had any direct malicious intent here (unlike say Osama Bin Laden, in a different context of course), but what does it matter? His actions, callousness and supremacist attitude led to a large number of people getting killed and many more getting their lives ruined. But because of the compromised nature of the local judicial system, not only did he not have to take responsibility for this actions, but he even had the gal to claim that this was an example of how effective FB was. Do you think we would see a similar reaction if FB was used in hypothetical ethno-religious mass killings (e.g. US Catholics vs Protestants) in the continental US? I think not.
Zuckerberg knowingly enabling the Rohingya genocide could be seen as a controversial argument. I do not. I think any real judicial authority should have seized all his assets (every last cent) and sent him for mandatory community service work for two decades as a junior latrine janitor on the island of Bhasan Char. What about a less “controversial” case?
My favourite oligarch gang in the US are the Sacklers. These thugs set up what is essentially a massive drug cartel peddling one of the most deadly drug substance (we are not talking about LSD or MDMA). And yet all they got was a somewhat larger fine than usual that still allowed them to keep billions. Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán is got be pissed. 😆
Now where does Bin Laden play into this? Both Bin Laden and US oligarchs do horrible things. But unlike US oligarchs, Bin Laden was quiet open about his intentions and did not try to hide behind PR or state that some court in Texas leveraged the 69th amendment of the US constitution to prove that his actions were legal and were about “fighting for freedom”. On the contrary, he could have just been doing blow, driving fast cars, chilling on yachts, like all the other elite princes in Saudi Arabia, but instead he gave up that life to fight for something he believed in.
It was wrong, he was a bad person. I am not arguing against that. But how many US oligarchs have the guts to do something like that?
And if the outcomes of the actions of US oligarchs are actually worse than Bin Laden, is it a stretch to say they are worse than Bin Laden?
Anyone else feel like we should give the gunman a free pass, btw?
Yeah, I guess. Does it pertain to first degree murder? And could it just devolve into a juridical fight? 'cause then I think it turns into whoever has more money to spend wins, so… What I’m suggesting is that we, the people, agree all-together to not rat the gunman (or -woman) out to the pigs.
Jury nullification is most likely not going to happen. Speaking about it during selection will get you booted from selection, and being too obvious that it’s your intent will get you booted.
With that said, it always is possible, even with a murder case like this. It is the logical consequence of a legal system such as ours were the jury cannot be forced to give a specific verdict, and the defendant cannot be tried twice.
