I’m not celebrating that a bad person died, but that the bad people are afraid. It’s fucked up to think any justice was delivered from the death of one guy. The justice comes from how this motivates people to work towards systemic change; a world where these rich sickos are held back rather than encouraged. These rich people are not like us, and their panic is driving that truth home. Make them panic more. Let them widen the divide between us and them. Force them to show their true colors.
Simping for him is the right thing for us to do. It furthers his act of terror against the rich without spilling any blood. It doesn’t matter that it’s an empty threat for most of us; the more we celebrate him, the more people will take out their anger on the best targets imaginable.
If we don’t do it, that lonely white man will just shoot innocent people for infamy like they’ve been doing. They will join the cops or vigilante fascists in lynching trans people of color like me to scratch their itch for blood. This agitation propaganda is helpful in combating the agit-prop from the right. They’ve been doing stochastic terrorism against children for years, so fuck them and their mother if they complain about civility.
We’re in a state of nature now, with no political or economic sovereignty to speak of. We don’t have any human rights thanks to these rich idiots not appreciating the sweet deal they had, so I only feel empowered when I call their murderer hot.
I can’t believe that after thousands of years humanity still struggles with “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
When under attack, defend yourselves. When a potential possible attack some time in the future seems likely, or when a benefit provided by society via democratic system is taken away, if you attack preemptively then you’re probably just a POS.
We might be happy this time, but the next person might kill somebody we like. They might feel emboldened to target trans folk and democratic socialists. If violence escalates to riots then one side might start gunning the other down in the street. The only people who want the poor and ignorant to kill each other are enemies of our society as a whole.
You do not get to decide who lives or dies. No one does.
If an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, one person denying over 80% of insurance claims is a whole lot of eyes, which is a crazy ratio. I don’t think your analogy works.
Nation wide, 305 million Americans have health insurance. Over 80% were being denied because of a faulty system these companies refused to fix. That is 244,000,000 people. Two hundred and forty four million people being rejected.
United has 51 million people it “”““covers””“”, being generous and saying it was only 80% who were getting denied from this system means that’s still 40 million 800 thousand people.
All your what ifs already happened because of 2016 btw.
If I had my way him and his ilk would be facing life in prison.
BTW, United had a denial rate of 32%, double the national average. Idk where tf you got 80%.
The man didn’t gun people down in the street, he refused to pay for their treatment and his victims didn’t know how to fight it. Less than a fifth of a single percent of denied claims are appealed by the people whose claims are denied, they literally don’t even realize a system exists to fight against the injustice.
But now we’re moving on to violence in the streets? Well for your sake, I hope your side wins despite the massive sacrifices.
If it was an eye for an eye we’d trap them and their descendants into ever worsening debt spirals, make them use a system that actively works against them to get their health issues treated, and we’d sit them in places for eight hours a day, for five days in a row, where they must do as we say to survive. This isn’t an eye for an eye, this is a sucker punch after years of having our eyes systemically removed.
I guarantee you that if the shooter had the power to do that then he would have, but the point of the hyperbole is that violence does not solve all problems and instead can be quite detrimental.
The ideal world would have people vote for politicians which oppose privatized healthcare and would make his profession illegal. An ideal world would see class action lawsuits bankrupt him. An ideal world would consider his company denying ability to get necessary care, despite qualifying for reimbursement, as an illegal act similar to assault, and have him sent before a jury.
The outcome we got is the worst possible outcome: the USA elected a bunch of explicitly pro-privatization officials and somebody felt violence was the only resort.
This isn’t “an eye for an eye” this is about the neutralization of a serial eye remover. An eye for a thousand eyes seems a very easy choice to make.
An eye for an eye doesn’t make the whole world blind. It makes a few people blind until they wise up and realize “Wait, I like making people blind, but I don’t want to be blind!” And then they stop blinding people, thus removing the need to blind them in return.
Yeah, I’m sure after we murder more people they’ll start thinking twice about putting people in debt. /sarcasm
Without pursuing a legislative solution, no matter how many people you kill: the problem will never go away.
I would argue that people we care for are already under attack and dying… some of them directly because of bad policies, political and corporate.
Oh well look at all those great policies that got written overnight because we murdered a dude. /s
You’re the epitome of the cautionary adage that all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
As for your claim that an eye-for-an-eye is somehow bad? Tit-for-tat is an excellent strategy for maintaining successful cooperation.
Lastly, there’s no coherent normative theory according to which killing is bad categorically. That’s simply ridiculous.
I’d rather die a good man than start killing unarmed civilians. Evil can have this worthless hell if more of them truly exist than the rest of us.
I am unafraid, of them or you.
The violence has been escalating longer than you’ve been alive. This instance is smaller than the day before it.
You don’t have a problem with violence, you just dislike it when it’s done to the rich.
I explicitly did like when it was done to the rich, but that doesn’t mean I have to like the perpetrator. The enemy of my enemy is just some dude with a gun.
This is basically the tolerance paradox but for violence. If people are willing to use violence on me (denying healthcare, keeping us poor, stochastic terrorism) then I’m fine using it back, otherwise they get free reign.
But the violence will never end. By using violence back on them you change nothing. The solution is not violence, it is political action.
If you have any actual impact on politics via violence then you’re justing going to tear down a bad system for an obviously worse outcome.
Then why are you celebrating the death of a bad person in the first place? That’s the actual “eye for an eye” shit that’s making you blind. The death itself isn’t worth celebrating, only the effect of it on the world.
We are under attack dumbass. We’re being parasitized by the rich! The democratic system in the US is gone with the election of Trump. What the fuck do you actually think that would look like if not this? You’re either in denial, or too cowardly to actually stick to your word.
There are no “effects on the world” from this and if there will be then those effects will be purely negative such as more copycat killers attacking random targets. A bad person is just dead, its results are purely therapeutic.
heaven’s door, draw this individual as the soy wojak
well restorative justice already got proposed and laughed out of the room so…
It wasn’t murder though. It was self defense/defence of the innocent.
If someone was actively on a homicidal rampage, blood still on their hands as they sprint to kill more innocent people, it wouldn’t be murder to stop them even with lethal means.
This guy is responsible for thousands of deaths, and showed no indication he was going to stop. Killing him alone doesn’t stop all the innocent deaths, but if it gives is peers reason to pause their own murderous rampages, even briefly, that alone could save many people.
I’m not signing for a murderer, I’m simping for a goddamn hero.
If it was self defence then they should have surrendered instead of fleeing.
You mean surrender to a group of violent murderous thugs whose whole job is to protect the murderous slavers that are our ruling class?
What an absolutely insane take. The USA willingly subjects itself to the system that created people like that CEO, the system that regularly denies healthcare on arbitrary bureaucratic terms like some kind of cthonic lottery, and you sit there saying the obvious solution is to start gunning people down in the street as if it were the perfectly reasonable response?
Well good luck, you couldn’t even get a fifth of a percentile of people to file an appeal after their lives were ruined, good luck trying to get them to organize a resistance.
This feels like the murder equivalent of using porn, but considering porn makers beneath you.
shut up
