news Insurance industry pressured DOJ to charge Luigi Mangione federally to deter copycats

[Samson]

@Vermillion Updated OP and title for you, let me know if it's fine

[Communion]

1 minute ago, CallumDavies said:

Using threats of violence is also terrorism

Yes, terrorism is a thing people do and happens in societies. 

 

And politicians have a duty to stop people from wanting to commit terrorism. 

 

Thus we need Medicare For All to stop the barbarism of letting people die for profit, thus stopping people from thinking life is worthless and it is fine to kill. 

 

A country can't value life when there's a price owed to afford living. 

[Kern]

1 minute ago, CallumDavies said:

That is actually a reason to support the rule of law, not undermine it. We absolutely need a system where the principles and tenants of our democratic system apply to everyone. What we want to avoid, is regressing to a even less fair society, where no one access to any form of protection or justice. If we take away the rights of CEOs, we also take them away from normal working people. If we endorse a culture of vigilantism. We put ourselves and our loved ones in more danger. Choose a path.

 

And... murdering people in cold blood is bad. Hope that helps 

I don't understand. Why are talking as if he literally wasn't just caught and is about to be punished? 

[Virgos Groove]

We're really witnessing the Joker in real time jhvjfjd what is this???

[Kern]

I mean it's not like we by putting him as our avi, are setting him free from jail 

[bad guy]

There are two things that I've noticed about the discourse on this that I find intellectually dishonest: lack of nuance and lack of historical knowledge.

 

When it comes to a crime like murder the natural human response is to find it unsettling/wrong, but then when more details come out and things like self-defense, abuse, neglect, accidental, etc. are used as justifications most people can come to the agreement that murder can be justified. That's why there are laws in place to differentiate between the types of murders that occur, and why some people don't even see a jail cell for committing it. There's is no one-size-fits-all punishment for killing someone because even the legal system is aware of the nuances of a crime like murder. I'm bringing this up because I keep seeing people in this thread and on the news (I don't have Twitter/Tiktok but I'm sure there are some of these same people, albeit in the minority) go into this knee-jerk "murder is bad" reaction because of the way this CEO was killed and if  his "victim" personally didn't pose any danger to him then there is no justification for such crime, which completely ignores nuance. The CEO didn't have to personally endanger him, abuse him, neglect him, or harm him: his company did. Just like insurance companies do to millions of people every day. So yes, people who are on the news with top tier health insurance and are buddies with corporate stooges in the healthcare industry are not going to understand how dire healthcare is for the majority of citizens in the US. That goes to posters in here who aren't even American throwing their two cents in here as well.

 

Within our current system corporations have the same (if not more) rights as individual persons in this country thanks to Citizens United. So if a company is enacting abuse, neglect, and harm on individuals by denying claims and therefore denying access to health benefits to those suffering, which can lead to bankruptcy or death, then it should be argued that any action against them is an act of self-defense just like it would be if this was between two people. This CEO's decisions enacted real world harm and most importantly real world abuse (financially, emotionally, physically, and mentally). The honest conversation here really is that an abusive murderer was killed by one of their victims, but I digress. 

 

Secondly, I need people to understand, specifically non-Americans, that when you clutch your pearls and say "violence is never the answer" you are showing your lack of historical knowledge. Look up any social movement ever and tell me there was a time in history where change occurred without any violence. Literally pick any country on the map, look at their societal structure, their rights/laws, their borders, as well as their systems as a whole, and tell me no violence occurred to get to that point. You won't find any. You can argue violence is never an answer, but when millions are in destitute all while our systems benefits off of such suffering, counter-active violence is the least of my concerns. Industries should not be able to aggress for decades without pushback. So please spare me the faux morale over this CEO killing and instead use your empathy for those who have suffered to the point where such pain led them to hold the system accountable themselves. God knows our own institutions won't.

[Almodusa]

He's gonna represent himself and sing The Joker during the trial  

[Illyboy]

19 minutes ago, tiejc said:

Curious if he's ellegeebeetee or not

as if that matters

who cares if the hero of the people if gay or nah

and if its bc of the lusting idc either bc its not like im going to meet him anyways so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[CallumDavies]

Just now, Kern said:

I don't understand. Why are talking as if he literally wasn't just caught and is about to be punished? 

Clearly.

 

My principal point is that it is depressing to read people in this forum openly endorsing a vigilante culture, in which individuals feel empowered to take direct action against anyone they think is wrong or bad or deserves to be punished. I read multiple people lauding him and his actions as heroic. When in fact killing people in cold blood is not moral. And supporting people who kill in cold blood is similarly bad.

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, CallumDavies said:

and democratic process (legislating) is the best way to achieve change. 

Also to clarify, this is objectively false. 

 

Of course what Luigi did is bad. The bad thing he did was a product of a bad society. And more bad things will continue to happen unless politicians recognize they have a duty to stop society from collasping. 

 

You cant kill to get M4A into law but you also can't vote your way into getting M4A into law. 

 

Politicial consensus and violence are not mutually exclusive. Violence begets violence and arises when political consensus is ignored. People slaughtering insurance CEOs is expected when a vast majority want the government to cover the costs of healthcare and our politicians instead leave most people to the mercy of modern gangs. 

 

Violence itself won't offer solutions, but recognizing that such violence is a sympton of a sick society and demanding accountability for politicians to use the momentum of such violence to enact change is more likely to cause change than policing violence and scolding people for their anger and social ills towards the realities of barbarism. 

 

What Luigi did isn't inherently worthless or pointless. It's morally wrong, sure, but only becomes politically pointless if it doesn't move beyond just one killing into societal demand for universal healthcare. Anyone spending more time debating individual morals and not the societal moral demand to pass M4A now is doing so to sabotage said momentum. 

Edited December 10 by Communion

[Kern]

1 minute ago, CallumDavies said:

Clearly

Callum, you are in no position to throw shade at me while being clocked left and right in this thread 

[scenekiller]

The nonsensical moral grandstanding in here needs to come with real, tangible suggestions- otherwise, you're just enabling and making excuses for evil people.

 

Sure, Brian Thompson "was a human being". But why is the "humanity" of someone behaving so inhumanely that important to you? What about the humanity of all of the people United Health has blatantly shunned in the pursuit of record profits?

 

We all agree, in a perfect and civilized world, that conceptually, murder = bad. But we don't live in that world. So what is your suggestion to get real, proactive change? Vote? Peaceful protest for the one millionth time? Show me how that's worked out. If that worked, we wouldn't be here. 

 

I'm not saying murder is the answer, I'm just asking why you're okay with the death of thousands upon thousands of others, but not okay with the death of a single CEO.

Edited December 10 by scenekiller

[nadiamendell]

43 minutes ago, CallumDavies said:

It's incredibly depressing to widespread endorsement of vigilante culture. Undermining the principle of the rule of law also undermines democracy. If you want fairness, and justice then you shouldn't endorse killing CEOs in cold blood. No matter the motive. We're replacing accountability with subjectivity. 

 

When the rule of law is undermined, it's marginalised groups who suffer the most

If the "rule of law" were working as intended, we wouldn't be in this situation, now would we? 

[CallumDavies]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

Also to clarify, this is objectively false. 

 

Of course what Luigi did is bad. The bad thing he did was a product of a bad society. And more bad things will continue to happen unless politicians recognize they have a duty to stop society from collasping. 

 

You cant kill to get M4A into law but you also can't vote your way into getting M4A into law. 

 

Politician consensus and violence are not mutually exclusive. Violence begets violence and arises when political consensus is ignored. 

 

Violence itself won't offer solutions, but recognizing that such violence is a sympton of a sick society and demanding accountability for politicians to use the momentum of violence to enact change is more likely to cause change than policing violence and scolding people for their anger and social ills towards the realities of barbarism. 

I believe people are accountable for their actions, and have agency. Society didn't force Luigi to murder that CEO. It's a decision he made for himself. If society was solely responsible, we'd all be out here killing CEOs and whoever we fancied topping off. Thankfully, we're not.

 

We should always pressure politicians into delivering the changes we want to see in our society. That is a crucial part of our democratic systems. Killing people is not. 

[CallumDavies]

2 minutes ago, Kern said:

Callum, you are in no position to throw shade at me while being clocked left and right in this thread 

I have no interest in the dominant view of ATRL. That doesn't influence my political and philosophical positions. Hope that helps 

[ClashAndBurn]

28 minutes ago, Communion said:

People don't want fairness and justice, they wanna afford insulin and seeing a dentist without going bankrupt. 

To be clear, after the Daniel Penny acquittal yesterday, it seems clear they also want the homeless cleared off their streets by whatever means necessary, but they don't want their taxes raised to deal with societal problems either. So they'll reward vigilantism and basically say things such as "Killing off the homeless and getting them out of my sight is good, actually."

 

Americans are individualistic to a fault. They'll of course want and accept help when they need it, but then they suddenly become allergic to the concept of "common welfare" when it comes to taxpayer dollars being spent to help anyone else.

[Trent W]

I'm always the person screaming morals at everyone 

 

But damn that man is HOT

 

He is so hot Im easily falling for any conspiracy saying he is a paid actor or some **** 

 

 

[Communion]

3 minutes ago, CallumDavies said:

I believe people are accountable for their actions

And the political consensus currently in America seems to be that insurance CEOs deserve to be slaughtered on sight for the ills they've done and that the desire of people to want to kill people like Brian was on account of Brian's actions. 

 

That's seriously troubling. 

 

If I was a politician more concerned about societal collapse instead of my donors, I'd be rushing to introduce legislation to pass Medicare For All.

[Jay07]

8 minutes ago, CallumDavies said:

Clearly.

 

My principal point is that it is depressing to read people in this forum openly endorsing a vigilante culture, in which individuals feel empowered to take direct action against anyone they think is wrong or bad or deserves to be punished. I read multiple people lauding him and his actions as heroic. When in fact killing people in cold blood is not moral. And supporting people who kill in cold blood is similarly bad.

You mean like the CEO who probably killed thousands more than Luigi to maximize profits and add another million to his bonus?

[Cyanide]

On 12/9/2024 at 12:14 PM, Komet said:

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, bad guy said:

There are two things that I've noticed about the discourse on this that I find intellectually dishonest: lack of nuance and lack of historical knowledge.

 

When it comes to a crime like murder the natural human response is to find it unsettling/wrong, but then when more details come out and things like self-defense, abuse, neglect, accidental, etc. are used as justifications most people can come to the agreement that murder can be justified. That's why there are laws in place to differentiate between the types of murders that occur, and why some people don't even see a jail cell for committing it. There's is no one-size-fits-all punishment for killing someone because even the legal system is aware of the nuances of a crime like murder. I'm bringing this up because I keep seeing people in this thread and on the news (I don't have Twitter/Tiktok but I'm sure there are some of these same people, albeit in the minority) go into this knee-jerk "murder is bad" reaction because of the way this CEO was killed and if  his "victim" personally didn't pose any danger to him then there is no justification for such crime, which completely ignores nuance. The CEO didn't have to personally endanger him, abuse him, neglect him, or harm him: his company did. Just like insurance companies do to millions of people every day. So yes, people who are on the news with top tier health insurance and are buddies with corporate stooges in the healthcare industry are not going to understand how dire healthcare is for the majority of citizens in the US. That goes to posters in here who aren't even American throwing their two cents in here as well.

 

Within our current system corporations have the same (if not more) rights as individual persons in this country thanks to Citizens United. So if a company is enacting abuse, neglect, and harm on individuals by denying claims and therefore denying access to health benefits to those suffering, which can lead to bankruptcy or death, then it should be argued that any action against them is an act of self-defense just like it would be if this was between two people. This CEO's decisions enacted real world harm and most importantly real world abuse (financially, emotionally, physically, and mentally). The honest conversation here really is that an abusive murderer was killed by one of their victims, but I digress. 

 

Secondly, I need people to understand, specifically non-Americans, that when you clutch your pearls and say "violence is never the answer" you are showing your lack of historical knowledge. Look up any social movement ever and tell me there was a time in history where change occurred without any violence. Literally pick any country on the map, look at their societal structure, their rights/laws, their borders, as well as their systems as a whole, and tell me no violence occurred to get to that point. You won't find any. You can argue violence is never an answer, but when millions are in destitute all while our systems benefits off of such suffering, counter-active violence is the least of my concerns. Industries should not be able to aggress for decades without pushback. So please spare me the faux morale over this CEO killing and instead use your empathy for those who have suffered to the point where such pain led them to hold the system accountable themselves. God knows our own institutions won't.

These two posts basically sum up my thoughts. The moral grandstanders are probably people who think "just getting out and voting Hillary!!!" Would solve these issues  

[polygon]

25 minutes ago, CallumDavies said:

B(rain r)ot

Cope harder liberal

[BOOMBAYAH]

31 minutes ago, CallumDavies said:

The rule of law is not 'this person has committed a crime therefore I get to kill them'. 

 

It's a principle that is meant to ensure that all individuals, institutions, and governments are subject and accountable under the same set of laws. It is foundational to democratic societies and promotes fairness, justice and equality. It is obviously far from perfect. But picking off people at random is not an effective or moral response. And people who murder people in cold blood are bad people and should go to prison. 

If this were the case, we would not live in a world where people feel incentivized to kill CEOs because the law, our politicians, and our institutions would have already addressed their actions—denying people healthcare for the sake of increasing profits. This is in addition to insider trading, tax evasion, and other malpractices these millionaires and billionaires engage in to line their pockets.

 

I don't know if the answer is the mass murder of CEOs and the wealthy, but when the institutions and politicians meant to ensure that rich people and corporations are not sending others to their deaths are failing—due to lobbying, donor dependence, and a general whitewashing of how horrific it is to deny people healthcare for no good reason—what else can people do?

 

These individuals do not respond to peaceful protests. They won't even sit down with working-class people to hear them out. Instead, they talk a big game about going after corporations and wealthy individuals to win elections, only to continue dining with them at donor dinners and further protecting their interests. As I said at the beginning, if ideals like justice and fairness truly operated in countries like America, we wouldn't be in a situation where anyone feels the need to kill CEOs.

[commander]

Say what you will about this guy but if I'm not wrong the guillotine and the systematic killing of people in power was the main reason the French revolution was so successfuli in bringing the concept of Universal Human Rights into existence. 

[Vermillion]

19 minutes ago, Samson said:

@Vermillion Updated OP and title for you, let me know if it's fine

Thanks. I was trying to put this in the OP earlier and gave up to go on errands.

 

 

[Likingstars]

Some of you have a very black and white perspective of how the world works. Take a history class or two