Luigi Mangione, who is charged with first-degree murder in the ambush killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, made the comments on a website set up by his defense.
More celebration of murder as somehow “uplifting”. America really is sinking.
PS: Brigading just makes you all look insecure while increasing even more the hostility level of this supposedly “uplifting” community. I personally don’t care if a thousand of you downvote my comment. I’m secure in my conviction that murder is always bad. But others, maybe with more ambivalent takes, are gonna be put off by your mob mentality. And then you’ll have nothing but others in your mob to tell you how right you are and maybe lessen any doubts or insecurity you have. Is that really what you want from a community? I must admit I don’t get it.
The market celebrates murder every day and you don’t bat an eye.
We celebrate the market feeling fear for their daily for profit murder spree for the first time.
People like you have no problem when murder is done with a confidence scheme and a claim denial letter after people paid in advance for care when they got sick.
There is something most people go through at some point, it’s the realization that violence is sometimes necessary for the advancement of justice. There would have been no civil rights movements in the US without violence. There would have been no resistance against nazis without violence. There would have been no french revolution without violence. The very roughly “equal chances” society you enjoy today is the result of violence.
Simply put, when the system is dysfunctional and the safeguards originally put in place have been compromised/corrupted, you can either sit there and watch it dispense its injustice, or you can use violence. It’s whatever works. Luigi allegedly did something very, very courageous and selfless, and he’s owed our collective respect. I hope you get around to that.
A passably substantive argument! Though you couldn’t resist a patronizing note of condescension right at the end. To me that suggests insecurity and so undermines your point.
I do know history, more or less (in fact I have a degree in it). And I take different lessons from it than you. The French revolution had two phases, non-violent and violent. Almost all of the useful reforms happened in the first phase. The mass spilling of blood was unnecessary, caused by impatient mobs who just could not wait for those reforms to bear fruit, and who had other unproductive agendas such as vengeance. What is certain is that 200 years later many European countries have achieved the same level of economic development and social justice as France (some of them even more so) without any need for a violent revolution.
As for civil rights, to me that’s even clearer: it was not violence but non-violence - boycotts, sit-ins, marches - that won over public opinion and so made it impossible for the Kennedy-Johnson government to continue doing nothing.
I think MLK would have been horrified to see the rhetoric you deploy to defend the indefensible. I certainly am.
This is written word, it’s incomplete, it’s flawed. Please do not assume the worst. I am responding in good faith to you here : I am genuinely hoping for everybody to come around to the fact that violence plays a central part in our societies, that it historically has, and that it may again -even if we don’t like it
You are extremely dishonest in interpreting the message from the one user who is excercising way too much patience with you.
You should wash your mouth when you speak about MLK when spouting for your moralism.
Also, unfriendly tip: if you’re gonna critizice people for being condescending to you, you shouldn’t start your argument being condescending towards everyone a priori.
Finally, you have no moral high ground, your “non violence” apparently only applies to popular opinion and not state or politicians actions. Also, citing the French revolution as an example is woefully reductive and shows that maybe you should dust off your degree and read just a bit more.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
Justice delayed is justice denied. Anyone who says “Yes, you should have civil rights!…Later.” is saying No.
Many have already tried to argue that the American Healthcare system is broken, and were shot down or given vague promises that it was steadily improving.
Gandhi also preferred violence over sitting on your hands
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.
But mass downvoting is a form of brigading, just look it up. And now you’re adding insults to the mix. Well done.
Again, I personally could not care less. But by behaving like this, you’re not encouraging people to share their thoughts (unless of course they agree with you, that’s different!). And you’re certainly not creating an “uplifting” community.
To be clear, I don’t care about your downvotes. I DO care that you’re excusing the inexcusable and helping to normalize political violence.
Preferably you should learn to deal with criticism, even if almost anyone is disagreeing with you. Crying on social media about a majority disagreeing only makes you look like a fool and basically animates a crowd of trolls to make fun of you. Also be aware that reactions to you so far were comparably civil, on more toxic platforms you’d have already been stomped into the ground.
If your sense of self-worth isn’t strong enough to deal with massive civil / anonymous disagreement by other people without resorting to throwing shit around you should focus on improving it first before writing comments about controversial topics.
That’s very sad but it doesn’t fit the definition of murder.
Will you post comments asking where the justice is for this lost life?
No, because I think murder (first degree, premeditated, cold-blooded) is worse than that, and I think it’s a problem that people are excusing it.
It’s clear as day to me what’s going on here. You are all angry and frustrated. You’re not murderers yourselves and you wouldn’t do what “Luigi” did, partly because you’re too cowardly, mostly because you’re better people than him. But the absence of “justice” (just quoting you) in America’s dysfunctional healthcare system is so egregious and so shocking (I agree: it is), that you feel the need to strike out somehow, to show how strongly you feel. And so you come here and excuse murder. Coz, wow, speaking up for an actual murder! That’s pretty big, right? Basically it’s a mutual support session for people who feel bad - like, really bad - about the state of American healthcare.
Personally, I don’t think that excusing murder is going to get you a better healthcare system. In fact the opposite is far more likely: if political assassinations are normalized, an authoritarian backlash becomes all but inevitable. And that will push healthcare right down the list of your priorities. And all for what? For the fleeting buzz of perverted righteousness that you get from excusing the inexcusable. It’s not worth it.
More celebration of murder as somehow “uplifting”. America really is sinking.
PS: Brigading just makes you all look insecure while increasing even more the hostility level of this supposedly “uplifting” community. I personally don’t care if a thousand of you downvote my comment. I’m secure in my conviction that murder is always bad. But others, maybe with more ambivalent takes, are gonna be put off by your mob mentality. And then you’ll have nothing but others in your mob to tell you how right you are and maybe lessen any doubts or insecurity you have. Is that really what you want from a community? I must admit I don’t get it.
The market celebrates murder every day and you don’t bat an eye.
We celebrate the market feeling fear for their daily for profit murder spree for the first time.
People like you have no problem when murder is done with a confidence scheme and a claim denial letter after people paid in advance for care when they got sick.
Shame on you.
Downvoting isn’t brigading.
There is something most people go through at some point, it’s the realization that violence is sometimes necessary for the advancement of justice. There would have been no civil rights movements in the US without violence. There would have been no resistance against nazis without violence. There would have been no french revolution without violence. The very roughly “equal chances” society you enjoy today is the result of violence.
Simply put, when the system is dysfunctional and the safeguards originally put in place have been compromised/corrupted, you can either sit there and watch it dispense its injustice, or you can use violence. It’s whatever works. Luigi allegedly did something very, very courageous and selfless, and he’s owed our collective respect. I hope you get around to that.
A passably substantive argument! Though you couldn’t resist a patronizing note of condescension right at the end. To me that suggests insecurity and so undermines your point.
I do know history, more or less (in fact I have a degree in it). And I take different lessons from it than you. The French revolution had two phases, non-violent and violent. Almost all of the useful reforms happened in the first phase. The mass spilling of blood was unnecessary, caused by impatient mobs who just could not wait for those reforms to bear fruit, and who had other unproductive agendas such as vengeance. What is certain is that 200 years later many European countries have achieved the same level of economic development and social justice as France (some of them even more so) without any need for a violent revolution.
As for civil rights, to me that’s even clearer: it was not violence but non-violence - boycotts, sit-ins, marches - that won over public opinion and so made it impossible for the Kennedy-Johnson government to continue doing nothing.
I think MLK would have been horrified to see the rhetoric you deploy to defend the indefensible. I certainly am.
This is written word, it’s incomplete, it’s flawed. Please do not assume the worst. I am responding in good faith to you here : I am genuinely hoping for everybody to come around to the fact that violence plays a central part in our societies, that it historically has, and that it may again -even if we don’t like it
I do assume good faith. But can you see the problem with saying, “I’m hoping that everyone eventually sees that they’re wrong and I’m right”?
On its face I agree. But I think it plays a pernicious role and personally I don’t want anything to do with it.
You are extremely dishonest in interpreting the message from the one user who is excercising way too much patience with you. You should wash your mouth when you speak about MLK when spouting for your moralism.
Also, unfriendly tip: if you’re gonna critizice people for being condescending to you, you shouldn’t start your argument being condescending towards everyone a priori.
Finally, you have no moral high ground, your “non violence” apparently only applies to popular opinion and not state or politicians actions. Also, citing the French revolution as an example is woefully reductive and shows that maybe you should dust off your degree and read just a bit more.
MLK would absolutely disagree with you.
Justice delayed is justice denied. Anyone who says “Yes, you should have civil rights!…Later.” is saying No.
Many have already tried to argue that the American Healthcare system is broken, and were shot down or given vague promises that it was steadily improving.
Gandhi also preferred violence over sitting on your hands
“Direct action”, yes. Murder: no.
what do you think “Direct action” means?
Believe what you want, but don’t characterize opposition to your shitty opinion as “brigading”.
But mass downvoting is a form of brigading, just look it up. And now you’re adding insults to the mix. Well done.
Again, I personally could not care less. But by behaving like this, you’re not encouraging people to share their thoughts (unless of course they agree with you, that’s different!). And you’re certainly not creating an “uplifting” community.
To be clear, I don’t care about your downvotes. I DO care that you’re excusing the inexcusable and helping to normalize political violence.
You comment a lot for someone who could not care less.
Should I shut up so that nobody contradicts you?
Preferably you should learn to deal with criticism, even if almost anyone is disagreeing with you. Crying on social media about a majority disagreeing only makes you look like a fool and basically animates a crowd of trolls to make fun of you. Also be aware that reactions to you so far were comparably civil, on more toxic platforms you’d have already been stomped into the ground.
If your sense of self-worth isn’t strong enough to deal with massive civil / anonymous disagreement by other people without resorting to throwing shit around you should focus on improving it first before writing comments about controversial topics.
I did. You’re lying. Check this if you don’t believe me: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brigading
They’re discouraging takes that go against the hive mind. Simple as is. Yours just happens to also be a really shitty take.
You cared enough to make a comment about it.
How do you feel about this murder? https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-asthma-medicine-lawsuit-walgreens-optum-8b4130ab404e513fbd68c9e02b51976b
Will you post comments asking where the justice is for this lost life?
That’s very sad but it doesn’t fit the definition of murder.
No, because I think murder (first degree, premeditated, cold-blooded) is worse than that, and I think it’s a problem that people are excusing it.
It’s clear as day to me what’s going on here. You are all angry and frustrated. You’re not murderers yourselves and you wouldn’t do what “Luigi” did, partly because you’re too cowardly, mostly because you’re better people than him. But the absence of “justice” (just quoting you) in America’s dysfunctional healthcare system is so egregious and so shocking (I agree: it is), that you feel the need to strike out somehow, to show how strongly you feel. And so you come here and excuse murder. Coz, wow, speaking up for an actual murder! That’s pretty big, right? Basically it’s a mutual support session for people who feel bad - like, really bad - about the state of American healthcare.
Personally, I don’t think that excusing murder is going to get you a better healthcare system. In fact the opposite is far more likely: if political assassinations are normalized, an authoritarian backlash becomes all but inevitable. And that will push healthcare right down the list of your priorities. And all for what? For the fleeting buzz of perverted righteousness that you get from excusing the inexcusable. It’s not worth it.
Someone has died in both cases. So why?