It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.
It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn’t save lives…people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.
Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.
Man, people really think this is actually going to change things and it’s hilarious.
Well, hilarious in that I have to laugh to keep from breaking down in tears. On one side you have people who will do anything to squeeze every last penny from our quickly decaying corpses, and on the other we have a bunch of people who did little more than bitch and moan until someone does something drastic and ultimately futile in which case they… mostly continue to sit back and watch while assuming everything is somehow magically going to fix itself for them.
Things might change if murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system becomes the standard in America. But one outlier incident won’t change anything.
G4S and Securitas will make a fortune off security services for execs.
Knowing their hiring standards it sounds like a job there would be a ridiculously easy way to get privileged access to these people. Nah they’ll use higher quality than that.
Invest now! Wooooo, capitalism baby!
Yeah but are other rich people staffing this corpos or just more plebs???
Asking for friend ;)
Yes, it’ll change things like the French Revolution did, where it kept going and going, executing more and more people who had less and less to do with it, finishing with Robespierre, who argued against executing people at all.
When the laws don’t apply anymore, the law of the jungle will catch up to you.
You mean the law of the strong against the weak? We’re not winning that battle. We can’t even agree to vote consistently, much less in our best interest. What makes you think we can all agree on who’s the right person that needs killing?
I never said the right people are going to get killed. People are just going to get killed in chaos, sometimes its aligns with the goals of others. This sucks.
Yes, we can’t afford to lose any CEOs because it might cause innocent people to be killed. Meanwhile those CEOs are stacking bodies through negligence and folks like you want to defend them. You just confirmed how you’d steer the trolley.
CEOs are already killing innocent people en mass. If you have a more effective way of doing things at this point I’m all ears.
Voting works, when people actually do it. It doesn’t work fast, but it works better than random killings.
And in the mean time while you go around shaming people for not voting endless human suffering will continue to happen because you think vigilante justice to right the wrongs in our society is more wrong than just letting the elites continue to stamp on the necks of the people.
Random?
🤡
Well sure, if we just kill everyone we don’t like, clearly things will magically get better.
How do we define that, though? Cause every decision made will make someone unhappy, no matter how much good it might do. Are you going to step up and decide what’s right or wrong?
Already have. I think killing CEOs who contribute to endless human suffering is right, and defending those people from those who’s lives they’ve ruined unjustly is wrong. Next question.
Yep. It’s pretty simple and straightforward.
Kill people who purposefully, pointedly, and knowingly cause harm, human suffering, and sign death warrants for people who could have otherwise survived. Robbing life and money from families whose kids or parents need treatment, and sending these people into bankruptcy. Or straight-up denying life-saving treatments.
And these people know they’re killing people, but they don’t care because they’re making so much money off of it.
So no. It’s not “everyone we don’t like.” It’s people who purposefully profit from doing harm at the cost of human lives.
This isn’t a “Is killing a person that insulted you right or wrong?” moral conundrum, it’s a “If you could kill Hitler after he had started exterminating people, would that be right or wrong?” moral conundrum.
Most people who would say “it’s the wrong thing to do” for the first one would say “it’s the right thing to do” for the second.
Mind you, the really right thing to do on the situation with this CEO would have been for the State to do its fucking job and protect the people from mass murderers like him, but it refuse to do so, hence here we are in a bad situation.
EXACTLY. These guys are trying to pose this conundrum in such a ridiculous disingenuous way. Like “if we allow someone to kill a person who has systemically killed untold numbers of people then what’s next, killing a baby?!” its absolutely baffling how these people think that’s an argument based in any level of reality or logic.
It was a bit messy for the French but they haven’t had a king since.
The justice system should cast justice, and for that we need political pressure and reform. Self justice is not right in that way
Indeed, but it has failed to do so and now millions of people are suffering.
So it needs to be changed politically. If the people actually voted in their interest there would be no problem. If they vote against themselves they are at fault themselves. Thats how democracy works, even if its sad
Y’all had 35+ years to do it the right way. Too late, we’re gonna do it the hard way now.
How would that work, in practice? Who decides which companies are putting evil into the system? Who decides which CEOs to kill? Why not kill the board of directors and VPs as well? Why not kill the nurses and doctors who refuse to treat a patient unless they have health insurance? Why not kill the investors that provided the funds? Why not kill the politicians who made the laws? Why not kill the people who voted for those politicians?
Yeah, that’ll definitely work.
Yeah you’re right, CEOs should just be able to destroy the lives of Americans without any repercussion and anybody who tries to do anything about it is bad and wrong. Man, thank you for showing me my error! You truly are the only intelligent person here. You are the chosen one.
The argument to ask who casts justice and decides the barrier is a legit one. You are using a strawman argument against him by saying they are in favor of allowing destruction of the lives of Americans happen. Such tactics are mostly used by populists and we do not need to stoop to such levels
FTFY
Go ahead and do anything you want, nobody is stopping you. Protest, boycott, don’t pay your bills, be my guest. But when you use a silenced handgun to shoot a man in the back who had not been convicted of any crimes, you are unequivocally bad and wrong.
The false dichotomy in this conversation is insane. What in your addled brain indicates to you that I was suggesting that CEOs should be able to ruin people’s lives without repercussions? You don’t need to be particularly intelligent to understand that anonymous masked gunmen assassins are a bad thing, it’s common fucking sense.
The judicial system is designed to favour these people. It has already failed, and cost countless lives. You’re suggesting something that is already in place and failing at a catastrophic level. I’m not going to sit here and pretend you have some kind of greater intelligence or moral high ground for pushing an idea that is proven to not work and costing endless human suffering. That would be fucking idiotic.
Again, false dichotomy. Your logic makes no sense.
The judicial system is not perfect, we can at least agree on that. But that does not necessarily indicate that the system has totally failed; it’s far more rational to assume that the system should be reformed.
But sure, let’s go along with your first wild assumption and agree that the system has failed and must be replaced. Your second wild assumption is that the best way to replace the judicial system is by hiring masked men to assassinate CEOs.
If that’s not your assumption, than I don’t understand why you’re supporting it. You could have been like okay, this obviously isn’t a good way of dealing with things, but it does raise a discussion about the inability of the legal system to appropriately punish CEOs. But instead, you didn’t bother, you just went right ahead and said this seems like a great alternative to the judicial system, we should keep doing this. Absolutely unhinged
Whats unhinged is expecting reform from a system that is designed to actively stop reform, and using that to justify protecting people that are responsible for death and suffering at that magnitude for personal gain. Your mentality baffles me, but I guess that mentality is exactly why we are here in the first place. Fucking liberals man, if you’re not going to help at the very least get out of the way.
No, I’m not going to help you murder CEOs without just cause. I’ll keep standing right here, thanks very much.
Like look at the up and downvotes man. Nobody agrees with you here.
Haven’t we spent the last several years trying judicial reform? And honestly things are worse. We have one of the most openly corrupt Supreme Court Justices right now and they’ve made several extremely unpopular decisions lately. Also all decent chances to enact that reform recently died, with several indications that it will become even more corrupt soon. ‘Not perfect’ is an extreme understatement of the current reality.
When they deny and delay healthcare they’re extrajudicially killing people and murdering them first is self defense.
How’s that boot taste?
I feel like you are thinking about this wrong. From where I sit I think it’s more likely that you’re expanding the target list than helping put the brakes on this kind of vigilante behavior.
You aren’t wrong in a lot of what you’re saying though. Street justice rarely stays just for long. This may also be an isolated incident. However, some kind of pushback against this system is inevitable. If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety, and to be honest I don’t think meaningful change is possible until they are. Strikes, sit-ins, and protests have only ever been effective when paired with the implied threat of physical violence if demands are not met. Greed needs to be deincentivized in one way or another. Governments and corporations don’t seem interested in making that happen so action like this seems increasingly likely to me.
I don’t have any aversion to physical violence, if it is directed towards a rational goal with defined objectives and limits to its usage. This is an example of the opposite, an arbitrary and chaotic usage of violence that only serves to exacerbate social dysfunction.
I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society. There is no line that you can draw between yourself and people [who] don’t help improve the situation. We are all, by definition, a part of that group, for as long as it takes until the situation does improve. And that’s why I’m trying to explain that this kind of action is taking all of us further away from whatever improved version of society you envision.
Being intentionally obtuse doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Your average person, especially those in other countries, don’t view themselves as responsible for healthcare costs in America. Whether or not that is technically true is irrelevant as their contribution is not nearly as important as the others on your list. Take away the line about voters and maybe the doctors and nurses, though some would likely disagree with that part, and you’ve got a pretty accurate list of the people most responsible for the situation. They oversee these systems and are therefore seen to be responsible for associated outcomes.
I’m not being intentionally obtuse. I’m trying to open your eyes to the fact that there is no list that can be drawn up. It’s an impossible task to separate human beings from the conditions of their environment. The system is inherently flawed, it doesn’t matter who becomes the CEO, they are all incentivized to follow the same playbook.
What you suggest has been tried countless times in the past. When you remove the people occupying positions of power, others just take their place. You’re ultimately advocating removing individual human beings, when you should be advocating changing the system entirely. Instead of trying to overthrow and take over the system that exists, you should be trying to escape the system and build something better.
I think we’ve already established that the list you made was a pretty good one so the suggestion that a list of those most responsible can’t be made is pretty odd to me.
Let’s say I agree with you that violence is never the answer, what’s your alternate suggestion? Your thinking seems to be that oppressed people need to reason with their oppressors but what happens when they don’t listen? How long are people supposed to suffer before alternate methods are morally justified? What sort of escalation path exists within your moral framework? It seems to me that your reasoning ends with “just wait longer and hope justice prevails” but at some point that becomes untenable.
Again, that may or may not be what’s going on here but clearly some people think it is so the discussion is worth having.
No we haven’t. On what grounds are you taking doctors and nurses off the list? They’re the ones with medical training, if anything they’re the ones with the ultimate power over who gets medical help and who doesn’t. They choose to sell their services to the highest bidder. But they hold no responsibility? Absurd.
The same is true for voters, or any other group of people. Probably the only groups that could even dream of limited liability would be religious cults/fundamentalists like the Amish, because they are at least making a good faith attempt to avoid participating in society any more than necessary. Or remote uncontacted tribes I suppose.
Dude wtf, I never said that. I literally already addressed this in my original reply to you, like an hour ago?
I can only waste so much of my time going in circles, I’m out.
Lol and how do you expect to overthrow and take over this system if not by violence? By magic?
Last 40 years have clearly showed this won’t work.
Boomers sold us out and when you ask them about it they indignant. When they keep voting against you… what are you supposed to do here?
Let’s take more dick until they die and their crotch fruit gets the power and keeps fucking us 🤡
If we gonna live a shiti life, at least make the elites live in fear lol
Corporate executives are the modern camp guards, why are surprised camp residents are gloating?
bUT HaVE U tHoUGhT AbOuT BIegGeR pICturE?!
tell that to people who suffered when United"health" deined their claim, bootlicker.
I just feel bad for everyone because you’re too stupid to see that you’re only hurting yourselves with this childish exaltation of violence. I can clearly see that you people are drowning and it pains me, but you’re lashing out wildly in such a way that it makes it dangerous for someone to try to save you.
What’s even more distressing is that you aren’t alone out there. There are also children drowning out there right beside you, but you’re making it too difficult to provide any assistance because of your wild flailing. Long after we are dead, the inability of our generation to react maturely and productively to the reality of modern society will continue to haunt our descendants.
It doesn’t create good outcomes directly. It’s indiscriminate, highly subject to individual biases and extremely destabilizing to society. It’s definitely not a good thing if it keeps happening over a long time.
But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence. Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.
This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale are you alluding to? That hasn’t ever occurred in America. What usually happens is that people vote, and that’s what causes the government to act.
We got unions and workers protections because of voting and political pressure. The modern framework of labor rights in the US was almost entirely created by FDR, who was swept into office by an overwhelming majority of voters as a result of the Great Depression. He passed a ton of legislation as part of the New Deal and utilized political pressure on the Supreme Court when they tried to strike down the legislation. It was strengthened and expanded by JFK and LBJ, two more presidents who were elected with strong mandates from the American people.
There is no scenario where gunning down healthcare CEOs applies any sort of political pressure to anyone. I know that it feels like it means something to the common person who doesn’t understand much about the functioning of government or business. But I can promise you that it means very little to the people with the power to make decisions, aside from reminding them of the necessity of private security.
The battle of cripple creek involved shootings and dynamite explosions between workers and mine owners and was only stopped once the governor stepped in and helped negotiate a compromise.
I wasn’t trying to imply anything close to a full on war, but violence was a lot more common in early clashes for worker rights. Protests and strikes much more frequently were backed by violent behavior including several deaths.
As you go back further in history, essentially everything was decided by violence. But the balance of power has shifted with the rapid advance of technology. Violent behavior is less likely now than ever to make a difference, in my opinion.
And also that’s not what this is. There wasn’t any manifesto, there wasn’t any protest, there weren’t any unions going on strike. It was just one man gunning down another man in cold blood. To what end?
We could start with health insurance and pharmacy benefit manager companies, and then we can move onto “defense” contractors. If that’s not enough we can then move onto real estate investment companies and if there’s still time to make an even stronger point we can go after the greedflation grocery conglomerates. If that’s still not enough there’s the technofascists running the big tech companies and spying for the government. There’s plenty of targets out there who have it coming and I hope none of them every sleep peacefully again.
Good luck with that, Rambo
Laughs in French revolution
It might not change anything but it certainly raises spirits
Well it’s a good thing people are happy with the continued state of affairs where nothing has fundamentally changed!
It’s the only thing that’s ever changed things. Nonviolent movements are great but behind every successful one there is a separate violent movement forcing power to the table. The myth of successful nonviolent movements has been propagated as another tool of control.
It depends on how many people succeed in offing CEOs quick enough before the state clamps it’s power down. The state reacts relatively slowly so hopefully a lot more copycats (or our smiling hero) get a few more names off the list to really make a fucking point.
The state is gonna respond with more dystopia.