101–110 of 119 posts
It makes me livid when people write that vigilantism is never right. It speaks volumes about how little nuance there is in their own lives. I think these same people would denounce civil disobedience in the time of the civil rights movement and would joke about Seneca Falls if they were born a century younger. The overconfidence disgusts me.
Civil disobedience is not vigilantism. In fact, it is almost the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I feel like the murderer wouldn't be so widely commended if that were true. Justice is what is supposed to prevent vigilantism, and apparently lots of people here felt that the murder was just. OK then, what crime did the CEO commit? Simply presiding over a business that people don't like, which he has no real power to change, is not a crime in any sense. Vigilantism only makes sense when there is no justice for rea…
Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives? The Nazis couldn't claim "I was just running the concentration camp" as a defense. The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO".
Because the publics and their representatives made the law that this is a perfectly legal and acceptable thing to do.
Killing a CEO does very little, as there are hundreds of millions of people lined up to take their job.
It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject things like single payer healthcare or reform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. We can take down this cancerous thing via more civilized means. It’s that civilization that separates us from the thugs we oppose. Otherwise we’re just the new thugs.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Violence is literally the last thing a person can do. If there is violence then all other means have been tried.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. We can take down this cancerous thing via more civilized means. It’s that civilization that separates us from the thugs we oppose. Otherwise we’re just the new thugs.
In case I haven’t been clear enough on this point: I want no part in any revolution in which the revolutionary has no goal bigger or better than a purely local shuffling of advantage to themself. The only revolution I’m willing to die for is one where the goal is a better model: a better way for people to live. I cannot see a way that killing people is a path to a better world. Killing people without thought or empat…
Yes. But the amount of people that still failed after all of that is ever growing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives? The Nazis couldn't claim "I was just running the concentration camp" as a defense. The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO".
>Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives? Because the publics and their representatives made the law that this is a perfectly legal and acceptable thing to do. Killing a CEO does very little, as there are hundreds of millions of people lined up to take their job. It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject th…
I can't tell if this is a joke or not but I'll argue as if it isn't. First of all, nobody knows if single payer or any reform would lead to anything better. It's a complex issue that boils down to trying to get something for nothing (or at a price lower than the limited supply of healthcare dictates), which leads to enslaving other people to pay for one's own needs. You can do something about corporate corruption such as in the insurance industry. But state corruption is much more insidious. If you feel that strongly about state-sponsored healthcare then there are lots of other countries you can choose to live in that allegedly have the benefits you want, rather than just hating or doing harm to your neighbors. Furthermore, the MAJORITY of people who approve of the current system aren't going to stand by helpless as random wannabe tyrants attack them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives? Because the publics and their representatives made the law that this is a perfectly legal and acceptable thing to do. Killing a CEO does very little, as there are hundreds of millions of people lined up to take their job. It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject th…
>It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject things like single payer healthcare or reform. I can't tell if this is a joke or not but I'll argue as if it isn't. First of all, nobody knows if single payer or any reform would lead to anything better. It's a complex issue that boils down to trying to get something for nothing (or at a price lower than the limite…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject things like single payer healthcare or reform. I can't tell if this is a joke or not but I'll argue as if it isn't. First of all, nobody knows if single payer or any reform would lead to anything better. It's a complex issue that boils down to trying to get something for nothing (or at a price lower than the limite…
Not a joke, but a critique of CEO assassination as a tool for reform. My central point is that this is a political and legal dispute. Agreement amongst voters is the bottleneck, not some CEO
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, it isn't wrong. It is though. It’s deeply and profoundly wrong; blatantly wrong; a child could see that it's wrong; every other country in the world can see that it's wrong; and most Americans see it as wrong despite deacdeas of unanimous corporate propaganda. That’s why there have been many books and documentaries about how US insurers are a huge problem. Luigi's manifesto even called two out by name: Rosentha…
You aren't so much arguing here as stomping your feet and saying you're right. I don't care what a Michael Moore documentary says. Here is actual data, and it backs up my argument, not yours: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9154274/ (you don't even have to read that, just look at the charts, which are excellent) https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-repo... Want more? Here's relative doctor…
And having moved on without comment from "proving" your position that insurance companies have "no effect" on life expectancy (?!) by comparing CVD across states, you're now "proving" it by posting physician's salary data across countries??
You point-blank refuse to look at any data, books, examples or documentaries which shows they are, not even the sources specifically mentioned in Luigi's manifesto... But pointing out the books and examples which show they are in fact killing people makes me an ideologue committed to a narrative, while you love "the data"?
... Wew. I haven't felt this gaslit here since someone tried to claim that detonating thousands of pager bombs, murdering and maiming children and healthcare workers, wasn't a war crime or a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The manifesto itself says that the guy doesn't understand any of this stuff. Now you're just flat lying. That's not what it said at all, and in fact I explained this to you only hours previous. Here's what the alleged manifesto said: > Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated t…
The antecedent of "the guy" was the CEO killer, not you personally.
And, I'd still love to hear why you're flat-out lying about Luigi "dismissing himself" even after it was explained to you?
Btw that's not how the word 'antecedent' works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a joke, but a critique of CEO assassination as a tool for reform. My central point is that this is a political and legal dispute. Agreement amongst voters is the bottleneck, not some CEO
I said joking but I meant exaggerating. At least I hope it's hyperbole. Even contemplation of killing your neighbor because they don't support your particular views about the solution to a complex issue is batshit insane.