201–210 of 523 posts
[flagged]
Disgruntled employee? Patient died or suffered lifelong disability due to denied claims and delay in care? Bankruptcy due to paying out of pocket medical expenses? all potential suspects that can wrap the world, and more. UNH CEO reaped what he sowed. To be honest, this is unlikely to do anything in the long term. In the short term, dip in UNH stonk, but recover over next quarter. Next cookie cutter CEO to be install…
Maybe, but what lays outside their door will always haunt them. There’s no replacement that won’t have this in the back of their mind, and I suspect this is sort of the point.
From the killer’s perspective, this was probably the best case outcome.
The worst case? The decision makers of these companies fear every day. And you know what? Everyone thinks twice when they recognize danger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are called silencers. It's the number one definition for the word in my dictionary.
Gun owners don't call them silencers. Movies call them silencers and non gun owners watch movies so that word has entered the lexicon. But it's extremely incorrect-- suppressors don't silence guns. Suppressed firearms are still loud.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I don't think any of them deserve to be murdered, but the pundits are an odd place to place blame.
Guns are inanimate objects and cannot be ascribed blame. Gunmen and lawmakers can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
shrug I'm not an accelerationist, I do not want to live in any more historically significant times than I already have. That said, our systems continue to fail us at basically every turn so when I see stuff like this, I'm not surprised either. If you put people in a situation where they feel they have nothing to lose, you shouldn't be surprised when they start acting that way too. People demand justice, whether they'…
>People demand justice, whether they're right to is a secondary concern, as is the methodologies they choose to seek it. Some become activists. Some become politicians. Some pick up guns. That is a true, but We should discourage and condemn them picking up guns. There is a feedback loop at play
Nonsense. They will and should pick up guns if the entrenched systems no longer serve the purpose of the majority. Sure, it's not ideal.
But sometimes it's the only way to enact change. Some of the most important rights we have today were won with violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The distinction would be that you can still seek legal redress in court for your spouse committing adultery. It may not be the redress you want , but it would at least get you something, e.g. grounds for divorce. Increasingly, though, people in the United States feel that the rich and powerful have become effectively insulated from the legal system, such that the common person is denied any redress. At that point, on…
> Increasingly, though, people in the United States feel that the rich and powerful have become effectively insulated from the legal system, such that the common person is denied any redress. They're not insulated from the legal system, the problem is the public is being misled. It works like this: The media lies to the public and tells them that a CEO or Public Figure is getting away with X, so they get some washed…
I know it's like this but still so depressing this is the best we can do in America. Utterly garbage way to manage a core function of society.
What’s uniquely American about killing decision makers? Especially morally questionable individuals? Yeah, it’s a garbage way for society to operate but this is an expression of the human condition.
If anything this is a level of action I wouldn’t expect from America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This CEO, in particular, has almost certainly taken actions that resulted in preventable suffering and death. To some degree, that's the nature of running health insurance companies, but if he put profits ahead of patient outcomes, I think we could have a very reasonable discussion on the morality of letting people die at scale vs murder.
Just want to caution everyone to not jump to conclusions. Remember when Bob Lee was shot in San Francisco and everyone assumed it was because of how unsafe San Francisco is? And then it turned out to be another tech exec? Beyond the one motive we can think of, this person (like any person) had other things going on in their life. We have no idea what the motive was until the killer is found.
There isn't a propaganda machine trying to make Manhattan look dangerous, so I don't think anyone thought this was random.
I know multiple people (and have myself experienced this) who've been greeted with warnings and concern from relatives when traveling to major cities... when those cities have violent crime rates far lower than the places they/we live. Like, a fifth as much or lower. It's still "common knowledge" that e.g. Manhattan is way more dangerous than a "safe" red state suburban/exurban county (LOL, very not necessarily true) and that the largest cities must be way more dangerous than small and mid-sized cities (also very not necessarily true).