Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

gurwinder.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#81

Post by godelski » 

  > Vigilantism is always wrong.
We need to stop saying this. No one believes it. While I wholeheartedly believe this is correct in this instance (Luigi Mangione should not be celebrated for shooting Brian Thompson), there are instances where it is. While you should not go back in time to kill Hitler, we sure see a war to stop him as not only justifiable but honorable. When the rule of law fails, there has to be some other option. There are king killers we revere just as king killers we condemn.

We should stop saying this because we can be nuanced. It's okay to have edge cases. There are circumstances where it is justified to run a red light or abandon a truck trailer. All rules are made to be broken, because no rule can be perfectly specified. Language is limited and time marches on. It does no good to continue saying this, in this way.

Vigilantism is __rarely__ justified, and this is not an instance where it is. But we also must admit that this instance has sparked a larger national conversation. One that was going on for a long time but was routinely quickly quenched. This action catalyzed the conversation and gave it much more fire. __THIS__, I feel deeply uncomfortable with. There's certainly ways to do this same thing without killing a person (even an evil person), and I would hope that we can do better as a society to do that (you, me, and everyone. Not just "them", "US"). We shouldn't need to kill someone to have a real conversation, to solve problems, to get angry, to make change. It's here and I don't want to kill that conversation now that it has catalyzed, but neither do I want that to be the lesson learned from this. Because if it is, then vigilantism is justified much more often, and __that__ is not something we want. That is precisely how we end up creating the reality that everyone wants to avoid when they say "vigilantism is _always_ wrong."

This is a sensitive topic, and I think we should be careful. There's always ways to misinterpret others, especially if you try. But it is hard to listen, to see past the words, and find the intent. It is easier to fight and pick sides, especially when we're on the same one, than it is to actually solve problems. Problems that are complex, nuanced, and need deep understanding and care to resolve. It is easy to make them simple and pick tribes on that. Many of us want the same end goal, and we can do better by focusing on that. If we reach an impasse, so be it, but we should at least try.

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#82

Post by godelski »

isoprophlex wrote: post #14
stavros wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution 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.

Agreed, indeed: when the people feel that justice fails them, vigantilism takes its place. We'd all do well to, in our rush to decry the murder itself, be mindful of the mistake of losing sight of the reason behind the massive support for Mangione's actions.

  > We'd all do well to be mindful of the mistake of losing sight of the reason behind the massive support for Mangione's actions.
This is what I fear the most. It creates an ideological divide. Those who seem his action as justified do have reason to hold their beliefs. The justice system often fails people and we often hear and feel more and more these days. It is not about statistics, it is about "the vibe." At the same time, those who do not feel his actions are justified (myself included) have reason for their side too. Both sides have evidence and the truth is that the decisions are being based on different criteria. It's not even that we often disagree with the facts (of course, we often do too), but more that we care more or less about certain things. And if we can't at least understand why others have made their decisions, at least understand why others feel a certain way, then we have no hope of solving any of these problems that we both seem to care about.

What I fear is that while screaming that vigilantism isn't ever justified, that this very same act justifies it.

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#83

Post by tptacek »

archagon wrote: post #79
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very short, so you can just read it and see how dumb it is.

I did not find it to be terribly dumb, simple though it was.

The causal factors for the life expectancy gap between the US and the G8 have in fact very little do with our health care system, and the (manifold) problems of our health care system have in fact very little to do with health insurance. In fact, if you isolate the health care system, and don't try to six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon every inequality and equity problem in America onto the health care system, we actually tend to outperform the G8.

Don't take my word for it. The manifesto itself says that the guy doesn't understand any of this stuff. Didn't stop him from murdering something. A first, I think, in murderer manifestos!

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#84

Post by tm-infringement »

tptacek wrote: post #35
BitterCritter wrote: post #24

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.

I imagine that their point is not that they are the same, but that the attitudes correlate. The absolutist view about vigilantism, where they see no possible place for violence in any situation, could translate to the idea that one should protest quietly, preferably indoors and change will come soon enough™. Which seems to be the case [0]. He groups up completely different social movements ranging from the highly organized, reactions to an active conflict, to decentralized mobs, naming them "neotoddlerism". Saying that:

> The Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was guided by leaders who had clear, specific, and realistic goals, and were able to negotiate to achieve them.

Implying that Just Stop Oil doesn't fulfill these characteristics sans the prominent leaders. Their original objective seems to have happened [1] (JSO influence is debatable of course) and have defined new clear goals [2]. Lumping this with Israel-Palestine outrage on Twitter and the UK riots seems to make the criteria for not being effective social movements a.k.a "neotoddlerism" is "I don't like it / They annoy me".

Would this attitude result in "denouncing / joking about Seneca Falls" with era appropriate socialization? Doesn't seem that far farfetched.

0. https://substack.com/@gurwinder/p-147486907 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65945... 2. https://fossilfueltreaty.org/

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#85

Post by benreesman »

hackable_sand wrote: post #52
benreesman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s try everything we can before resorting to violence? Once that starts, that’s a forest fire that burns in ways no one can control.

Violence is literally always a last resort.

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.

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#86

Post by hex3 »

benreesman wrote: post #85
hackable_sand wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violence is literally always a last resort.

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.

[dead]

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#87

Post by benreesman »

benreesman wrote: post #85
hackable_sand wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violence is literally always a last resort.

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 empathy is what the adversary does.

I think we can flip everything upside down via wit and endurance and humanity and sheer will.

Violence is for people who fail in all of that.

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#88

Post by kevinmchugh »

mandmandam wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm referring to the especially dumb one you linked at [1].

His actions touched a nerve. If you want to try and smear the alleged manifesto, go ahead, but I don't think you'll be changing many minds. And by the way, there's no shortage of "writers from both ends of the political spectrum and points between" who broadly agree with its points. Luigi is more popular than Joe Biden lol [0]. 60% of New Yorkers would acquit him [1] (100,000 sample size). 0 - https://www.msn.com/en-…

Your second link seems to be fabricated. I'd guess it's an invention of AI. A survey of 100,000 people is extremely large, and would be quite expensive to administer, and its source as given as "PoliticsVideoChannel", a twitter account with 200,000 followers. There's no link to the survey. My guess is, if it's based on anything, the Twitter account ran a poll which got 100,000 votes. That's quite different than a survey of 100,000 New Yorkers.

The social media section gives quotes from several accounts that I don't think exist. Like, it's the only result is you search "@JusticeSeekerNYC".

Given you were talking about people being duped by a fake manifesto I am not sure why you'd share this link.

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#89

Post by BitterCritter »

tm-infringement wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil disobedience is not vigilantism. In fact, it is almost the opposite.

I imagine that their point is not that they are the same, but that the attitudes correlate. The absolutist view about vigilantism, where they see no possible place for violence in any situation, could translate to the idea that one should protest quietly, preferably indoors and change will come soon enough™. Which seems to be the case [0]. He groups up completely different social movements ranging from the highly org…

You got my exact point and elaborated really well with even research on the guy! Thanks it means a lot.

Re: The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

#90

Post by wakawaka28 »

stavros wrote: post #5
benreesman wrote: post #3

Vigilantism and violence is not merited because scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution. At some level of oppression violence is obviously indicated. The whole of the current Western order is premised on that. At some point it’s too far. Today is not that day.

> scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution 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.

>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 real obvious crimes with known guilty parties. And even then, it has many downsides.

A loud minority (or even majority) of people condoning this does not make it right. In the absence of an articulable crime for which the victim is responsible, this is simple murder. You can rationalize it all you want but your logic could be used to justify lynch mobs.

Post reply on HN