Your post has been removed because it violates Rule 2.3 (US/China content restriction).
2.3.1 The number of paragraphs with more than a passing reference to the USA or China in any capacity should not exceed more than 50% of the article.
2.3.2 Major non-state actors are exempt from the 50% rule.
2.3.3 If it is unclear due to large or inconsistently sized paragraphs, then the same criteria should be applied to the number of sentences instead.
Why are they shocked...like I get being appalled by pro-murder sentiment, victim's sins aside.
But to not understand where this is coming from is either: a level of stupidity beyond anything I've ever seen, on purpose to try and damage control, or a sign of being so out of touch you lost your humanity.
I dont see how this is shocking. Did they think that they were going to sympathize with the CEO of one of the most predatory businesses out there?
It wouldnt surprise me if the actual number was actually higher but that a lot of people simply gave acceptable answers instead.
You don't have to empathize or sympathize to think killing is wrong. It's more indicative of how people have been indoctrinated into believing class warfare might just be okay.
How about sympathizing with a living human? Killing people is not the right answer. I thought we, the young generation, were all enlightened with the ideas of liberalism and the value of every person's life
But I guess in 30 or so years the history will repeat itself and there will be another generation of hateful and intolerant boomers
>How about sympathizing with a living human? Killing people is not the right answer. I thought we, the young generation, were all enlightened with the ideas of liberalism and the value of every person's life
Why should I sympathize with those who dont sympathize with us. UnitedHealth is single handedly responsible for the death of many. All for gaining more money over the dead corpses of the people who trusted them.
Why should I sympathize with the CEO of a company that purposefully stopped giving a dying kid of cancer nousea medication? They said he didnt need it. I dont see why we should sympathize with evil people. Should I sympathize with mass murderers as well? With rapists?
>But I guess in 30 or so years the history will repeat itself and there will be another generation of hateful and intolerant boomers
Ah yes, there will be hateful and intolerant boomers because people are fed up with multi-millionaire CEO's who let the common people die like cattle when it suits them. But we are wrong for celebrating their deaths, when they celebrated our deaths.
Nothing you said justifies murdering people.
Also, anyone that thinks insurance company CEOs are literally celebrating the deaths of people denied coverage is delusional.
>Nothing you said justifies murdering people
Arguably, if it gets health insurance companies to rethink their profit-over-lives policies, such as the removal of the recent "we predetermine how much anesthesia you need during and operation and anything after that is not covered", resulting in the saving of more lives at the cost of profit, that is a worthwhile trade.
> Also, anyone that thinks insurance company CEOs are literally celebrating the deaths of people denied coverage is delusional.
They are creating policies that purposely deny coverage to those that need it to increase their bottom line. These companies purposefully make claiming difficult for the ones that need it the most, and actively tell their employees to deny coverage for any minor reason at the time when people need the most help, all while having taken their money for years.
They may not be celebrating deaths of people denied coverage, but they certainly are celebrating the profit they make by denying them.
> that is a worthwhile trade.
Horseshit. "The ends justify the means" is consequentialist philosophy nonsense rooted in outcome bias. Accepting the shooter's actions because one feels society benefits from an unforeseen change that happens after the fact is a lame excuse for condoning murder.
What's the justification for condoning health insurance companies killing people by denying necessary care? If a doctor refused to save a life of his patient, it's malpractice. So if a health insurance company denies a claim and the patient dies, that should be malpractice.
>Also, anyone that thinks insurance company CEOs are literally celebrating the deaths of people denied coverage is delusional.
You dont need to celebrate it. You just reap the benefits of it. They know what they were doing. They know how they were gained more money.
Do you think that evil dictators have a big party each time they kill off some minorities?
How? Elaborate.
Do you think the CEO isn't aware of the practices of UnitedHealth? Do you think he isn't aware of the money that comes in from denying health coverage or simply making it extremely difficult?
He is not some random worker. He is the CEO. He is partly responsible for the methods that the company uses to make its profit.
So do you think he cared about the misery and death of others?
> How? Elaborate.
A dictator rejoicing in the genocide of an ethnicity is specifically happy about their deaths contributing to a perceived long-term goal. A health insurance CEO's long-term goal is making money for the company and it's shareholders, not seeing how many people their company's denial of coverage can kill. That's an unintentional side effect -- yes, one that they should be aware of and considerate about, but killing people is not their goal.
Do I think that he cared about the misery and death of others? Of course. He didn't set out to let anyone suffer and die as a result of his company's decisions. That would be an absurd assumption to make. However, I also think he was so far removed from that reality that it didn't register, and that is not a justified reason for murdering the guy.
“Killing people is not their goal.” Their goal is making money. The way insurers make their money is taking in as much money as possible via premiums and rejecting outflows (claims) as much as possible. This man *knew* every time someone talked about revenue/profit they were talking about lives.
“That was the company’s decisions, [not his].” What company was he in charge of? This was not a lowly middle manager, if there was anyone with the power to steer the company in a better direction it would’ve been this man.
People are woefully naive about just how clued in that guy was to how his company's denial of claims impacted people. He did not have that degree of perception. The dude was not omniscient or omnipotent to the trickled-down effects of his leadership. That makes him an idiot and an asshole, but it doesn't make him deserving of murder.
So I want to be clear about something. This wasn’t the CEO of a sprawling conglomerate that had no idea that the company made helicopters and refrigerators. This guy was the CEO of the *insurance division* of UHC. The whole premise of the business entity he was in charge of was insurance. I refuse to believe that he was so utterly and completely removed from reality that he had no idea that his product was actually killing people. Next you’re gonna try to convince me that the CEO of Intel doesn’t know they make computer chips or that the CEO of Ford doesn’t know they make trucks.
Either he knows what his product is and doesn’t care (I know a few people that don’t care where the money comes from only that it’s coming) or he’s so naive about reality that he, *the CEO of an insurance company*, doesn’t know what *insurance* is. If that is the case, all the more reason to get pissed. His bosses are pissing $10M down the drain, money derived from people’s premiums, on a man who doesn’t know what TF he’s doing.
Regardless of if he had awareness of every minute detail of the company's activities (or just his division) or not:
NOT - DESERVING - OF - MURDER.
I don't care how anyone continues to keep trying to spin it, killing him was not justified. At all.
…but were his clients deserving of murder? It’s an interesting question isn’t it?
Why is that pulling the trigger, shooting the bullet, that’s murder. But when thousands die of cancer, denied claims, etc, we just, on a societal level shrug our shoulders and say “oh that wasn’t murder, that was just business. That’s insurance, we all have our horror stories, anyway…”
I’m not cheering on his death. I’m not demanding more blood for the masses. I’m just wholly apathetic to his death. Frankly I’m insulted that this level of passion is being displayed in defense of “this poor man, gunned down in the street like an animal.” I’m sorry, cry me a river and tell me where is the outrage at Timmy getting his cancer treatment denied “b/c it’s not medically necessary,” or with grandma Betty for losing access to her medication “b/c it’s not medically necessary,” or with how paraplegics are denied their wheelchairs “b/c it’s not medically necessary.”
This country is sick. And there really are rules for those with means vs those without. Otherwise where is the outrage for every other individual that is medically bankrupted for the crime of existence. *crickets* it’s really interesting isn’t it?
I've already said it many times before:
Denying medical coverage is not the same as murder. Murder requires premeditation and intent to kill. Denial of coverage meets neither of those requirements.
> This country is sick. And there really are rules for those with means vs those without. Otherwise where is the outrage for every other individual that is medically bankrupted for the crime of existence. *crickets* it’s really interesting isn’t it?
We should be outraged. Outraged at the industry that gets away with it, outraged at the people that suffer and die at the hands of it, outraged at a government that allows it, and also outraged at people resorting to violence and murder to deliver what they see as comeuppance, and outraged at a society that thinks that's okay.
At the same time, we should still have compassion for people that are denied medication and denied health care coverage, as well as for the family of the CEO that was murdered. No victim in any of these circumstances deserves to die -- the CEO included.
I’m sorry, but this cold, clinical distinction between “murder” and “denying medical coverage” feels like a convenient way to let people—and entire systems—off the hook for killing people without pulling the trigger themselves. I’ve watched someone I loved die while insurance played games with their life, dragging their feet, denying approvals, “reviewing” their case until it was too late. They didn’t need to intend to kill. Their choices—their policies—did the job just fine.
You can argue about definitions all day, but let me tell you, when you’re standing there helpless, knowing someone you care about is dying because they couldn’t afford a treatment some faceless boardroom executive decided was too expensive, it sure as hell feels like murder. The intent might not be personal, but it’s damn sure intentional in the sense that these companies know exactly what they’re doing. They’re putting profits over people, running numbers instead of saving lives. What else would you call that but premeditated harm? But that’s fine right? Cuz it’s not “technically murder.” It’s legal manslaughter. That makes a world of difference obviously. Obviously.
And yeah, you’re right: we should be outraged. But let’s not kid ourselves about who deserves the bulk of that outrage. The industry that denies care. The politicians who prop it up. The society that shrugs it off as normal. I get being upset about violence; no one deserves to lose a loved one, not even a CEO. But where’s that same level of fury for the countless lives lost because someone was “out of network” or because the wrong form wasn’t signed in time? Where’s the compassion for the people left to die because they didn’t have enough money? Where’d you go for the countless preventable cancer deaths? Cuz I’d be surprised if you’re showing as much passion then as you are for this CEO’s death.
The system is rigged, and it’s killing people every single day. So don’t come at me with technicalities about intent or definitions of murder. The result is the same: people are dying who don’t have to. But when someone with means dies “oh, now* it’s a big deal” but only for the CEO’s death. We’re only discussing this b/c he died. Apparently his death matters more than all others b/c where’s their media coverage? if that doesn’t make your blood boil, I don’t know what will.
I'm not trying to let anyone off the hook; just make the distinction between something that is literally murder and something that is not. I'm a stickler for actual definitions of things and not someone that gets wrapped up in letting emotions overrule my logic. IMO, too many folks are conflating the two so they can try and justify the killing of that CEO. If that sounds cold and clinical, so be it. I have compassion for people that suffer and die because of insurance company decisions, and I've personally experienced that as well in my family. Even right now, I'm dealing with my own insurance company denying different medications that my doctor has prescribed to me to help me manage an ongoing, long-term health condition. My doctor believes I need them, but my insurance provider says no. It's frustrating as hell, so believe me -- I get it. But is my blood boiling because of it? Not really, because I don't see what value or logical purpose there is in raging or venting about it. That seems like a waste of energy that could be better spent on more productive ways to change the system.
>A dictator rejoicing in the genocide of an ethnicity is specifically happy about their deaths contributing to a perceived long-term goal. A health insurance CEO's long-term goal is making money for the company and it's shareholders, not seeing how many people their company's denial of coverage can kill. That's an unintentional side effect -- yes, one that they should be aware of and considerate about, but killing people is not their goal.
Its not an unintentional side effect. You cant make money out of thin air. Whether something isn't the goal or not is irrelevant.
Would you care if I killed your mother because I wanted to or because I wanted the money in her purse?
>Do I think that he cared about the misery and death of others? Of course. He didn't set out to let anyone suffer and die as a result of his company's decisions. That would be an absurd assumption to make. However, I also think he was so far removed from that reality that it didn't register, and that is not a justified reason for murdering the guy.
It wouldnt be an absurd assumption to make. He knew what his company was doing and even implemented AI systems that denied 81% of the people their coverage. Do you think he was just blissfully unaware of everything that he is supposed to know as the CEO?
> Whether something isn't the goal or not is irrelevant.
I beg to differ, especially when someone dismisses the fact that killing people is not their goal in order to excuse condoning murder. Using the example you gave, killing my mother because you want to is significantly different than her dying accidentally because you wanted to rob her. And yes, that huge difference would impact how I would react.
> Do you think he was just blissfully unaware of everything that he is supposed to know as the CEO?
Of *everything?* Yes. It's naive to assume that he wouldn't be.
>I beg to differ, especially when someone dismisses the fact that killing people is not their goal in order to excuse condoning murder. Using the example you gave, killing my mother because you want to is significantly different than her dying accidentally because you wanted to rob her. And yes, that huge difference would impact how I would react.
Most people would beg to differ. She wouldnt die accidentally, because the robber shot her and killed her. He had a loaded gun with him, so he was willing to kill her. You dont just accidentaly rob someone and kill them.
>Of *everything?* Yes. It's naive to assume that he wouldn't be.
Right the guy at the top of the company doesnt know how the company operates lmao. Alright dude. He just sees record after record profit and wonders how they do it.
Why do companies need CEO's anyway. Apperantly they know nothing about how their own company operates.
I will leave it at that. Clearly you're part of the small group who thinks otherwise and thats great for you. Keep it that way. But we dont care.
> She wouldnt die accidentally, because the robber shot her and killed her. He had a loaded gun with him, so he was willing to kill her. You dont just accidentaly rob someone and kill them.
That isn't what you implied. In that situation, murdering her would be intentional and premeditated, just like killing her for pleasure would be.
The deaths of patients due to a denial of coverage are neither intentional nor premeditated.
> Why do companies need CEO's anyway. Apperantly they know nothing about how their own company operates.
That's not what I said. I said that he was so far removed from the impacts of his company's decisions on individual claims that the consequences didn't even register, and I stand by that statement.
> Clearly you're part of the small group who thinks otherwise and thats great for you. Keep it that way. But we dont care.
Obviously. I'm happy though not sinking to the depravity of mob mentality that celebrates a murderer and demands more.
>Also, anyone that thinks insurance company CEOs are literally celebrating the deaths of people denied coverage is delusional.
"A death is also a discharge" — Prevent Senior
From your link:
> Prevent Senior doctors had **supposedly** received instructions to reduce the oxygen supply to seriously ill Covid patients who had been in intensive care for more than 10 or 14 days. “**The expression I heard** repeated on numerous occasions was: ‘Deaths free up beds too,’” Morto (lawyer for the whistleblowers) said.
Those are unsubstantiated claims that have not been proven with any evidence, nor was it suggested that those words came directly from an insurance company CEO.
Those were the most recent news I found written in English, [more investigations were done and confirmed the claims](https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2024/02/06/ministerio-publico-entra-com-nova-acao-contra-prevent-senior-por-conduta-na-pandemia-e-pede-r-1-bi-de-indenizacao-na-justica-do-trabalho.ghtml), but I only found news in portuguese about it.
Thank you for that additional link, but I didn't see anything in that story that said the MPT or other government agencies corroborated the claim that Prevent Senior management ordered a decrease in oxygen to patients in order to free up beds.
>Also, anyone that thinks insurance company CEOs are literally celebrating the deaths of people denied coverage is delusional.
They just give the order to deny it to as many people as possible and then celebrate the profits gained from it. I fail to see a meaningful difference.
Show me evidence of a specific example of anytime a health insurance CEO has given an order themselves to deny care and coverage to as many people as possible.
"show me evidence CEOs set the goals for a company and that they specifically said 'go murder some babies'"
Buddy, really? Give me some evidence insurance CEOs think the number of people denied coverage is abhorrent and are incapable of making their company change course. You're the one claiming theyre powerless to change the course of the company they head.
> Buddy, really?
Yes, really. Misquote what I actually said if you feel you need to, but you made the claim that health insurer CEOs directly give the order to deny coverage to as many people as possible, so the logical burden of proof is on you to back up your claim with evidence.
> You're the one claiming theyre powerless to change the course of the company they head.
I never made such a statement.
Ok, here is the justification:
First, your use of the word "murder" does not include all forms of killing people. Here you mean "killing a person as a weapon". Or, to use a metaphor, claiming all knives are weapons. Which is a true but incomplete statement.
However, every weapon is a tool, and every tool is a weapon. So there is also "killing a person as a tool". A knife is a tool.
What distinguishes between a weapon and a tool? They are the same, a knife is a knife... except for intent and philosophy.
We already know via lots and lots and lots of criminal profiling about how many murders are senseless violence, and/or done by mentally ill people, these are weapons.
But not all assassins. They typically use killing as a tool to a means, when pushed to the brink with no other option, and have the inner drive to right their perceived injustice.
So, you are free to classify all killing as murder, and all knives as weapons. But, as you can see by all the support and polls and etc., not everyone has this same philosophy, and quite a few understand the intent behind what happened.
You're right. They celebrate the common people dying about as much as you celebrate a microbe dying. Because that's what we are to them.
Similarly, why should a microbe care when a human dies?
Again, you are just dehumanizing a human being.
Can the CEO be blamed for all of those terrifying cases? Yes, of course.
Is he single handedly responsible for them? No
Is it okay to murder him like we are living in some Wild West? No, there are things called institutional reforms, government inspections and other smart things democracy invented
Violence just cases more violence, the company won’t rethink anything in it's policies after things like that, they will just think that people are freaks
Is there truly no atrocity that makes ending a live a reasonable response? If that is never chosen, doesn't that just allow those who don't have that moral line to do whatever they want?
He had the power to drastically reduce the number of people that die from being denied adequate healthcare in the US. He refused and instead sought to make it worse. I fail to see how he "just held a position" when he actively sought to get *more* people killed through his position
> he actively sought to get *more* people killed through his position
He did no such thing. Trying to maximize profits for his company is ***not*** the same as deliberately trying to get people killed. Show me evidence of the latter being his goal.
>Trying to maximize profits for his company is ***not*** the same as deliberately trying to get people killed. Show me evidence of the latter being his goal
Show me some evidence he tried to get more people coverage. Denying people coverage is the primary way these companies make profit, demanding more profit is demanding more people be denied coverage. You being too simpleminded to understand anything more complicated than dora the explorer doesn't change that.
> Show me some evidence he tried to get more people coverage.
Nobody has made that claim. I don't have the responsibility of proving a claim that I did not make.
However, you have yet to prove your claim that he was deliberately trying to get people killed.
> And I have supported it.
*(confused-John-Travolta.gif)*
You say that, but I'm looking around for evidence and I see nothing.
> You deny it because you think it is ok to kill people through denying them healthcare.
I never said that I agree with denying people healthcare or that I thought it was okay if they died. In fact, I support universal healthcare and think no one should be denied coverage. You wouldn't want me putting words in your mouth and saying things like, "you think murdering people in cold blood by shooting them in the back to advance an agenda is OK," right?
Of course, because only a terrorist sympathizer would think such a thing.
>You say that, but I'm looking around for evidence and I see nothing.
Refusing to read my comments is your issue and shows that no matter what i say nothing will have an effect on you.
I read every single one of your comments. Your thought process is like saying that hospital CEOs that don't switch from paper medical records to digital medical records are killing the trees and deserve to be punished personally for not caring enough about the environmental damage. It's nonsensical.
I've seen a lot of false equivalence comparisons, but this is probably the most ridiculous one.
A health insurance company CEO is not a "slaver." They aren't even remotely close to being similar and you know it.
You're right, they're arguably worse. At least the slaver has the common courtesy of letting you know you're a slave.
These CEOs profit off of the suffering and illness of the common man, then have the audacity to get upset when their actions have consequences.
At this rate, their boots won't have any soles left to lick with you around
Hating the industry is a side effect of hating the choices and policies of the companies in the industry. Do you see another way for those who pay money yet are failed by these companies, to improve their situation?
I'd like to point out specifically the morality of forcing people with poor health and financial dependency to play the minigame of "fight the unjustified appeal with what little energy and time you have, because the alternative is bankruptcy and/or not getting treatment whatsoever".
This minigame is not a happenstance, it's a calculated choice when balancing the interests of this company's customers against the interests of the shareholders. It's a way to optimize profit, and it did not show up by accident. It's a choice that caused a lot of people to lose either their quality of life, or literally just their life.
Is it that unreasonable? If so, what alternative do you propose? It seems that the organization wasn't willing to change out of the goodness of their hearts, or to do right by people. The carrot failed. Is the stick, at that point, not the best alternative? It seems kind of fitting, to use the CEO's mortality to remind a company to respect its customers' mortality.
I'd argue the first was blood was not drawn by the customers, but by the company.
> Do you see another way for those who pay money yet are failed by these companies, to improve their situation?
That's not my problem to solve. Murdering people in cold blood because of anger at the industry or the companies that run it is an unacceptable response for any reasonable, rational person though.
> It seems kind of fitting, to use the CEO's mortality to remind a company to respect its customers' mortality.
Nah, that's psychopathic thinking.
> I'd argue the first blood was not drawn by the customers, but by the company.
That's kind of a twisted way to justify murder.
It would be a reasonable response if something might've changed after that person's death.
Killing Hitler (Godwin's law, yes) would be considered reasonable as he was the ultimate head of the state and there were many people who who were ready to get in charge and revert the atrocious policies
A CEO of a company - even of a big one - is just a CEO. After his death another one will come in and virtually nothing will change, as this is just not the way things work in modern society
Unless, perhaps, the next CEO is forced to take into consideration his explodable head when balancing the interests of his investors against the opposing interests of his millions of customers, who are generally not free to go to another company as health care in the USA is pretty locked down.
I think we would both prefer they the CEO would do this out of the goodness of his heart, or honestly just any shred of empathy, but we are not that lucky. If the carrot of moral goodness (warm fuzzy feelings from doing the right thing) doesn't work, perhaps the stick might support the interests of the many.
Or they just hire guards and buy bullet-proof windows for their car. It just supports the separation of wealthy people from common folk as if we are in some Fallout game with raiders and gangs
Okay, say I agree with you that this is not an effective long-term solution. Do you have any alternative idea or perhaps strategy to protect the interests of patients within power imbalance?
"interests of patients" meaning, mainly, patients being denied necessary medical care by default as it causes X% of cases to drop, and having every dollar not spent on medical care being available to investors either as dividend or as investment money.
> It would be a reasonable response if something might've changed after that person's death.
blue shield recindend the "lol your operation took longer than we want it to, pay for the anesthetics now" policy so fucking fast.
And you know what Andrew Witty [said] (https://youtu.be/ckcDTFcpifU?si=cMo3lRpbC-FtPr3N)? The guy who is basically CEO of this killed CEO?
Basically something like "They try to kill us because we are right, stay strong everyone". The same thing happened to Trump - because it is evil people who think that they are in power to decide who lives and who doesn't. Even if their target is also a murderer
>Killing Hitler (Godwin's law, yes) would be considered reasonable as he was the ultimate head of the state and there were many people who who were ready to get in charge and revert the atrocious policies
Go ahead, who? Many of the people in line to take his position would gladly have continued his policies.
[German resistance to Nazism] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism) on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now it's my turn to ask questions - which good guy will step in after the CEO's death? And for how long will they be doing good deeds?
>[German resistance to Nazism] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism) on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nothing here states
If hitler died then Goring would've most likely taken over, given he was the second in command. I doubt you'll be able to make the claim he'd end the holocaust, the wars or the fascist oppression.
>Now it's my turn to ask questions - which good guy will step in after the CEO's death? And for how long will they be doing good deeds?
You'll find i never made that claim.
Mate you are from Russia. Every day, some of your countrymen are killed every day, just for wearing a uniform well behind the front line. A soldier driving a logistics truck with food to the frontline arguably does less to hurt others than this CEO did. Yet it's completely legal and morally acceptable to murder the truck driver in uniform.
>Violence just cases more violence,
Meaningless statement. Will the company fight back by murdering random citizens?
>the company won’t rethink anything in it's policies after things like that, they will just think that people are freaks
Yes they will. People change their behaviour based on the probability to be harmed because of their behaviour.
Well, people are dying in combat zones because they agree to take the risk - these areas are dangerous, none of the government fully controls it and everyone knows it.
On the other hand, when I go shopping I expect that no one unauthorized will be shooting at someone else in my close proximity. There is this thing called social contract: government has the monopoly on violence, so that people could sleep peacfully
> Will the company fight back by murdering random citizens
No, they won't do anything. And people will start saying stuff like "That was not enough" or "They still don't respect us". And how would we resolve that problem? What are exact conditions to stop random people doing terrorism?
Okay, let's that the problem is magically resolved and this company is "good" now, what stops some other guy from shooting people again after the company rightfully declines compensation for them, but they don't think so themself?
>Well, people are dying in combat zones because they agree to take the risk
1. What about soldiers being drafted? Killing them is still legal and ok, even if not voluntary.
2. Being a shit human being carries the risk of experiencing violence. That's not new. If I insult and degrade your mother in front of you, I should expect to get beaten, and no one would deem it immoral. But if I make your mother die in pain and agony by refusing to give her medication, just for my own profit, then violence is not to be expected?
>Okay, let's that the problem is magically resolved and this company is "good" now, what stops some other guy
Firstly the probability of that happening would be drastically reduced down to being a normal risk of doing business and life in general.
Secondly, the law does not suddenly stop existing. Mangione is tried for murder, as he should be. It can still be morally defensible what he did. A father murdering the rapist of his kid (who somehow escaped prison) is still a murderer and belongs in prison, but at the same time he did nothing wrong morally.
Most Russian soldiers in Ukraine are not doing illegal things. But we can still cheer over their deaths, because what they do might be legal, but morally wrong.
If things can be legal but morally wrong, they can just as well be illegal but morally right.
1. Drafted soldiers are drafted because of their citizenship. I don’t think that it's right, but that's what the rules are and at the very least they are clear
2. That CEO was not just standing next to someone's mother refusing to give her the necessary medicine. Even though this guy was at fault as an executive, killing him won’t resolve the problem at all, as the problem is not just "some 1 bad guy who is a sadist and enjoys to refuse people in need"
Even after the company becomes "good", the precedent is set. People will just keep demanding more and more until there is no company at all, and then the other one comes in which will not be that "good"
For the other things I agree, but again, the rapist situation is a direct personal problem, and Mangione is just a terrorist in my view, same as Unabomber
>1. Drafted soldiers are drafted because of their citizenship.
Completely irrelevant for the argument of morality.
>2. That CEO was not just standing next to someone's mother refusing to give her the necessary medicine.
Why is distance to the one you made suffer a relevant factor? How many meters away from you must I stand and insult your family, that you are not morally allowed to want to slap me? Like 50 meters? If your neighbour poisoned your dog but then moved to another city, would it be immoral of you to drive to his new house to beat him? You see how silly that distance argument is?
>killing him won’t resolve the problem at all,
Punishment usually never solved the problem on it's own. Executing or imprisoning a criminal won't abolish crime completely, but it might give potential criminals pause to reevaluate their next deed.
>Even after the company becomes "good", the precedent is set. People will just keep demanding more and more until there is no company at all, and then the other one comes in which will not be that "good"
I disagree with this theory. The health care system works quite well in other countries, without people murdering each other or creating a situation with millions suffering for profit like in the US. What people demand is fair treatment, it's really odd that you act like that's outrageous and that you think companies could not work ethically. If a company cannot exist ethically, it has no moral right to exist at all.
>Again, you are just dehumanizing a human being.
Hitler was also a human being. Pol Pot also was a human being. The list goes on. Why should we sympathize with those who kill and dehumanize others?
>Is it okay to murder him as if we were living in some Wild West? No, there are things called institutional reforms, government inspections and other smart things democracy invented
You mean the institutes that protect these companies? You know those same companies who can hire a plethora of lawyers and basically stretch out a case until the person sueing cant sustain the case and has to drop it.
>Violence just cases more violence, the company won’t rethink anything in it's policies after things like that, they will just think that people are freaks
Well if they dont, then they shouldnt be surprised when more violence happens.
When companies fuck over people and none of our politicians or systems protect the people, violence is the only solution left.
Should we just watch how these parasitic companies kill our loved ones right infront of our eyes?
Hitler and Pol Pot were dictatorial head of states who practiced unhuman policies, they were the core reason this things happened
A wealthy CEO is just another guy in multi-generational line of capitalists. There are people who are rich, and who strive off other's suffering, yes. But you can't kill them all, and even if you could, the situation would not change
So if the institutes are at fault and don't work properly why are we shooting people?
Analogy with drugs:
How instead of killing the drug dealer, which is of course a bad person and makes money out of people's addictions, we find the place where those drugs are made and shut it down?
If you kill a drug dealer, another one will step in. If you shut down the underground factory, it may reemerge somewhere, but with substantional loss of money for drug trafficers
And by all of that above I'm not saying that we should kill government people, it's that the government should do it's job of helping people
>Hitler and Pol Pot were dictatorial head of states who practiced unhuman policies, they were the core reason this things happened
I am aware. But you keep saying "dehumanizing humans is bad" and I am showing you that clearly its not always bad.
>A wealthy CEO is just another guy in multi-generational line of capitalists. There are people who are rich, and who strive off other's suffering, yes. But you can't kill them all, and even if you could, the situation would not change
So? He is still responsible for his branch of the company. You're simply denying all responsibility. It's like saying that a general of Hitler shouldnt be prosecuted or killed because it was someone higher up who was the real bad guy.
>So if the institutes are at fault and don't work properly why are we shooting people?
Its not just the institutes. It is those companies who pay off the institutes. Its a whole system that is wrong. We are shooting people because people are fed up.
>How instead of killing the drug dealer, which is of course a bad person and makes money out of people's addictions, we find the place where those drugs are made and shut it down?
What if we cant find the place? What if the place were the drugs are is protected by thousands of drug cartels. Should we just let our family members die at this system of drug trade?
>If you kill a drug dealer, another one will step in. If you shut down the underground factory, it may reemerge somewhere, but with substantional loss of money for drug trafficers
If you kill a drug dealer, the other one might take the message and change some of their ways and if he doesnt he will probably face a similar fate at some point.
>And by all of that above I'm not saying that we should kill government people, it's that the government should do it's job of helping people
But the government isnt doing that. They are in the pockets of these big corporations. So what are the common people supposed to do?
You expect us to play nice and fair while these corporations and our politicians play dirty. You expect us to take them down but how? Explain to me how?
> It's like saying that a general of Hitler shouldnt be prosecuted or killed
And who decides that? A random IT guy with bachelor's degree or actual judges whose job is to convict guilty people? Just going out and shooting people is barbaric, I thought that everyone agreed to this
What if the killer confuses the victim with some other person? What if after that they go and shoot their homeroom teacher as they think that this teacher intentionally gave them bad marks, and therefore is evil? What if then someone looks at them disresoectfully? Normal people shouldn't have any power over other people's lifes except some special cases like self defence or directly protecting someone
Is government just a closed bubble consisting of medival aristocrats? Or maybe common people also may end up there? As far as I know you and people downvoting my original comment are mostly not from China or North Korea. Changes can be made, but not by some campus anarchists
>And who decides that? A random IT guy with bachelor's degree or actual judges whose job is to convict guilty people? Just going out and shooting people is barbaric, I thought that everyone agreed to this
A court preferably. But if the court is compromised and on Hitlers side, what is the point of the court? In that case the consequences will come in another way. Shooting and killing random people is barbaric. But I dont think anyone would call a father who kills his daughters rapist barbaric.
>What if the killer confuses the victim with some other person? What if after that they go and shoot their homeroom teacher as they think that this teacher intentionally gave them bad marks, and therefore is evil? What if then someone looks at them disresoectfully? Normal people shouldn't have any power over other people's lifes except some special cases like self defence or directly protecting someone
But he did not of these things. You're coming up with hypotheticals that havent happend.
It is ironic because the police on the other hand mistake the wrong person all the time and the court protects them anyway.
>Is government just a closed bubble consisting of medival aristocrats? Or maybe common people also may end up there? As far as I know you and people downvoting my original comment are mostly not from China or North Korea. Changes can be made, but not by some campus anarchists
You dont need to be a medieval aristocrat. If you give people enough money most of them will bend the knee. The few that dont will be villified and all their efforts will be held back.
I dont think you seem to understand how the real world operates. If the normal systems within our democracy weren't compromised we wouldnt be in a situation were 80% of the wealth is held by 1% who continue to be more and more parasitic. Going as far as to not even give people the healthcare they are paying for.
Wake up.
This CEO guy was not Hitler, nor did he have the court on his side like some shady mastermind
> But I dont think anyone would call a father who kills his daughters rapist barbaric
Well it wouldn't be barbaric, but it's a personal problem, the rapist is directly at fault. And that father will still go to jail after that
The police is being protected simply because it is their job to inflict violence on others, and they may make errors. That doesn't mean that police brutality should be normilized, but still
> If the normal systems within our democracy weren't compromised
Then does that mean that these systems were always compromised? There is always a little group of people which has most of the resources and it can't be changed neither through revolutions nor through coups. But at least in democracies common people start living better and in safety, some of them may even become rich and not be afraid of sudden death
>This CEO guy was not Hitler, nor did he have the court on his side like some shady mastermind
He doesnt have to be a shady mastermind. The mother company and shareholders have enough money and power to bail UnitedHealth out of any case against them. What do you not understand?
>Well it wouldn't be barbaric, but it's a personal problem, the rapist is directly at fault. And that father will still go to jail after that
Right and Luigi is also probably going to jail. The CEO is one of many people involved.
>The police is being protected simply because it is their job to inflict violence on others, and they may make errors. That doesn't mean that police brutality should be normilized, but still
So its okay if its state sponsored violence and if the state sponsored violence makes mistakes. Those human lives they take dont count anymore?
>Then does that mean that these systems were always compromised? There is always a little group of people which has most of the resources and it can't be changed neither through revolutions nor through coups. But at least in democracies common people start living better and in safety, some of them may even become rich and not be afraid of sudden death
Did you miss most revolutions? What do you think the French revolution was about my guy?
> So its okay ... if the state sponsored violence makes mistakes
No it's not, but as I said it's at least understandable. Doctors may also harm people by error
I suggest you to think about not causes of French revolution, but rather what happened after it. Spoiler: Reign of Terror and restavration of monarchy
We got some good things from it too, but considering that we know *how* it happened, shouldn't we learn a lesson out of it
>No it's not, but as I said it's at least understandable. Doctors may also harm people by error
Doctors try to save people. They dont accidentally shoot someone 9 times.
>I suggest you to think about not causes of French revolution, but rather what happened after it. Spoiler: Reign of Terror and restavration of monarchy
We got some good things from it too, but considering that we know *how* it happened, shouldn't we learn a lesson out of it
The French got a lot for it. The consequent rulers were not eagee to fuck over the people. Even now, the French dont take shit. Did you forget the yellow vest protests? They dont play around.
I mean these Rich CEOs are the ones using vast amount of money to lobby and pay off politicians. At some point, these US oligarchs are the ones who control the heads of state. Obama tried and was unable to reform the US healthcare system because these private health care companies just pay off too many politicians.
If you live in America you have witnessed the government justifying its use of violence in multiple recent and current wars. Currently, they are dehumanizing and justifying the mass slaughter of civilians on a daily basis. There are almost weekly mass shootings where innocent children are killed and the prescription is thoughts and prayers. Why exactly would you think the death of one almost universally reviled CEO would be a line too far for Americans?
The government has the monopoly over violence. That doesn't excuse them from dehumanizing others, but I think that everyone agrees that you shouldn't just be able to buy nukes somewhere for personal use, only governments can have that
I agree there shouldn't be extralegal justice system where people just go around killing people, but this concern over how the death of one CEO is someone the collapse of the American justice system and a slide into moral decay is just so fake and disingenuous. There are many many larger concerns in the American legal system and the American psych in general than spending this much time trying to preach to people about how they should care about how the death of CEO rings very hollow.
It's not a collapse of the American justice system, Im just shocked that normal non-marginalized people can be so happy about murder of a man in the centre of NYC
So it’s okay for him and his company to cause mass amounts of death, but when he suffers the consequences of his actions it all “oh won’t anyone think of the poor ceos”
Fuck that.
I would argue that the US political system is almost too far gone for these systemic issues to be resolvable via the political system. And this guy is basically happily allowing mass suffering and probably unnecessary deaths for $$$.
And the US founding fathers made the right to bare arms precisely so the US population could revolt against a tyrannical government. As an out sider looking in it looks like the US is edging closer and closer to this position .
> the US population could revolt against a tyrannical government
But the CEO guy was not tyrannical, nor was he government. When someone does bad things they should be prosecuted by the court, not just shot somewhere on the street
You missing the point. These US oligarchs have power OVER the government. The governments quite literally powerless to change the system because of the amount of money and political power wielded by these ultra rich private citizens. The courts can't do anything because these Ultra rich private citizens control the politicians who write the rules the courts follow. These oligarchs at some point have more political power than the politicians themselves. Shooting this guy is probably more effective than shooting the politician who have been bought and paid for BY these guys. Cause they'll just buy the next politician
>there are things called institutional reforms, government inspections and other smart things democracy invented
But they don't seem to work. Otherwise the CEO would have been in jail with all his cronies
We are giving this guy the exact amount of empathy he gave to all the people he directed his company to kill by denying them healthcare coverage they paid for.
>Again, you are just dehumanizing a human being.
Hitler was also a human being. Pol Pot also was a human being. The list goes on. Why should we sympathize with those who kill and dehumanize others?
>Is it okay to murder him as if we were living in some Wild West? No, there are things called institutional reforms, government inspections and other smart things democracy invented
You mean the institutes that protect these companies? You know those same companies who can hire a plethora of lawyers and basically stretch out a case until the person sueing cant sustain the case and has to drop it.
>Violence just cases more violence, the company won’t rethink anything in it's policies after things like that, they will just think that people are freaks
Well if they dont, then they shouldnt be surprised when more violence happens.
When companies fuck over people and none of our politicians or systems protect the people, violence is the only solution left.
Should we just watch how these parasitic companies kill our loved ones right infront of our eyes?
It's hard to sympathize with someone whose job is to increase the income of the company at the cost of people's lives. Do you think they increased their profits to 22 000 000 000 USD by helping their customers with healthcare?
Disclaimer: I do not condone murder. But I don't feel any sympathy either.
The purpose of buinsses is to gain as much money as possible, and when those buisnesses get into healthcare a lot of bad things start happening, yes
But it's not like this CEO was some middle-eastern dictactor who was responsible for everything bad that happened
The system is to be blamed, but again, you won't fix it by shooting and bombing other people, nothing good will come out of this
>you won't fix it by shooting and bombing other people
I disagree.
Obvious disclaimer: I'm not condoning violence (don't ban me)
But, the people in power are panicking about this, and the public are showing a concerning level of support from their point of view. A handful more copycat incidents and the snowball might become too large to be stopped.
Protest marches and other peaceful protests are easy to ignore. Very few major changes to political systems happened with peaceful protest.
So whilst I'm not advocating violence, I think could be used as an effective method for instigating change than trying to work within the legal confines of America's 'democracy'.
Has Trump become more centrist after his assassination attempt? No, in fact he believes in his ideas even more now, as generally it's bad guys who try to kill the good guys.
Previously he had connection to the people and spoke with them in open, now he is behind a bullet-proof glass and an even bigger army of guards, that's not good at all
That's a very very different situation. The guy who tried to assassinate Trump wasn't trying to do it with a specific political aim. He certainly wasn't trying to make the Republican party more centrist.
It's also worth noting that the healthcare CEO assassination has garnered support from voters across the aisle.
Violence, especially organised and specifically targeted violence, has historically been arguably the most effective way of enacting change. We can discuss the morals of it until the end of time, but it's hard to argue about the efficacy.
After every war there is peace
The French revolution resulted in re-establishment of monarchy
The American revolution succeeded, but this whole post is about how corrupt and bad modern US is
The Russian revolution established USSR, which was a mess and ended pretty peacfully, **capitalism was restored**
The Chinese revolution made people suffer even more, and China became a strong state after passing capitalist-restoring **reforms**
9/11 - an organised and specifically targeted violence did enact change, but not the same as terrorists thought of. People who were targeted by the attack only united because of the danger
For starters, 9/11 is in no way a useful comparison. The New York assassin wanted to try and change the way healthcare is provided in a country. Al-qaeda wanted completely destroy all western civilisation and way of life. One of those is tangible, realistic, and achievable, the other is not.
The examples you have given are about completely overthrowing a government, which is not the issue here.
Violence helped end the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Violence helped end apartheid in South Africa
We are not talking about overthrowing a government here. But enacting a meaningful change in one area the country is run. It has been successful historically, and may continue to be, especially where there is no meaningful democratic way of affecting change.
Exactly, the system is to blame, but guess who keeps the system running? That's right, the CEOs. And the one who got assassinated has increased the denial rate of United Healthcare to 22% if I'm not mistaken (if someone has the numbers of those denial rates before and after he got the position please correct me).
The numbers could increase, but it's not like this guy was responsible for manually rejecting people's requests. And it is people who keep the system running, the CEO was just one of the people
No, he is not responsible for manually rejecting. He is responsible for making sure the total rejection rate is as high as possible. And CEOs are not just one of the people running the system. They are THE people running the system. They are on top of the food chain, they make the calls. You cannot blame the average Joe and Jane . But for sure you can blame the highest of the higher ups.
Sure, empathize with them, but also keep in mind: if they didn't fear the working class and thought they could get away with it they would put us all in labor camps and work us until we die.
The fear of uprisings and the practicality of maintaining a workforce over the long term is the only reason that's not happening.
We are cattle in their eyes. Do you expect cattle to empathize with the butcher?
> Killing people is not the right answer.
those of us who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
The rich and powerful became a bit TOO good at playing out their powercoupons. maybe they should have done it more quietly and in a way that doesnt interfere with peoples lives.
Bro we've already went through this at the start of last century and got USSR as a result. There are better ways to resolve this, terrorism is not cool
Judging by how happy half of the people are about his death, it's pretty easy to conclude that the government they would set up if the revolution happened would 100% be as evil as the soviets. Zero value for individual life.
Are you advocating for the execution of ceo's? Because that 100% inevitably and immediately turns into "kill everyone who is richer than me." And, believe it or not, that doesn't end well for society.
> Because that 100% inevitably and immediately turns into "kill everyone who is richer than me."
citation needed. but im not advocating to kill all ceos :)
> How about sympathizing with a living human?
You mean like all the millions of people who have extra stress because these health insurance companies might deny their claims? The ones who are getting scammed by medical companies that lobby the government to keep getting away with it?
Where's their sympathy? No one gives a shit about them. They can all die, apparently, and no one cares. But one rich person dies and suddenly the self-righteous people are talking about 'enlightened ideas of liberalism'.
This 'liberalism' you are talking about is a giant death machine that kills people en masse, not to mention the environment which future generations will suffer from as a result. I think that's more important than one corrupt CEO (he did insider trading, the kind of crime you get a little slap on the wrist for and walk away with millions of dollars).
It's basically like when a mafia boss gets killed. Sorry, but I don't care. If you want me to care, then be a good person.
It's not that I care about his death, Im more concerned about a mass of people turning into monsters and justifing the search of guilty people by themself.
We already had witch hunts, lynching, pogroms and red guards in socialist China. Maybe it's time to just stop killing each other?
So why UnitedHealthcare CEO didn't sympathise with living humans? Killing people was the right answer for him and looks like he got what he deserved. Young people are intolerant to capitalistic pigs who treat them like shit.
This is just barbaric, we are supposed to have institutions to determine someone's fault, the killing of a CEO is just vigilantism
Only last year we had a pogrom in Russia where people were searching for jewish people in an air turbine. How is that any different from that Luigi guy? I think that both of them are wrong, and both of them think that they are right
I have been trying to point out that applauding this murder ,of an admittedly shitty CEO from an even shittier insurance corporation, is condoning terrorism.
Awarding oneself the right to murder based on the victims, politics, opinions and affiliations in order to make a statement is effectively terrorism.
Once this becomes an almost weekly occurrence, in the same way as mass shootings, then the USA will continue down the path to being a failed state.
It will of course prompt attacks by far right actors such as paramilitary and deranged MAGA on targets from the other side of politics.
Finally. I do not feel alone in here with my rational humanist stance. Thank you. Now for the downvotes and failure to engage.
If this is to condone terrorism, then defending the dead CEO is to condone the greedy, remorseless and frequently deadly practices of insurance providers. You don't get to fence-sit this one.
You took it upon yourself to decide for others what they support, I'm just extending you the same courtesy. Whether you *mean to* or not, you are carrying water for the insurance companies.
No, fuck them and the lousy health system. Also, fuck cold-blooded murderers.
You are telling me that I have to support cold-blooded murder or I am supporting the system. Do you realise how that sounds?
Can I not be a humanist and oppose both or do you think that everything is black and white?
This issue has been the closest I have come to having MAGA type conversations in this sub and it is very disappointing,
>You are telling me that I have to support cold-blooded murder or I am supporting the system. Do you realise how that sounds?
I don't know, this you?
>applauding this murder ,of an admittedly shitty CEO from an even shittier insurance corporation, is condoning terrorism.
You realize how that sounds?
You simply do not get to take the moral high ground and decide for other people what they believe, and then turn right around and whine when the same happens to you.
f my opposition to cold blooded. first degree murder is me undeservedly taking the high ground then what the fuck are you standing on in support of him?
You are applauding a terrorist but see him as some kind of folk hero. You are the one telling me that by not applauding him I am supporting the system. A false equivalence.
How does that work in the real world? It does not and is MAGA in its dumbness.
Gee, did you make that up all by yourself or did you get help from your daddy?
I could not give a rats arse about downvotes and your contribution is worse than non-engagement.
Oh, you're russian, so you miss alot of context:
You have to understand US insurance industry is not something normal. Its more like a mafia extortion scheme with extra steps, one of which is killing people by forcing to pay for "protection"(insurance) and not providing it so the patient dies or gets crippled, and if they sue they got the best lawyers extortion money can get.
> How about sympathizing with a living human?
I'm not a 'young voter' but I agree with the 41% because I *do* sympathize with living people. All the people who had to mourn the death of their loved ones because of the greed of him and people like him. As far as I'm concerned he was a mass murderer and what he got was justice. I spent 8 year taking care of my dying mother and I had to constantly fight with the insurance company. They made possibly one of the most stressful situations someone can deal with even more stressful with their bullshit.
There were many times where if I hadn't fought with them tooth and nail she would have either died or suffered because of their denials. I would *happily* watch the slow, horrible death of every health insurance executive in the world if it saved the life of one person they were going to deny. Just because all life has value doesn't mean it has the same value. If someone's actions is making it so a lot less people are alive than would be otherwise, their value starts going negative.
> If someone's actions is making it so a lot less people are alive than would be otherwise
But that won't happen at all, nothing will change that way
I assume the insurance company which you engaged with was not the same as this CEO's? It's not a problem of just one bad person, the problem is the system. And this system should be changed, not threatened, as it doesn't have a face and doesn't know fear
What won't happen? I didn't say his death would change anything. I said it was justice, but I didn't say it would make anything change. Though I think it changing something one way or another is yet to be seen.
School shooting and mass shooting capital of the world is nothing to brag about in this regard. Not that you are directly responsible for this in the same way our humanist Russian friend is not responsible for the Russian dictatorship and its actions.
So? Don’t judge a person by their nationality. Russia is atrocious, but it’s not anyone’s fault they are Russian. Judge people for what they say, not for where they happened to be born.
>How about sympathizing with a living human?
The fact is, there's a balance between this life and all the lives lost to this CEO's highly predatory policies.
So now he is dead, and everything will surely become better, happily ever after? You can say things like this about **some** bad people, but even if his company were to just magically collapse, would that mean that humanity is saved and healthcare is accessible for everyone?
I agree. I'm not sure I would have been among that 41% if I had been asked. That doesn't mean I don't understand why it happened. I just don't think murder is the solution.
I wouldn't say I sympathise with him. I would say I have pity for him.
But my pity is more for the way his lived his life than the manner of his death. He has my pity that he didn't live a life worthy of remembering or mourning. Pity he didn't leave this world better than he found it.
Because the reality is, you are right. The bar is super low; life is inherently valuable and to lose that, takes effort and work.
He lost it, by leading the life he did and doing the things he did. And for that he has my pity.
But not my sympathy.
"He actually killed a family, a man with kids … I have condolences for the health care CEO. This is a real person, but sometimes drug dealers get shot."
They also said 40% said it was unacceptable, with a margin of error of 3%, and a sample size 1,000 registered voters.
It is theoretically possible that 44% find it acceptable and 37% find it unacceptable, as well as vice versa.
It’s not as clear cut if the margin is below the one for errors.
I wonder what the other 16-22% were, non-responses, invalid, something in between.
What? How would you get that from what I'm saying here.
Murder is pretty universally considered a thing you shouldn't do. So if someone says they're neutral about it that means they've already shifted away from the default stance. Which means this article is somewhat misconstruing the results, and we can glean that the number of people who essentially "don't feel bad" is higher than what the article is stating.
They know this, and choose not to include that detail in a meaningful way, which is telling about the media itself.
You can be indifferent without supporting something or thinking it is a thing you SHOULD do. I'm indifferent about someone doing heroin but that doesn't mean I think people should do heroin. Is this not obvious?
So what does it tell you about the person? You didn't answer my question. Why should I, for example, feel bad?
You're lumping people who are indifferent with people who think something is acceptable in an attempt to... criticize the media for not doing that, and reporting accurate poll results instead?
Am I misunderstanding something here? None of your response makes any sense
You're conflating concepts here. Recreational drugs is a thing someone does to themselves, murder is a thing someone does to another.
In any case, I've never said you should feel bad. I said the data here is being misrepresented by not including this detail.
And yes, I'm "lumping people together" because that's the whole point. Perhaps in simpler terms it should say "a lot of people don't care that this guy got shot, and a lot even support it". This would more accurately depict public sentiment.
I don't really care how you personally feel about anything, nor have I suggested anyone should feel anything either way. I have no idea why how you've come to that conclusion other than through a lack of reading comprehension.
>You're conflating concepts here. Recreational drugs is a thing someone does to themselves, murder is a thing someone does to another.
I NEVER would have thought of that!!
The point was that you can be indifferent about something without SUPPORTING IT. Way to miss the whole point and go off on "murder and drug use are different things morally". No shit. Really?
>In any case, I've never said you should feel bad.
How can you lump people who are indifferent in with people who support something and then say that people shouldn't feel bad? You're hardcore judging them for being indifferent, ffs. It's so incoherent.
>"a lot of people don't care that this guy got shot, and a lot even support it". This would more accurately depict public sentiment.
Seems like that's exactly what the poll said, but you were criticizing the media.
Do you just say things that come to mind without thinking at all?
>I don't really care how you personally feel about anything, nor have I suggested anyone should feel anything either way. I have no idea why or how you've come to that conclusion other than through a lack of reading comprehension.
Hilarious. I'm lumping people who are indifferent in with people who support murder, but I'm not telling you how to feel about it! You just don't understand!
You've lost because there is no debate. There is nothing to win or lose. There isn't even a question of facts. You've lost your sanity and time by rambling off some nonsense that doesn't even apply to the topic at hand, while poorly attempting to make yourself a victim.
Now I am not lost, but I have lost the "debate"?
What was there to win or lose before I lost?
What question of facts? What facts?
Where did I lose my sanity and which part was nonsense that doesn't apply to the topic at hand?
Where did I try to make myself a victim? How? You haven't done anything to me lmao
This is even more incoherent than before. At least you tried to explain your reasoning until I criticized it. Now you're just claiming things and complaining.
If I have lost my sanity it should be super easy to "own me" here, so to speak. You decided to write a comment complaining about me being unreasonable instead of telling me why you think so.
You can be indifferent without supporting something or thinking it is a thing you SHOULD do. I'm indifferent about someone doing heroin but that doesn't mean I think people should do heroin. Is this not obvious?
So what does it tell you about the person? You didn't answer my question. Why should I, for example, feel bad?
Every major “respectable” outlet is owned by guys just like the recently deceased CEO. “ It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
To be honest, a sudden (and likely painless) end wouldn't really be justice for these kinds of people. If there's one group on earth who'd actually deserve to become literal slaves in the American prison industrial system, it would be CEOs - but we all know that's not gonna happen with our two-tiered justice system.
That's what I've been saying. Thompsons death was far more painless than the deaths of those denied coverage by UHC. 3 bullets to the back is mercy compared to what he deserves.
The guy earned 10 million dollars while his company controlled 15% of the US health insurance market, which is in the trillion dollars range. This is a pretty typical compensation for this kind of position. He was a professional CEO that made money for his shareholders by squeezing costs, completely unremarkable.
If I were an American politician right now, in the pocket of medical corporatioy, with a history of pushing for profit medicine, I would say "Thank GOD the plebs are focusing on CEOs and capitalism instead of making ME accountable. We can always find other CEOs."
A CEO is just another amoral pleb with an armored car and a big salary, you will never kill them all.
I would bet a threshold would be reached where their decisions start to factor in the risk to their own lives. Like "it would increase profits by 22.6%, and increase risk of personal retaliation by 3,256%. I think we'll shelve this plan for now."
Don't miss the point.
There is no justice. There is no way to reverse the harm that has already been done. And there is no value in your personal desire for retribution and no benefit in satisfying it. There is only one thing we can do that matters, and that is to prevent further harm.
It is higher. A large number gave neutral answers as well, which is an odd answer. So they likely support it, but weren't comfortable saying that to a pollster. So support for the killing is likely a decent majority.
It's not shocking. However, the corporate owned media is trying to get you to feel that it must be shocking because billionaires are clutching their pearls.
It's really wild to watch the sheer level of wagon circling that is happening within the corporate media surrounding this case. It will only serve to further de-legitimize the media.
first they came for the school children and I said nothing because I wasnt a school child. Then they came for the extremely wealthy CEOs and I freaked the fuck out because his friends own the media and the cops.
Yeah the news/cops/every keeps calling the incident "scary" and I'm like no guys, if someone is targeting billionaire CEOs only like 200 guys in the country should be scared.
I am against the state murdering people, which is what the death penalty is. The state is in a position of power, and shouldn't use that power to end someone's life against their will.
But the people are not in a position of power, they are victims of (in this example) corporations who deny their healthcare. And this particular corporation denied many people healthcare and ultimately kill people. That's corporations killing people with the backing of the state.
In this situation, I consider the powerless people to be acting in self-defence, or possibly driven to violence by the actions of the corporations.
For example, if someone is being raped, most people would support someone who killed their rapist in self-defence. If someone was raped, and then they took revenge on their rapist, this would still be understandable.
If someone was raped, and the rapist made millions of dollars from it, and was basically untouchable, and raped thousands of other people, then very few people would have a problem with an act of revenge, because the initial offense was so brutal, and there was no hope of justice coming any other way.
Hopefully this explains the difference.
Alright, let’s say justice prevailed, and Brian was found guilty in court. Would execution really be an appropriate punishment for his crimes? I doubt most people would agree with that (it seems you wouldn't) or at least it’s not what typically happens in cases like this.
If it’s wrong for the government to execute him, why would it be fair for a private citizen to do so? Just because people are powerless and feel they should act out in some way? That might sound right in an abstract way, but never from the perspective of the person killed.
But that is not what is happening, or analogous to this situation.
The people of the US *are* weak and *are* oppressed, and if they don't act to defend themselves, they *will* be further oppressed. This is not about 'feeling they should act out in some way'.
And you're right, of course, that the person being killed never sees their death as just, but neither did all of Brian's victims. And nor will the victims of his successors, and of the system.
Institutional, legal killings look so different from murder that they are easily missed, but that was Brian's job. Killing people for money. He made choices that killed people, knowingly, for his own profit and power. Thousands of them.
And he and his like will keep killing unless they are prevented. Institutional, impersonal murder requires impersonal self-defence.
If the people are that oppressed, but also 1) didn't turn out to vote in 2010, which allowed Leiberman to be the singular vote to kill the public option, 2) didn't turn out to support Clinton's universal healthcare bill, 3) the economic conditions of the 70s killed the Kennedy plan, and 4) didn't turn out for Truman's plan.
When the country continually fails to do their civic duty can they truly be called oppressed?
If letting tend of thousands of people die just to make a quick buck is something execution wouldn't be appropriate for, what the hell would it be appropriate for? I can't think of a more deserving sentence
Ehh. Death penalty is fraught b/c how shitty the justice system is. Like that case that currently escapes me where Clarence Thomas actually argued that innocence doesn’t matter, just that a process was followed and the person was found guilty via that process (new evidence was found yet he was arguing that it did not matter.)
This *feels* different to many people b/c UHC is operating in a way that is legally sanctioned. My man Brian wasn’t doing anything legally wrong, but his existence as the head of one of the largest insurers is morally reprehensible. One of those, what’s legally ok, but morally wrong (killing innocent people in the name of profit.)
The death penalty should only be applied when there is zero chance of an error at every step in the process.
A perfect system like that is impossible.
Therefore, the death penalty should never be applied.
I hold that the death penalty is for those irredeemable individuals. Sure errors occur and we should minimize those errors. But I’m not for death penalty in cases of armed robbery or drug crimes. I refuse to accept that I need to care for reprehensible individuals. Like Ed Kemper, he’s personally said he’s done all the crimes he’s been accused of. He’s apparently a model prisoner but there’s never been any doubt of his crimes. Or people like Taylor Parker, a woman who was so mentally deranged that she cut the fetus from her pregnant friends body, and tried to pose it as hers. Those individuals are irredeemable and I don’t see why I should share my existence with them.
It’s not about them. Let them sit in jail. Who cares?
It’s about the one innocent person that gets killed for no reason. You should oppose it to save that person’s life.
I agree, then why aren’t the lawmakers put in jail (or killed, as some might suggest) since they created the environment where Brian operated based on what he was taught in business schools?
That’s why I argue that justifying the death penalty for someone who directly murdered another person is far less ambiguous and easy to decide on than in this situation.
I mean, don’t threaten me with a good time.
I personally hate how demure my country is. We claim “2A is to protect liberty, defeat tyranny” yet we also insist violence is not the answer. I wish we were like France. They don’t have a 2A, yet they protest, often violently, and politicians listen.
The public loves to repeat ad nauseam that “the politicians, they don’t care about us.” Well maybe they should be scared. Maybe people shouldn’t be surprised when a singular event of nonviolent protest goes nowhere. Maybe people should looking elsewhere for solutions. I’m not saying killing political opponents is the only way, but if the solution was found by political leaders ignoring peaceful protest, then what’s the next step? More peaceful protests, b/c *this time it’ll be different.*
Are you pro war? Bc your entire society is built on violence and exploitation. And that begs a few questions:
* if violence is how they control us, make us continue a society that exploits everyone and everything they can, until.ruin and collapse, how do you free society?
* What is the recourse to executives whose profit is tied directly to death?
* Do the future generations have the right to retaliate for how many are going to die?
You can be but you could also see extra judicial killings of a criminal the justice system would never punish as more just then having them be free and unpunished.
In a better world / system these companies would be torn apart and their directors put in jail, but that isn't the world we live in.
I’ve thought about this before, and I believe there were more options than just those two. Simply hurting the guy with the same gun could have been just as effective in spreading the message. Kidnapping could have had an even stronger impact, though it would be much harder to carry out.
>Did they think that they were going to sympathize with the CEO of one of the most predatory businesses out there?
68% say it was unacceptable. Young people are not off their parents' insurance.
Exactly, unlike most businesses there’s no reason for for-profit medical insurance to exist. The only thing it does is make care less efficient and more expensive.
And it doesn't just end with person A who gets cancer and still dies of cancer. They can leave behind a huge medical debt that can wreck the lives of their children.
No one SHOULD be obligated, true.
But here we are, in a country that emphasizes individual responsibility holding innocent children responsible for debts their parents accrued while trying to stay alive and collecting on medical procedures they've been paying insurance for and depending on a massive trillion-dollar industry to cover.
If I get sick when I'm 60, I will have paid well over $300k in premiums alone and I fully do not expect to be even partially covered. My wife and I have had conversations and, since we live in a filial responsibility state we will not pursue treatment unless we're on Medicare so we don't destroy our children's lives. It's broken at every level from the Doctors office to the medical insurance to the elected officials that are bought and paid for to pass laws like filial responsibility that weaponizes a legal system against the people.
This is why people are so mad. It affects every strata of American citizenship outside of the super-super-wealthy.
No, I mean legally speaking you aren’t obligated to pay the debt of dead people. The estate of a dead person can be sued but you aren’t obligated to pay your parent’s debt.
> Thus in North Dakota, as in most filial responsibility states, the courts will permit a nursing home, as a provider of necessaries to the parent, to sue the children to collect the parent’s unpaid bills. Liability under this curious form of “support” continues for debts incurred by the parent during life, even after the parent is deceased and thus no longer in need of support.
There is no direct law that states that a child should be obligated to pay a medical debt, sure, but there are absolutely laws that state they will (as you said) go after the estate and if there is no estate to go after... THEN claim direct financial recuperation of debts from the children.
The question asked was:
>Do you think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO are acceptable or unacceptable?
There are a few problems with this question.
First of all, they use the word "killer." While it is accurate, it's a word that provokes an emotional response from people and so should generally be avoided in a survey question if you are looking for accurate results.
The question also asks about the actions of the killer and not about the incident itself. This means that people trying to answer honestly might think "well I have no problem with him killing the CEO, but think he should have turned himself in after shooting the CEO, so I can't say I agree with his actions."
They also frame it as either acceptable or unacceptable prompting people to think about it as a dichotomy. This can have people who are unsure thinking that if you don't find it completely unacceptable, then you find it acceptable, leading to the issue you mentioned.
People are killed every single day in every single state. There are about 50 specific individuals that, if killed, would result in a better, more prosperous future for nearly all of the country. There is nothing surprising about this.
Sorry but not sympathising with the death CEO and finding his murder acceptable aren't the same thing.
I personally don't sympathise with him at all but at the same time I don't think killing anyone you don't like in the street is acceptable either.
“Acceptable”? We accept that kids are killed in schools. We might not like either. But what are you suppose to do, not accept reality?
Maybe I’m just being overly literal on the wording. I feel like from sentiment online more than 41% of people polled would be in support of his death. Maybe the sentiment online is more from older people?
It's a survey among young voters, so the part of the youth demographic who doesn't vote anymore is kinda excluded de facto. And among the rest, you have to take into account all the persons with a conflicted opinion about the kiling (for whatever reasons ranging from "killing is still bad, tho" to "yeah, it has to be done but maybe it was not the right move tbh") and also all the Muskies, alt-right mind and associated personalities (who never had and never will be denied by their healthcare and have a power-fantasy about the CEO commercial practices)
If the poll was "Did the UnitedHealth CEO deserve to die" I bet that number would be a LOT higher.
It's one thing to admit support of a murder that happened, and another to say that he wasn't worthy of living.
Really I'm just indifferent. People die every day, and this dude literally sentences people to death with his indifference multiple times a day.
It's just an obvious consequence and I'm surprised it took this long to happen. Just like being a gangbanger will get you killed and I don't care when I hear about them dying either.
Until these people face actual consequences from the government for their actions they won't get a single bit of sympathy from me.
They have essentially bribed/corrupted the system into allowing them to commit mass murder legally by refusing to provide a service their customers pay for.
They were using an AI with an error rate of 90%. That's downright criminal.
If the media/politicians want us to care about these people, they need to be held responsible for their actions
I'm shocked it's not higher. UH is ghoulish. People died as a direct result of this man's decisions, and he's protected from any and all repercussions by rich regulators.
By systematically profiteering off of the denial of healthcare, suffering and deaths of millions(?) of people, I reckon he is up there with the worst behaved individuals in all of recorded human history. You may as well have a poll about the acceptability of tyrannicide.
The suffering is definitely of millions. You can't really prove deaths, but I would guess that if someone had cancer, and then the health insurance company was like "lol we don't care, here's a bill for thousands of dollars, good luck paying it", that probably contributes to many people dying.
It's a bit like bullying someone to suicide, you can't prove it was the bullying but everyone knows it was probably the bullying.
I wonder how big the overlap between people who watched _Purge_ movies and genuinely thought that it would be a great idea, and those who are horrified by all the cheering and memeing about this murder.
"Acceptable" is the way I'd describe it. It doesn't matter if I support it or not, if their business practices will stay this way, statistically, some people will snap and choose violence, simply because the problem is real and no non-violent solution seem to work. Remember, those who make a peaceful change impossible merely warrant a violent one inevitable.
Exactly, there's no non-violent way to resolve this. My government has consistently shown callousness towards those affected by the healthcare system. Voting hasn't helped, organizing hasn't helped, petitioning hasn't helped. Nothing has made the healthcare system better and attempts to do so have always failed. What else are the people supposed to do?
The rich and politicians need to be reminded that non-violent protests are the alternative to war and violence.
The reason non-violent protests worked *so well* in the decades that followed WWII was because politicians were scared of war. The Empires of Europe allowed a bunch of countries to become independent without war, african americans got rights, the draft was ended in the States, etc and all through non-violent protests. Because the politicians/rich were SCARED OF VIOLENCE.
Then they put in a bunch of history books, "look how well non violence works! We have grown as a species and no longer require violence to get change!" while completely leaving out the part about how WWII (amd WWI) scared politicians into acting on non-violent protests. how convenient.
Now, with non-violent protests having not worked in decades and the brainwashing of the above deceitfully taught history lessons complete, the rich/politicians cry foul at violence and say "this isn't what we taught you works in the history books WE PUBLISHED!" all while ignoring and laughing at protests that have no threat of violence backing them.
What's left out is the violent undercurrent of otherwise peaceful movements. This created a "either you listen to the moderates or you get the radicals" and with the threat of right and left wing extremism existing at the same time made liberal governments more willing to work with the moderates.
People don't seem to get this and are shocked at how people without options result to violence. The US political system is an oligarchy at this point with corporations and the rich openly controlling politicians and writing policies. The system is absolutely rigged against everyone from the poor to the upper-middle class.
I'll be surprised if the number continues to rise, but it's possible.
I suspect that once the media finds an angle that will stick, they'll be able to convince some people that a guy being murdered on the street in broad daylight is a bad thing.
41% also doesn't include the people who are neutral, which in this case is more inclined towards supporting than towards not since I'd imagine quite a few of them are in the "it's not good but it's understandable" camp.
It's not just that people don't have options - it's that these corporate leaders are running a highly immoral enterprise that is only legal because it has the backing of the government.
What they do to earn their millions of dollars is abhorrent, like crime bosses. And sometimes people get mad at crime bosses and they meet a bad end, and no one cries for them, because they run a deeply immoral enterprise that causes suffering.
Oh so this violent one resolves it for us? Thank goodness, I’ve been dreading going to the doctor tomorrow. But it sounds as if I have nothing to worry about /s
Yeah, it never works. Protests didn't help in Russia, in Belarus, in Hong Kong, in France, because rich government bastards have too much control over everything. Until their loyal dogs fron police and army wouldn't start turning on them, nothing will change
I'm a pacifist. I don't support violence at any level (preemptively: yes I consider the CEO a murderer inflicting violence on others as well), and it's been scary seeing how the public has reacted to this, but what's even scarier is how the rich have reacted. The coverage and constant gaslighting by corporate media, the speed of the police in their investigation, and the speed and aggression of the justice system in pursuing high level charges. It's an insane injustice.
People really misunderestimate just how bad of a president Bush was. Stole from social security to fund unnecessary tax cuts and two ruinous wars that made no geopolitical sense. Sure, compared to the tinpot dictator we’re dealing with now he seems almost quaint. But when folks were clamoring for Bush to endorse Kamala I rolled my eyes so hard that they almost fell out of my head.
People need to be reminded that Trump was calling for letting cops basically commit the purge not that long ago during his campaign. I'm wondering what he expected.
For posterity, he [absolutely the hell did](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/29/trump-violent-day-policing-crime-00181619). And now he's giving speeches like he's flabbergasted that some people are as ok with using violence as he was ok with school shootings, telling people to ["get over it"](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-tells-supporters-get-iowa-school-shooting-move-forward-rcna132610).
A large majority of people polled fall into the latter category. Support for Luigi is only highest in the young demo, but even they are split ~40/20/40.
It only gets worse from there.
I'm neutral in that I understand his motive, but I don't think anything good will come from it. Saying the system doesn't work when swo many don't vote is crazy to me.
Anyone in America tries that today, they're gonna end up worse than Емельян Иванович Пугачёв
A civil war in America ***that started today*** wouldn't be joined by the mewling left. It would be the 4chan rebellion, incel assholes with right-wing ideology falsely tagged as "libertarian" looking to tear down the system and replace it with something far worse.
We already elected people to do exactly that.
> Remember, those who make a peaceful change impossible merely warrant a violent one inevitable.
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
One example of peaceful change would be to create a non-profit health insurance co-op. Has anyone bothered trying to do that or is everyone just waiting for someone else to take the lead?
The issue is how the entire helathcare system is made, hospitals charge an insane rate initially, like a bag of IV fluids will be priced at 1k USD. The insurance companies then negotiate down the price, and the bigger you are the more you can negotiate the prices down. This needs to be done with every single hospital/hospital-group individually. Meaning that just starting costs for the co-op will be at least in the direction of hundreds of millions. Likely billions.
Additionally, there is a bit too loose of regulations on why an insurer can refuse to send their customers to a hospital. Which means big insurance companies can easily threaten hospitals that if they don't keep their prices significantly higher for the co-op, they will remove the hospital from their network. Because hospitals are businesses, they want to keep the insurance business, as well as in order to keep their investors happy hospitals needs to push prices up as much as they can.
So to successfully fight this industry, the interests of investors in both insurers and hoslitals, you would likely also need decades of lawsuits against hospitals for monopoly behavior, discrimination etc.
Tldr: You could do this with a few billion to spare, people willing to become customers and knowingly comitt to having insane fees to cover 10x the real cost treatments/another few billion to cover 90% of what's overcharged. In addition to nedding to establish a giant organization with thousands of lawyers and an army of negotiators sent out to hospitals.
The most shocking thing me is that we haven’t already had multiple copycats.
People are already pushed to the edge. They keep being pushed a little bit more every few months. If tariffs really do raise prices by 25-35% I think you’re going to start seeing a lot of business leaders getting Luigi’ed in the back of the head.
If you aren't as goodlooking, have an amazingly interesting digital footprint and have tons of friends to give glowing reviews then following Luigi would be an incredibly daunting ask
Bystander effect. Let someone else go first
I would say the real issue is tracking someone down. It takes time to find and track someone to learn the best time to get them and I'd be willing to bet that the FBI is watching for that now.
Does not really matter for people with terminal illnesses. A country full of people with guns and lots of people with untreated mental or bodily illnesses, who might be dying because Health "Care" won't pay.
Breaking Bad was about such a person becoming a drug lord to finance his treatment. Walter White could just as well have become a serial-CEO-killer. Would also be an interesting TV series, akin to Dexter.
It was not because he couldn't finance his treatment. He absolutely had options to finance it, including a billionaire benefactor. He did it because of his hubris.
I was thinking maybe people are only just learning about ghost guns, and it takes a while to acquire. Not something most people have lying about. And maybe copycats will be planning even more thoroughly so may be a bit of a wait before they crop up.
What? Homemade guns have existed forever. It's far from a new concept. But also, there are plenty of "regular" firearms available to most anyone with enough determination.
Probably the reality is that most people at the point of committing violence lack the macroeconomic and political understanding to choose and pursue a target. Most people at that point are focused on their personal lives and what are likely trivial grievances.
Most shooters are just not at all clever people and often quite mentally deranged. Looks at the manifesto written by the 15 year old at the Wisconsin shooting. Sure, she was only 15, but it's barely legible and not remotely cohesive. Just a pile of completely insane ramblings. I skimmed it and just felt sad for her family and the victims. She clearly was not particularly bright, and she never should have had access to weapons of any kind. Most people who carry these massacred out don't have the ability to 3d print anything at all, let alone a functional gun.
Plus the challenges of tracking a specific victim, planning an effective escape route from the most densely populated city in the US, and entry plan where you almost never show your face, procuring fake IDs, etc. Yes, it's almost no surprise someone did it, but the level of cunning and meticulousness required to anticipate those details would evade most killers.
People love to talk, but to put their life on the line and try to get away with it is unheard of for good reason. That being said, perhaps business leaders will be targeted by the sort of folks who choose suicide by cop. But we won't see people like Luigi, who think to try and get away with it, probably for years to come.
Because the system has disenfranchised everyone into thinking change is impossible. People aren’t willing to throw away their lives just so we can forget about them in 3 months
That was a flippant remark on a phone call in a moment of frustration and the words ‘you’re next’ don’t necessarily indicate her own intention to do it.
Things were looking good with occupy wall street, then we got buried in IDPol. IDPol is starting to run its course and we are getting back to the real issues, that are even worse 10 years later. I wonder was new thing the elites will try to bury social change under? I hope it's a new space race.
American politicians and the American corporate media apparatus have spent over a decade desensitizing the public after mass shooting when they tell us "This is just how it is in America - people will be needlessly murdered and you just need to live with it. But you can buy a gun!"
You can't expect the same public you've been conditioning to shrug off the murder of children to show remorse when a guy that necessarily makes his money off of the pain and suffering of the citizenry dies.
Right? Maybe CEO's should wear those armor plated backpacks they sell for kids to protect them during school shootings. This is the "New Normal" as they like to say.
Have you talked to literally anyone about how they feel about their health insurance? The only shocking thing g about this is that it didn’t happen sooner.
I'm not young, I'm not shocked, and I feel no sympathy for this guy. Like don't get me wrong. I'm a pretty rabid capitalist. [But even I know you can't kill your clients and then think no one is going to get the idea in their head that maybe they should kill you back.](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.e03f4215db5dc2d62a35f69e70c8f0c0?rik=kWhvrpECiUaYXg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.quickmeme.com%2fimg%2f80%2f80b89927fdcc01fbee10e7666205e28d1a84c01112747b680bb717698adc3c8f.jpg&ehk=7H3yT%2bGnuZ%2bNBwu6znnBIth0I09QpVkI%2fjVAQzqDBC8%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0) Many of these companies have forgotten that capitalism is NOT about profit at any cost. Its about profit from innovation and growth controlled by market forces. As it turns out bullets are a market force too, one need only look to Jim Fisk, or Sidney Reso. And while I don't believe that extrajudicial killing is right, nor should it be condoned, I do believe that it is a natural consequence of long-standing injustices going unanswered. If you push people for to long and too hard they will push back. I would be unsurprised, and frankly unsympathetic to those on the recieving end of a significant increase in pushback in the future.
I’m not sure why it’s at the bottom since I’d consider it fairly important information, but:
>The survey was conducted Dec. 11-13 among 1,000 registered voters. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.
By registered to vote they mean simply that one needs to register in order to vote. Not a complicated process, it does not involve declaring a party affiliation, its just filling out a form. You cannot vote if you're not registered to vote, just as you shouldn't drive if you don't have a driver's license. Not the best analogy as you have to get pulled over to grt caught driving without a license, whereas if you vote without being on the voter rolls, you will 100% be noticed.
>You cannot vote if you're not registered to vote, just as you shouldn't drive if you don't have a driver's license.
This is absolutely insane to me as someone not from the US. The idea I would need to take some kind of action to make sure I'm allowed to exercise *the most fundamental right* I have is utterly wild.
It's asinine because of Americans' disdain for any sort of national register and/or ID system
Here I only need to fiddle with registration if I'm voting outside of my district, otherwise it's just a trip to the booth with my ID
Cool, cool, cool. Anyway, you say it's easy. You know what's easier? Not having to register. You know what doesn't happen here? Voter purges. I don't know why you decided to be so - ahem - indignant over the fact I prefer this superior system.
Do you have some kind of problem with Dec 11-13? That's pretty recent.
Did something happen more recently that would have changed the poll result? It would be a shame to have to throw away a poll with such a healthy sample size and error margin.
If that information was missing that would be a big deal because it is important. It's fine if methodology discussion is at the bottom / end of the article.
With proper statistical methods, you can get representative sample out of 1000 people polled.
Including sample size and margin of error is a standard feature of many poll reports, and is usually done at the bottom, in similar fashion.
I think that, if it was anything different from a very typical information statement, it would be worth having further up but that is a very typical number of people and very typical margin of error for a survey.
Only 41%? I expected a higher number, that's shockingly low for how shitty the US healthcare system is and how many have had huge life impacting negative experiences within their social circles caused by healthcare insurance companies.
What's more shocking is that Reddit again seems to be in a bubble.
This is the data. You can see the negative sentiment is pretty overwhelming. I would have at least expected more neutral based on the sentiment on Reddit.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/december-2024-national-poll-young-voters-diverge-from-majority-on-crypto-tiktok-and-ceo-assassination/
And the reputation of the pollers:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/emerson-college-polling-bias-and-credibility/
The reputation of the pollers isn’t that bad at all. Plus the 41% number is accurate for the 18-29 age group. For older groups yes it’s negatively overwhelming, but the post was titled young voters.
Negative overwhelmingly but 10% of the population openly supports Luigi up through the oldest age bracket. That’s what people talk about with the Jury Nullification stuff. If 10% of the Jury ends up as one of those open support people it’s hung.
My wife had an interesting point
Can you try someone for terrorism, if the ‘terrorist act’ in question garners a lot of support amongst the local population?
Terrorism is usually committed by populists with support from at least some of the population.
Did you not think ISIS had support in Iraq, or the IRA had support in Ireland? Who are they getting to join their ranks if the whole public is against them?
Terrorism has always been defined by the governments that were the target. But as to your wife’s observation, no, I don’t think you can.
I’m sure they would label Bonnie and Clyde terrorists. Or Robin Hood. Doesn’t make it so.
[They charged a school shooter with terrorism.](https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/us/michigan-deadly-shooting-terrorism-charge/index.html)
The issue is "domestic terrorism" isnt a federal crime and not every state has a stand along offense of "terrorism."
That’s good. I hope it sticks. For now, though, that almost feels like the exception that proves the rule. I maintain that the system over responds when wealth is attacked.
Maybe that’s a more accurate way to put what I said originally.
Terrorism has always been defined as an act of violence with a political motive. The government doesn’t have to be the target. So someone using a bomb to kill thousands of people, because he felt like doing it randomly is not terrorism, but little Timmy hitting a police officer on the head with the motive of defunding the police is terrorism
> Terrorism has always been defined as an act of violence with a political motive. The government doesn’t have to be the target.
I didn’t say government was the target. I said wealth. There is strong overlap between wealth and government, but it’s a distinction worth making. The recent school shooting is a perfect example of this. Her actions were most definitely politically motivated, at least based upon what I have read, yet I have seen no one label her as a terrorist. This is true of almost every mass shooting where the political motivations are known. It is treated as a tragedy, a mental health issue, but never terrorism.
Meanwhile, a single CEO gets killed, and…
The difference is who the target is. The victims of mass shootings are almost never wealthy, or the children of wealth. Therefore: not terrorism.
If the terrorist act gather enough local support, it is called a resistance act.
(That's not a judgement on the current example, just the general rule throughout History)
>Can you try someone for terrorism, if the ‘terrorist act’ in question garners a lot of support amongst the local population?
Under 20% think it was acceptable.
I'd say you can try anyone for a crime, popular support or no. In some ways, that's what democracies do. If someone lives in a town full of bigots, are they immune from prosecution for hate crimes?
Now, what the jury will decide, that might have a lot to do with the popular opinion, and at that point, if his peers decide he shouldn't be punished, then that's that.
“Law enforcement has not released a motive, if one is known.” Hey, The Hill, I think that the motive was made clear by the suspect. Do we need to wait for law enforcement to verify facts for them to become valid? Because acting as if that’s the case kind of demonstrates part of the overarching problem here, The Hill. MSM in America is like the cop who asks what you were wearing after your SA.
How many times have the media dragged the victim's name through the mud every time the police shoot someone during a no-knock raid on the wrong address? But this turd who's killed more people than a Mexican druglord is get thing the 'dead little while girl' treatment? Man, fuck the media, fuck the oligarchy, and fuck these greedy little CEO's who value money more than the lives of their own customers. The world is a better place without the lot of them.
I wonder what percentage of shareholders found denying lifesaving care in order to drive up profits acceptable? I would be very surprised if it was any less than 90%
I'm equally as surprised that only 41% of young voters found killing antagonistic CEOs acceptable... Maybe it's so low due to the propaganda on tiktok suggesting we idolise the rich and famous
couldn't be that much of a shock. Why else was the question even being asked?
This is low quality trash for this sub. The article is part of the very obvious effort at class suppression and veritable jongoism going on around this issue, and is part of a longer-term effort at obfuscating widescale and wholesale disinvestment of capital from the public sphere
Imagine if instead of asking the respondents to endorse cold-blooded murder the poll asked if people merely understand the killer's motivation. Those results would be even more 'shocking', I'm sure.
What’s the shock? The guy is the scum of the earth. Made enough money for 5 generations of his family but needs more. And he got it by taking advantage of sick, old, and poor folks. He embodied Everything that’s wrong with the world
When someone acts horrendously, and the government is shirking its responsibility to the people by protecting businesses, what other choices do people have?
It's happened time and again in history. Power and wealth gets concentrated, and then everyone else, with nothing left to lose, decides to take it back. And it's not pretty when that happens.
CEOs want protection? Set the tax rates back to what they were in the 1950s. Use that for universal healthcare and other benefits.
Only 41?
Let's not be bashful. I want to say the under 50 crowd is probably at like 70% acceptance of this as okay. (This figure is based entirely off of vibes.)
Don't celebrate the death of a suit at the top of the healthcare chain, protest the broken system that allows this abhorrent situation, he was just a pawn. 41% is a lot of people who could be challenging the system, that's 41% of voters.
Acceptable? Why? To what end did this guy murdering another person somehow change the landscape for the insurance companies? Did we think this is going to do anything that warrants applause?
This guy who worked to get into a position where as an established member of the elite, may have been able - with a lifetime of effort, mind you - was in position to actually work towards actual social change. And we celebrate this murder? Such fools! The lot of you
Absolutely mad that people have sunk this low to celebrate the murder of an innocent man. I bet a lot of the people celebrating, were clutching their pearls over J6 or Kyle Rittenhouse tho.
Cool. Half of the US thinks gays are morally bancrupt for their lifestyle, so i gets its open season now too, huh? Since apparently all you need is a way to rationalise it for yourself and off you go
Your argument is perceived moral shortcomings of the victim rationalise violence, therefore yes, rednecks thinking gays or trans individuals are morally bancrupt and a threat to children, eould subsequently rationalise open season on the lgbtq. Throw laws out the window, everybody can murder whomever they want under some bs contrived raux moralistic reasoning. Thats your argument.
Idk man, call me crazy, but maybe just maybe not voting for the politicians who are for sustaining the status quo at every turn might, you know, errode the status quo.
But hey, violent revolution is always successful, its always the answer and it most certainly never led to an even worse situation.
All politicians are for sustaining the status quo. Both sides benefit from corporate donors and none of them want change that will actually help Americans
Except the two choices are the red guys who won't provide national health care, or the blue guys who won't provide national health care.
Both parties are effectively controlled by a small group of obscenely rich donors, and any attempt through fair democratic process to provide a progressive candidate (see Bernie) is effectively stamped out by donor money.
There is no effective democratic way for Americans to effectively change this, as they don't have a functioning democratic system.
>maybe just maybe not voting for the politicians who are for sustaining the status quo
Your options are:
* status quo, raindow flavour
* status quo, redneck flavour
When was the last time the US was ruled by anything not from the 2 parties?
And when you get progressives like Bernie, AOC or even Obama with his initial Obamacare, dems are punished for it "socialism = BAAAAAD" or of course "grandma on a death pannel".
So lets just not absolve the citizens of the land of personal responsibility, of their personal responsibility in the electoral process.
Oh yeah, that's cool. And how is taking the moral high ground working out for you and everybody else getting absolutely rorted by private healthcare?
*Spoiler*( not great).
That's why we're seeing little sympathy for this guy. People are at the end of their tether, and you're a sucker if you think a nation of easily manipulated morons are about to vote for politicians who will do anything other than maintain the status quo.
The CEO is one member of a machinery thats in place based on electoral and legislative processes. Yall dont like the outcome of the electoral and legislative process, so youre celebrating violence....
Just like Republicans celebrated violence last time they didnt agree with the electoral process.
How is it mad? While I don't wish to take a side on whether it's fair or not, is it really that hard to understand this kind of resentment in modern society?
Have you ever had an underlying health issue? Or had friends or family in such a situation? Just put yourself in those shoes for a moment. Imagine big pharma tells you, you can't get your medication anymore because profit margins need to go up.
This CEO, this company even, would likely still earn plenty profits if they were treating people decently. But they picked profits over decency.
At least in Europe a lot of our countries governments work to prevent this, but even here we have plenty similar issues. But elsewhere? Particular capitalist America that creates most of our medicine? Not really that lucky.
It's always sad when random people end up dying because of the fault of others. But don't pretend the resentment isn't understandable.
If they hate their shitty capitalist health care system this much, maybe, and hear me out because this a wild idea, maybe they should, you know, stop voting for the politicians keeping the status quo afloat. Crazy, i know.
>But don't pretend the resentment isn't understandable.
I resent a lot of people, a lot of groups. You wont see me just shoot up a random dude because for the first time in my silver spoon life a minor issue didnt go exactly my way.
So yes, fuck that and all the people glazing this bum for murder. Hope none of yall ever give some other crash out a reason to resent you and make your families experience what thompson's family is experiencing right now.
I don't really disagree with you.
But you clearly haven't had medical issues before either. Never experienced the fear or frustration getting your medication taken away or downgraded to something vastly inferior. And I genuinely hope you'll never experience that.
I said the resentment is understandable. Not that what's happened is alright.
I get the resentment, but again, if the fear and struggle with the health care system were this prevalent and this important issue in the US, americans wouldnt vote against a socialised system every chance they get.
Cant vote for the CEO, then be upset when the CEO does what CEOs do.
The US simply doesn't have a different party or group of people to vote for. Sanders, who was as close as it's got, mentioned he was a democratic socialist and the entire country shook to its core that a damn commie could get so far in politics and the DNC rigged his loss. Since then, from the healthcare side of things, it has been status quo against status quo. They're not voting against it because it's never up for election.
>Sanders, who was as close as it's got, mentioned he was a democratic socialist and the entire country shook to its core that a damn commie could get so far in politics
Right... and you think an entire party with his position would magically win majorities?
Even for the House, a lot of the progressives got voted out. The US simply is not in favor of this form of socialised health care system, thats the truth. As ive said in Europe it was a gradual process as well that was sped up by the widespread destruction and poverty of WW I and II.
Tell us how else laws are being created in your country, without referencing any body, institution or individuls who have been elected. Ill gladly wait for that.
Ah thats why he was locked up... oh wait. He might have been corrupt, he might have been a fraud, sure, but some crash out acting as a wannabe vigilante, playing judge, jury and executioner is beyond crazy, that people have to gaul to celebrate that.
Yeah totally mad, it's almost like some kind of massive underlying mass resentment across all political spectrums is shaping the popular sentiment about the person most representative of that public discontent 🤔
Take the CEO of a Health Insurance company out of the equation and look at our country. The country watched a video where a cop slowly strangled a man to death while threatening bystanders who tried to convince him to stop and render aid and at least 40% of people think that cop was justified in his actions. Likewise, we saw a 17 year old take an AR across state lines to a protest, instigate a fight, and kill two people after getting a bottle of pop thrown at him, and at least 40% of people in this country think his shooting was justified. Supporting murder when it aligns with a person's political, economic, religious, and personal beliefs isn't a new phenomenon in the US or humanity in general. Now add back in it's about the murder of an health insurance CEO whos company denies 1/3 of all claims and see we are talking about a voting block that's either saw their parents nearly bankrupted by medical expenses or is experiencing the nightmare known as US health insurance at the age of 26, and you can understand why 40% of them support the murder.
The poll went to on to find that another 58% find it unacceptable, but understandable, citing greed in the health insurance industry as the reason.
(This is satire, not part of the article.)
??? I’m supposed to be twisted up that a guy got plugged?? When that guy is the HEAD OF THE COMPANY THAT ENSURES 186 of my countrymen *DIE* every single day?
I'm only shocked that they're reporting such a low number. It's not just the young voters, either. Pretty much everyone in America has been fucked over by health insurance companies, and the only ones actively upset over the death of Mr Thompson appear to be some serious bootlickers and brown-nosers.
The CEO, and all the shareholders, clearly find it acceptable that any of those young voters die if they cant afford to pay for care they decide not to cover.
Is this world news and politics / major events worthy?
It is internal / domestic US news, and young US voters make up less than 1% of the entire human population.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
To an extent, I think so, maybe it would be better if the poll was done on other countries as well, [because medical companies profiting from people's deaths is not exclusive to the US](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/sep/29/brazil-prevent-senior-hospital-chain-covid-accusations).
The fluid ethics of the western liberal.
"Gun violence is bad, unless we're the ones doing it."
"Believe all women, unless that woman is accusing our guy."
"Black lives matter, unless they voted for Trump."
You guys are damn hypocrites, hum?
Why killing one is ok but not killing other?
Why being a punisher for one is ok but being punisher for others is not ok?
What is stopping you from getting your guns and simply firing and killing thieves, robbers, rapists, pedophiles, drug traffickers and such? Why send them to prison? Go on, I'm waiting for the hypocrite answers.
Also, trying to see if I have managed to get the minimum words necessary for my post to not be deleted lol
These are the same young voters that went to school every day with the reality that there could be a school shooting. Like it or not a certain level of violence has become acceptable in America. Why should targeted gun violence be reserved for the poor and school children when C suite level ass hats can make sprawling decisions that essentially disenfranchise the same groups? Sounds like 41% of young voters feel CEOs should be treated like everyone else in society. If they feel threatened by this revelation perhaps they should use their free speech money to push for things like universal healthcare that would improve the quality of life for many. Or even just pushing for gun law reform. Perhaps we would have less shootings if one of the two major political parties didn't have a gun fetish that they like to show off to fucking everyone?
418 Comments
anime_titties-ModTeam@reddit
Hanners87@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
redpandaeater@reddit
TeutonJon78@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
ScaryShadowx@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Novareason@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Novareason@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
AzarathineMonk@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
AzarathineMonk@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
AzarathineMonk@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
AzarathineMonk@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
Thin-Limit7697@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Thin-Limit7697@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
HiggsBosonHL@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Responsible-Bunch316@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
aeonixx@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
stimps444@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
stimps444@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
stimps444@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
stimps444@reddit
aeonixx@reddit
OreoSpeedwaggon@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
aeonixx@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
aeonixx@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
ej_21@reddit
AmarantaRWS@reddit
Logseman@reddit
Ov3rdose_EvE@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
MasterJogi1@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
MasterJogi1@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
MasterJogi1@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
blenderbender44@reddit
SpeakerEnder1@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
SpeakerEnder1@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
Avaposter@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
Avaposter@reddit
blenderbender44@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
blenderbender44@reddit
kekbooi@reddit
cawkstrangla@reddit
Veritoss@reddit
ValeteAria@reddit
TacticalNuker@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
JR_Maverick@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
JR_Maverick@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
JR_Maverick@reddit
TacticalNuker@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
TacticalNuker@reddit
RaisedByHoneyBadgers@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
RaisedByHoneyBadgers@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
Ov3rdose_EvE@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
_my_way@reddit
Ov3rdose_EvE@reddit
_my_way@reddit
Ov3rdose_EvE@reddit
_my_way@reddit
Ov3rdose_EvE@reddit
cultish_alibi@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
Kiboune@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
iyamwhatiyam8000@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
iyamwhatiyam8000@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
iyamwhatiyam8000@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
iyamwhatiyam8000@reddit
Subrisum@reddit
iyamwhatiyam8000@reddit
McPebbster@reddit
iyamwhatiyam8000@reddit
stimps444@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
stimps444@reddit
Elven77AI@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
CarpeMofo@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
CarpeMofo@reddit
Rusty_chess@reddit
CompetitiveAdMoney@reddit
iyamwhatiyam8000@reddit
FRcomes@reddit
TheCatInTheHatThings@reddit
Uniiiverse0@reddit
TheCatInTheHatThings@reddit
FRcomes@reddit
Future-Physics-1924@reddit
HackedLuck@reddit
vvvvfl@reddit
deaddrop007@reddit
Tarotdragoon@reddit
t0FF@reddit
KorkBredy@reddit
Funtycuck@reddit
Endemoniada@reddit
Haradion_01@reddit
hell_jumper9@reddit
kawaiikhezu@reddit
ToranjaNuclear@reddit
zeth4@reddit
Copacetic4@reddit
Patientrespectt@reddit
RubberBootsInMotion@reddit
Patientrespectt@reddit
RubberBootsInMotion@reddit
Patientrespectt@reddit
RubberBootsInMotion@reddit
Patientrespectt@reddit
RubberBootsInMotion@reddit
Patientrespectt@reddit
RubberBootsInMotion@reddit
Patientrespectt@reddit
Patientrespectt@reddit
anomalous_cowherd@reddit
threeglasses@reddit
Aizen_Myo@reddit
Bubblegumcats33@reddit
origami_airplane@reddit
Dinocologist@reddit
MissionaryOfCat@reddit
AmarantaRWS@reddit
usefulidiotsavant@reddit
ExpertlyAmateur@reddit
SongFeisty8759@reddit
GodofsomeWorld@reddit
nachohk@reddit
leuk_he@reddit
calmdownmyguy@reddit
Druuseph@reddit
Falkner09@reddit
mrdevlar@reddit
threeglasses@reddit
g0d15anath315t@reddit
Intelligent-Travel-1@reddit
Long_Procedure_2629@reddit
flexxipanda@reddit
BentoBus@reddit
Lumpy-Ostrich6538@reddit
dvarus@reddit
cultish_alibi@reddit
dvarus@reddit
Nyorliest@reddit
Daedalus81@reddit
ChronaMewX@reddit
dvarus@reddit
ChronaMewX@reddit
dvarus@reddit
ChronaMewX@reddit
dvarus@reddit
AzarathineMonk@reddit
Perihelion286@reddit
AzarathineMonk@reddit
Perihelion286@reddit
dvarus@reddit
AzarathineMonk@reddit
CrypticRandom@reddit
kosmokomeno@reddit
zeth4@reddit
dvarus@reddit
registered-to-browse@reddit
Logseman@reddit
merrittinbaltimore@reddit
Best_Change4155@reddit
Private_HughMan@reddit
No-Appearance-9113@reddit
MerlinsBeard@reddit
No-Appearance-9113@reddit
MerlinsBeard@reddit
No-Appearance-9113@reddit
MerlinsBeard@reddit
Hamster-Food@reddit
coldlonelydream@reddit
DieuMivas@reddit
FIbynight@reddit
Jellz@reddit
kekbooi@reddit
Corne777@reddit
Tudpool@reddit
Dulcedoll@reddit
Crouteauxpommes@reddit
TheDawnOfNewDays@reddit
Redditbecamefacebook@reddit
SinnerIxim@reddit
XANTHICSCHISTOSOME@reddit
Bastard_of_Brunswick@reddit
cultish_alibi@reddit
Okichah@reddit
pythonic_dude@reddit
CreamofTazz@reddit
EatMyUnwashedAss@reddit
CreamofTazz@reddit
ScaryShadowx@reddit
mrcanard@reddit
Rocktopod@reddit
AmarantaRWS@reddit
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
cultish_alibi@reddit
civil_beast@reddit
Kiboune@reddit
Lost-Locksmith-250@reddit
OuchieMuhBussy@reddit
RubberBootsInMotion@reddit
OuchieMuhBussy@reddit
FrodoCraggins@reddit
1JoMac1@reddit
kronosdev@reddit
BarbequedYeti@reddit
Daedalus81@reddit
OuchieMuhBussy@reddit
Kiboune@reddit
Candle1ight@reddit
gungshpxre@reddit
demonspawns_ghost@reddit
juandebuttafuca@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
Critical-Bread-3396@reddit
SellaraAB@reddit
magkruppe@reddit
Geodude532@reddit
voiderest@reddit
kittyegg@reddit
MasterJogi1@reddit
Melkor7410@reddit
AnotherHappenstance@reddit
SporkIncorporated@reddit
Exarch-of-Sechrima@reddit
Inferno_Sparky@reddit
JR_Maverick@reddit
RubberBootsInMotion@reddit
Many_Pea_9117@reddit
StealthRUs@reddit
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
Best_Change4155@reddit
DirkTheSandman@reddit
juandebuttafuca@reddit
Worldly-Aioli9191@reddit
RingSplitter69@reddit
kimana1651@reddit
studmuffffffin@reddit
dcrico20@reddit
NegaDeath@reddit
NormalUse856@reddit
tklmvd@reddit
davedcne@reddit
tupe12@reddit
granny_rider@reddit
Zeydon@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
juandebuttafuca@reddit
Nahcep@reddit
drboanmahoni@reddit
juandebuttafuca@reddit
drboanmahoni@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
juandebuttafuca@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
juandebuttafuca@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
juandebuttafuca@reddit
fxmldr@reddit
Melkor7410@reddit
kremlinhelpdesk@reddit
granny_rider@reddit
TheRadBaron@reddit
tupe12@reddit
Past-Present223@reddit
Ivanow@reddit
Starthreads@reddit
Paradoxjjw@reddit
Daedalus81@reddit
zer0_n9ne@reddit
Dragonheart91@reddit
Jstnw89@reddit
Onuus@reddit
Rocktopod@reddit
illegalt3nder@reddit
WarzoneGringo@reddit
illegalt3nder@reddit
l339@reddit
illegalt3nder@reddit
Daedalus81@reddit
Maj0r-DeCoverley@reddit
Best_Change4155@reddit
AVD06@reddit
Spoon251@reddit
Rad-eco@reddit
unpersoned@reddit
Burnsy2023@reddit
ILoveYouLance@reddit
Arrow156@reddit
Skepsisology@reddit
Hairy_Ad_3532@reddit
latswipe@reddit
Big_Boolean_Rounding@reddit
oh_f_f_s@reddit
odog9797@reddit
not_faultz@reddit
xubax@reddit
ZombifiedPie@reddit
Candle1ight@reddit
itsaride@reddit
Candle1ight@reddit
civil_beast@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
chode_code@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
chode_code@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
chode_code@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
Lodi0831@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
Lodi0831@reddit
JR_Maverick@reddit
Thin-Limit7697@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
chode_code@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
Micromadsen@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
Micromadsen@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
Britstuckinamerica@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
mrgoobster@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
mrgoobster@reddit
dangling-putter@reddit
OptimisticRealist__@reddit
dangling-putter@reddit
shieeet@reddit
Madpup70@reddit
UltimateKane99@reddit
sora_fighter36@reddit
Naebowski@reddit
5snakesinahumansuit@reddit
dust-ranger@reddit
PTMorte@reddit
Thin-Limit7697@reddit
demonspawns_ghost@reddit
Yautja93@reddit
Yeahha@reddit
topical_storms@reddit
MacBareth@reddit