Basically the title.
I'm seeing people praising this Luigi dude. However, I cannot think of a time in history when it became popular to advocate murdering people in the streets that wasn't followed by leftists committing mass atrocities.
All I have seen is an increase in advocacy for murdering white men, right wing ceos, our future president, and anyone seen as wealthy.
I am struggling to see how anyone is reconciling being right wing with the complete disorder and moral failing that murdering random people in the street would involve.
This isn't some issue that is bridging the gap with the left. They want you dead too. They will celebrate your death as well.
This is an example why I think we will never ultimately win because the right is so quick to adopt the ideas of the left.
So please give me an example in history where this hasn't led to bad examples.
To further illustrate my point. Look at the difference in media coverage. We know more about Luigi than the Nashville shooter or Crookes and one murdered a bunch of children and the other shot the president.
Yet we know Luigis social media, his goals and motivation, his childhood and every single picture meant to make him look cool.
Frankly, the reason you aren't seeing much condemnation of Luigi is because of who he killed.
If he killed a CEO of a power company, telecom company, restaurant chain, or basically any other business you wouldve likely seen a lot more condemnation and things would be more split.
But this guy was head of united Healthcare, which is infamous at this point for being an awful insurance company....potentially one of the worst. And its an industry that directly profits off of human misery. Not in the roundabout sense, but in the literal and direct sense as they have every incentive to deny coverage (that you paid for), and virtually no punishment for doing so.
You'd struggle to find people that are sympathetic of that business when frankly, that business is so damn corrupt that it really is one of the few things that all sides universally agree is evil, even if they disagree with how to replace it or fix it.
Yeah, this isn't a just another case of 'rich man bad'. It would be the same if someone did that to the CEO of Blackrock, Larry Fink.
Pretty much. If there was a mass culling of shady billionaires, only congress would sweat it.
I don't like Walmart either, but when I see videos of people shamelessly shoplifting from there, I don't find myself supporting the shoplifters.
UHC led the industry by around double in first-round denials. 32%, last figures I saw. How many of that 32% never challenged the denial?
Sorry, but this is a retarded leftist emotional appeal that makes no sense. Insurance companies profit the most when they never need to pay out. In their ideal world, you buy health insurance and never get sick, happily going about your life in perfect health.
You getting sick and being miserable is outside of their control. The worst you can say is that they profit off a false sense of security that they will help in the case you become miserable.
The industries that actually profit off human misery are ones like lawyers and journalists. FFS, you can more convincingly argue that surgeons profit more from human misery. They need actual sick people to make money. Insurance companies don't. They just need healthy people who are afraid of becoming sick someday.
That is not to absolve them of awful practices, failure to pay claims, lousy coverage, etc. But how about we deal in facts? Wrongly denying coverage is, at worst, theft and fraud. But the condition running its course is the normal state of things. They don't profit by making you more sick than you would have been in their absence.
They profit by taking your rainy day fund and not giving it back when you need it. If you've been paying $8,000 a year for twenty years and your health insurer denies your claim, that's $160,000 plus interest that you would have had available to pay for your own medical treatment had they not ripped you off.
Nothing you said is wrong. They still don't "directly profit off of human misery." If they take steps to increase your misery, they don't make more money. If you don't experience any misery, it increases their profit.
I'm not even saying they don't cause misery. All I'm saying is "directly profit off human misery" is nothing but an emotional appeal for arguing at stupid people.
Sorry man but that was extremely convoluted.
You admit he's right about taking people's money for nothing, you admit they're profitable, you even admit they probably cause misery... yet they don't profit off misery? Something ain't adding up chief
I don't understand why people are struggling with this. I don't know if I should go with analogies or make it more abstract or what because it's simple as anything.
If you pay them and never get sick, it maximizes their profits. If your misery causes them to profit, how can their most profitable outcome be the one where you have zero misery? Conversely, you being as sick as possible is the biggest threat to their profits.
A sick person for whom they cover nothing is exactly as profitable as a person who doesn't suffer at all. The misery does not drive profit. It is the opposite of pharma, where they need you to be sick to profit.
Insurance doesn't profit from misery. It profits from a lack of misery. They want you to be healthy, they just don't want to pay for it.
And this is the guy hitting me with the "How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning" meme.
The mechanical process of profit, in the smallest possible scope, is not an accurate description of health insurance or why people pay for it. If a lack of suffering was profitable, and suffering went away, would they continue to be profitable? Of course not. It would just stop existing. Clearly this is not a useful analysis.
Insurance only exists in the context of a collective of payers, across a period of time, where the reality is that some suffering is guaranteed, but nobody can flawlessly predict, who, when, and how. This is the smallest possible scope to describe health insurance.
In that context, the only reason people pay for health insurance is because they'd rather not suffer, and it's the most (if not only) practical means to alleviate it. Take away the alleviation but keep their money, and you're left with a company that profits even more by stealing your means of not suffering. And that's a painfully roundabout way of saying "They profit off of your suffering."
They are indifferent to your suffering. Your suffering does not generate profits.
The insurance company has no control over whether you get sick, and thanks to Obamacare they can't deny you coverage if they think you'll get sick. But they can deny your claim and increase profitability that way. What SturmMilfEnthusiast already said, just in a different way.
Yes. That's all very well established. My sole point since the beginning is that suffering does not create profits and that means "that directly profits off of human misery" is inaccurate and a low-effort talking point.
Personal injury lawyer? Can't profit without the injury. They go out of business if there is no misery.
Health insurance? Can profit without the illness. They can stay in business with only the worry of potential misery.
I don't understand how people see words on a screen that say, "this canned line deliberately taints discussion" and read it as "I love everything about insurance companies, they do no wrong. They're all the best and are totally ethical!" It's possible to nitpick rhetoric without being the enemy team.
By denying claims that have merit they are essentially committing fraud. The entire insurance industry has been perverted into a middleman for the pharmaceutical industry and not actual catastrophic care, and they use that to deny claims for actual emergencies while they drive up the prices for regular medical service.
All of this is actually enabled by government regulation. Unethical, anti-consumer business propped up by government corruption in a corporate oligarchy is evil.
And cheering the death of evil people is neither left nor right wing inherently.
Legal and moral are not the same thing. Rule of law is better than anarchy but that doesn't make that law morally correct or uncorrupt.
Congratulations on having the most retarded take I've seen so far.
Let me guess, "health care is a human right," even though if you were living in isolation, there's no one you could force to care for you. It still must somehow be an inherent part of existing as a human, right?
No dumbshit, gettting what you paid for is a right though. Do you know how much health insurance costs?
You're arguing against something no one said.
For something to be a human right, it has to be inherent in existing as a human. Something that requires intervention by another person can never be a human right. You don't have a right to a doctor. You don't have a right to a hospital. You can argue you have the right to seek care. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Turnabout is fair play. Remember way back when you said this?
It was maybe a bit of a stretch, but I was responding to the comment they made. I said that the natural state of things is a lack of healthcare, which they thought was a retarded take.
Being miserable because of a lack of intervention and being in a situation where there is a lack of intervention are at least in the same spirit of discussion. In either case your misery is the result of inaction, which supports my point of indifference vs profiting from suffering.
The price of health care and getting what you paid for are important, but never once did anyone say that it was okay to rip people off or that healthcare was cheap. So I'm really not sure what that was even aimed at.
People living in isolation aren't paying for insurance and not getting covered. Your spastic rambling wouldn't make sense even if I was the person you just made up. How fucking stupid are you?
How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?
I'd be annoyed at your toadying over the idea of wilfully breaching contractual obligations and hungry.
Holy shit dude, just take the L and move on.
I'll move on because it's a waste of my time arguing with people who read things I didn't say into everything I say, but there's no "L" to take here.
Thinking you've "lost" because you're outnumbered in an online discussion by people who are wrong is kind of antithetical to this whole place, you know? Nothing I've said is wrong or inaccurate, but no use arguing with people who are emotional.
Doesn't this lend credence to the idea that the previous two help the Left, but not this one? We're not supposed to know about them, but this one is being broadcast far and wide. Does that make him a natural result of their ideology, instead of a planted one?
Why hide the ID of the previous two, but announce this one so boldly?
I'm happy to let the Left rile themselves up into a fervor. We're going into a Trump presidency, who has often posted loudly about wanting law and order. If the Leftists get too violent, normies will be very happy for Trump to send his "troops" into the rioting cities and stamp it out. It will be mostly friendly fire anyway, since I doubt they'll bus themselves out into the suburbs or rural areas to try to get at right wingers.
I wish we adopted more the Left's tactics. Circling the wagons around our prickly and dangerous members and nominees isn't something I've seen us do very often. They too often withdraw the moment the Dems start whining. We need more "ChadYes" energy when it comes to pushing back hard enough to make a difference.
*PsychoWojak.png*
It's the opposite. The previous 2 hurt the left so they hide them away to try to prevent the general public from noticing why they did what they did. Ie shitbag leftists. Seeing the support for murder they rightfully assumed Luigi would help and have actively promoted him. I'm not really sure how you arrived at the opposite conclusion
It's the functional help, not the aesthetic help. Allow me to make a strange, probably confusing, and long-winded point.
Murdering children is considered horrific, even though the Left tacitly supports killing certain ones. When the massacre of Christian children happens, the Left covers it up even though it helps remove the Christians that they are fighting against. If it were Jewish, Muslim, or other brown children that died, the Left would utilize it as a standard to prove their ideology and accusations against "dangerous white supremacists" correct. It looks bad to kill kids, but the Left wants it to happen to the 'right ones.' Functionally useful, but aesthetically bad.
When Ree-tardy Oswald tries to kill Trump, the Left wants this to happen, but cannot publicly say this because it would reveal them too much as deranged psychopaths that want to murder anyone who gets in their way, up to and including top government positions. They try to brush it under the rug. The Overton window is not there yet. Functionally useful, but aesthetically bad.
For Luigi, the Left is already at the stage of saying "eat the rich" all the time, and a CEO falls squarely under that category. Exalting and celebrating his death is already something they would do. It doesn't fall outside the scope of their standard. Aesthetically on-brand, but functionally damaging.
The Left are filled with these rich CEO types who have donated significantly to Democrats, and they have not maintained good control over the legions of voters they've raised. Now is the time they might strike out against their own masters. A second Trump victory, which they were promised would never and could never happen, has shaken their faith in their institutions and they will be angry and unstable. I think many of the bigwigs are worrying that they've lost control of the narrative and that they are more in danger than they previously thought.
So why broadcast this one so much, then? Because they are showing that they caught him. That if you try this, they'll still get you. You can't do it and escape. "Do not try to attack us, you won't get away with it. We'll find you no matter where you go." This CEO's killing functionally hurts the Left because it shows how vulnerable they are to their own rhetoric when it turns around on them, so they need to make it seem like a bad idea to try, to their own side. The Left might celebrate "rich man dead lol," but catching the guy that did it (under very suspicious and convenient circumstances, imo) may discourage more "friendly fire." Rioting in a city is one thing, but attacking one of their own will get you in big trouble.
Both ancient Rome and Greece had their periods of populist unrest and political mob killings. Many of those were notably nationalist in flavor, targeting politicians who were perceived to have betrayed their countrymen.
Granted leftism wasn't even a thing back then so it's hard to say exactly how much overlap there was with "leftists" back then, but at the very least their patriotism and nationalism are anathema to the globalist bootlicking lefties of the modern era.
I suspect you have to keep looking pre-marx or pre- rousseau for more readily available examples though. Not that unrest became inherently leftie after that, but those philosophies have emboldened lefties so that they typically take the first strike advantage in such states of unrest since their invention. And with that advantage have taken control of those cultural moments more often than not ever since.
Leftist may not have been a recognized term but the definition-based left-right axis does still function as a tool to look at older governments.
The modern "it means whatever I want it to mean, x team good y team bad" left right bastardizations certainly don't fit, but those are marxist propaganda efforts.
TBH unless you're trimming the definition down to a single issue like big gov Vs small gov, I'm not sure it is a unified axis without the definitions to coalesce around. For lots of things on the left-right axis there's no intrinsic reason for them to be linked other than historic "that's the left's position, and that's the right's". Example, I don't think there's an intrinsic link between wanting the government to coddle layabouts and ignoring the obvious differing average abilities between the sexes, or idolising faggotry and sexual deviance. I don't think it's inherent human nature to link those together, I think it's a learned behavior.
Without that historic baggage I think you would have so many more people with mixed political ideals that the whole axis breaks apart.
I said the definition based left right axis because there is a clear definitional axis. What you're identifying is something like the reddit political compass, which is self contradicting propaganda. Horseshoe theory is propaganda.
An axis is defined by it's extreme endpoints. The left end is authoritarian or statist / collectivist, the right end is anarchist / individualist. It is also sometimes identified as a vertical scale where they explain the natural tendency of government to grow and become corrupt as gravity, but that is honestly just an attempt at reframing it as "good / bad" by libertarian types. I agree with it morally, but the purist measuring tool is just left right.
The reason this works and the retarded reddit political compass (horseshoe theory) doesn't is this is an objective and clear axis. Every ideology can be placed on it related to other ideologies. And it doesn't have any retarded contradictions like "right wing socialists" or "left libertarians" because you aren't trying to tack arbitrary relative cultural elements onto what is supposed to be an objective measuring scale.
Honestly I always thought the entire point of the using a vague, abstract nomenclature like left-right is so you can lump a bunch of goals that aren't easily described quickly together. E.g. Whole post revolution political dockets.
Using left-right as a simple stand-in for "big gov-no gov" does make left-right a properly opposed and philosophically cohesive axis. But I just don't see the point of the nomenclature existing at all that point, when you can just as succinctly describe the single axis with its actual foundational premise. It's just inviting the confusion when there's an already hijacked homonym out there.
It's just a measuring axis. It is a tool for sorting ideologies and relating them to eachother. It is useful for teaching and explaining concepts like how different political ideologies relate and share core operational philosophies.
It helps that leftist ideologies always fail and cause massive chaos, and historically leftism can be seen to produce far more destruction and failed states. You can also use it to measure ideological drift over time (the point of the vertical version is that governments always grow larger and more corrupt over time). Looking at patterns is useful for showing people that their communist bullshit, or their socialist bullshit, or whatver flavor of retarded authoritarian bullshit isn't special. Like the "my socialism is THIRD POSITION it's not like the other ideologies" retards.
That also explains why this axis is perverted and obfuscated primarily by leftists. Because when you recognize patterns they lose. The axis itself doesn't show you that leftism is evil, but it can be used to demonstrate patterns of human and government behavior over time, which can be used to show that leftism is objectively bad for systems of government.
If this was true, there would be a hell of a lot of right wing Luigis running around. I think that the reason the right loses is because they don't adopt the ideas of the left, at least as far as how to obtain power and how to properly use it once you have it.
There's the rub. With supposedly right wing people supporting this it gives legitimacy to the left and they will absolutely run with eliminating "undesirables" as non partisan. The right is going cheer while the left actually carries out the atrocities they're saying they want to create
Considering the fact that the left already owns institutional power in the West and is currently using it to slowly crush undesirables with the great replacement, why would they benefit from disrupting institutional power with street assassinations?
How much shits to give should you allocate to a guy who isn't worth much shits to give.
Being able to understand and express both "the CEO wasn't a very sympathetic victim" and "it's always bad to encourage leftist violence no matter the target" is 120-125 verbal territory and will trigger a massive cascade of snark and screaming rage if you have an audience.
It’s possible, and something to be weary of.
Nothing legitimizes the unethical treatment of others more than the belief that you are more ethical than them. Every dictatorship on earth began as a campaign for justice.
Because the marxism will just continue to metastasize unless it's pulled out by the root, and the only way to purge marxism is for them to have a revolution that fails.
While I share this concern, and have already seen leftists calling for the deaths of other, undeserving targets, I'm not going to condemn a man who Did Nothing Wrong^TM just to make an example out of him and deter copycats.
The first person I saw them call to murder was Elon Musk who has zero to do with medical insurance or anything essential which belies their real intention
Depends on how you define "leftist" I guess. Is every outbreak of anarchy throughout history entirely leftist? There's some anarchist people out there who identify with the right, but only in the areas that are convenient for them. They'll signal common talking points of the right, but they also don't have any principles and don't care about anyone but themselves.
Always has. They're essentially cheering public murders for the sole reason that the dude who died had more stuff than they do. This isn't even medieval, the medieval era had a genuine respect for order.
This is caveman. Uncivilized, immoral, savagery.
Bernard Goetz shooting after everyone got tired of violent subways :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting
don't look at me, I argued that cold blooded murder was bad and got downloaded into oblivion for it.
Well, you will get out of it once you become a champion for Sheogorath and the greymarch is over, haha
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech