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.
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.