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.
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.
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?
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?