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.
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.