[benreesman]

Vigilantism and violence is not merited because scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution.

At some level of oppression violence is obviously indicated. The whole of the current Western order is premised on that.

At some point it’s too far. Today is not that day.

[stavros]

> scope remains for negotiation and compromise and peaceful resolution

I feel like the murderer wouldn't be so widely commended if that were true. Justice is what is supposed to prevent vigilantism, and apparently lots of people here felt that the murder was just.

[benreesman]

I’m still advocating for peace, but over time the argument isn’t getting any fucking easier to make, that’s for fucking sure.

The Kleptocracy has a year, two at the outside to make some concessions near as I can tell, before they can’t walk the streets of NYC safely full stop. Or Chicago, or …

[stavros]

Yeah, it really is getting ridiculous now. The pendulum has swung too far towards the elites, and we know what happens then...

[booleandilemma]

There shouldn't be a kleptocracy.

[isoprophlex]

Agreed, indeed: when the people feel that justice fails them, vigantilism takes its place.

We'd all do well to, in our rush to decry the murder itself, be mindful of the mistake of losing sight of the reason behind the massive support for Mangione's actions.

[godelski]

  > We'd all do well to be mindful of the mistake of losing sight of the reason behind the massive support for Mangione's actions.

This is what I fear the most. It creates an ideological divide. Those who seem his action as justified do have reason to hold their beliefs. The justice system often fails people and we often hear and feel more and more these days. It is not about statistics, it is about "the vibe." At the same time, those who do not feel his actions are justified (myself included) have reason for their side too. Both sides have evidence and the truth is that the decisions are being based on different criteria. It's not even that we often disagree with the facts (of course, we often do too), but more that we care more or less about certain things. And if we can't at least understand why others have made their decisions, at least understand why others feel a certain way, then we have no hope of solving any of these problems that we both seem to care about.

What I fear is that while screaming that vigilantism isn't ever justified, that this very same act justifies it.

[benreesman]

Let’s also remember that outright war is a bridge that can be crossed by not uncrossed.

Measure twice and cut once on such things.

[BitterCritter]

I think it can be argued that once a seemingly decent, mentally healthy person murders rather than a pervert cannibal or social outcast then the justification for the murder should be reasonable.

[stavros]

One could argue we've measured many, many times.

[wakawaka28]

>I feel like the murderer wouldn't be so widely commended if that were true. Justice is what is supposed to prevent vigilantism, and apparently lots of people here felt that the murder was just.

OK then, what crime did the CEO commit? Simply presiding over a business that people don't like, which he has no real power to change, is not a crime in any sense.

Vigilantism only makes sense when there is no justice for real obvious crimes with known guilty parties. And even then, it has many downsides.

A loud minority (or even majority) of people condoning this does not make it right. In the absence of an articulable crime for which the victim is responsible, this is simple murder. You can rationalize it all you want but your logic could be used to justify lynch mobs.

[stavros]

Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives? The Nazis couldn't claim "I was just running the concentration camp" as a defense. The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO".

[s1artibartfast]

>Why isn't it a crime to preside over a company that prioritizes profit over people's lives?

Because the publics and their representatives made the law that this is a perfectly legal and acceptable thing to do.

Killing a CEO does very little, as there are hundreds of millions of people lined up to take their job.

It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject things like single payer healthcare or reform.

[wakawaka28]

>It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject things like single payer healthcare or reform.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not but I'll argue as if it isn't. First of all, nobody knows if single payer or any reform would lead to anything better. It's a complex issue that boils down to trying to get something for nothing (or at a price lower than the limited supply of healthcare dictates), which leads to enslaving other people to pay for one's own needs. You can do something about corporate corruption such as in the insurance industry. But state corruption is much more insidious. If you feel that strongly about state-sponsored healthcare then there are lots of other countries you can choose to live in that allegedly have the benefits you want, rather than just hating or doing harm to your neighbors. Furthermore, the MAJORITY of people who approve of the current system aren't going to stand by helpless as random wannabe tyrants attack them.

[s1artibartfast]

Not a joke, but a critique of CEO assassination as a tool for reform. My central point is that this is a political and legal dispute. Agreement amongst voters is the bottleneck, not some CEO

[wakawaka28]

Comparing a CEO of an insurance company to a Nazi officer running a concentration camp is so stupid I don't even know where to begin.

Insurance companies aren't overtly or covertly killing people. They might not be paying for their healthcare in every single instance where they should. As a business, they must decide what services to cover and at what price or they won't be in business for long. They face extensive regulation to ensure that they are not doing exactly the thing you're accusing them of. Yes that means everything has a limit.

Luigi was a rich kid. Neither he nor his family had any business with this insurance company or the CEO, as I understand it. So this action on his part is the result of some insanity plus radicalization, perhaps by people like yourself who have the gall to compare 100% legal businesses to Nazi concentration camps. Our political discourse has really degraded in my lifetime, with one large faction now frequently accusing everyone they disagree with of being Nazis. No good can come of this.

>The CEO of a company has the most power to change it, and definitely enough power to say "fuck this, find another CEO".

Perhaps he could change something but you can't articulate what that is exactly, because you don't care. You just hate the industry as a whole. Even if the industry needs a lot of improvement, it is entirely legal and regulated, and not a charity. The CEO has no reason to leave because he's got a great job at what most people regard as an upstanding business.

It could be argued that Luigi's murder of this CEO and the public reaction to it could make insurance worse. How? Think about it. What competent CEO-type would want to work at a company if it might put a target on his back? A lot of normal people would not want to. So you're less likely to get a competent and relatable CEO, and more likely to get a cutthroat or incompetent one. The kind of person who doesn't care that lots of people would celebrate his death just for having held the position. And an incompetent one could lead to more deaths, because insurance is basically a finance business that must make enough money to cover its expenses. If they go broke, then nobody is getting covered.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

> ...perhaps by people like yourself who have the gall to compare 100% legal businesses to Nazi concentration camps.

At the time of Nazi rulership in Germany concentration camps were 100% legal.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filbinger_affair

[wakawaka28]

OK but it's still an incredible stretch to compare murders of prisoners to some company that isn't giving you all the wildly expensive benefits you think you're entitled to. There is also a big difference because most Germans were unaware of what concentration camps were doing, whereas everyone with basic awareness knows what an insurance company is and can choose to not do business with them.

Health insurance is a modern invention. People lived for thousands of years without it, and even in recent times most of the world does not have it. If you don't like insurance, you have the option of saving and investing your money to pay for whatever you can. Some people cannot afford to pay their expenses by saving, but those people cannot afford insurance either. Someone has to pay for whatever is on offer. I don't think insurance should be used for common health care, only for catastrophic things that you can't anticipate. Imagine how expensive car insurance would be if you insisted on having it pay for oil, tires, carwashes, etc. That is how people treat health insurance and it's stupid.

[tptacek]

It was not widely commended; that it looks that way is an artifact of how our media is structured. We tend now to look at the world through a band-stop filter that amplifies the most activating ideas.

[benreesman]

@tptacek I think people mean assassinations on tape are usually universally condemned.

Luigi has tens of thousands of women lining up to marry him, multiple academics doing long pieces about how to achieve jury nullification, and saying he’s the bad guy is not a popular move basically anywhere with a lot of people in it.

If it’s amplified then the amplifier is the public.

[tptacek]

You are describing a very small number of highly-activated people responding to a media environment. I think it's especially telling that you cite women "lining up to marry him"; his support, as you're depicting it, is characterized by deeply irrational behavior. I agree.

[benreesman]

I think I’m still openly condemning the violence without dismissing the fucking broad based anger around it. There are a large number of us who are very pissed off but still seeking compromise.

There are a very fucking small number of people who own any significant equities, or have their interests actually materialize politically.

That’s the group I’m lobbying to get your shit correct before Luigi is fucking everywhere.

[tptacek]

I'm more interested in policy being adopted on its merits, rather than out of concern that The Joker will punish me for not supporting it.

[itsdrewmiller]

"Widely" could mean a lot of things - it doesn't appear to have anywhere close to majority support, but more than 15% of Americans (and almost half of young people) think it was at least acceptable:

https://archive.ph/hXNhj

That's around 50 million people.

[tptacek]

That's an extrapolation from a poll, not literally 50 million people, and you can get 15% of a poll sample to say almost anything, including (first thing that popped up in my Google search) that Hitler was good actually.

[benreesman]

Let’s not finely parse the polling (or any commenter’s history of poll citing):

how about a fucking unprecedented number of people are vigorously endorsing an assassination? How about a fucking huge number that’s a big deal?

[tptacek]

You mean like the poll that showed an unprecedented number of people supporting Hitler?

[itsdrewmiller]

I encourage you to think critically about things you find on the internet - I think you are being misled in your summary here. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/headline-summarizing-youg...

There is the concept of the lizardman’s constant for polling wacky ideas but it is more like 4%.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...

[yetihehe]

> At some point it’s too far. Today is not that day.

It's not a switch. When your level of oppression rises, the probability of violent acts increases. When the level is high enough, you have a sudden cascade of events releasing pent up anger, which we typically call a revolution. You can't predict the moment exactly. We don't have a revolution yet, but tensions are rising.

[jnwatson]

The US political system is at all time low of responsiveness to the needs of its citizens. Congress has been dysfunctional longer than Mangione has been alive.

It makes sense that a young man would lash out this way. Violence should indeed be the last resort, and for many folks the alternatives are dwindling.

[benreesman]

Let’s try everything we can before resorting to violence?

Once that starts, that’s a forest fire that burns in ways no one can control.

[hackable_sand]

Violence is literally always a last resort.

[benreesman]

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

We can take down this cancerous thing via more civilized means. It’s that civilization that separates us from the thugs we oppose.

Otherwise we’re just the new thugs.

[benreesman]

In case I haven’t been clear enough on this point: I want no part in any revolution in which the revolutionary has no goal bigger or better than a purely local shuffling of advantage to themself.

The only revolution I’m willing to die for is one where the goal is a better model: a better way for people to live.

I cannot see a way that killing people is a path to a better world. Killing people without thought or empathy is what the adversary does.

I think we can flip everything upside down via wit and endurance and humanity and sheer will.

Violence is for people who fail in all of that.

[meiraleal]

> Violence is for people who fail in all of that.

Yes. But the amount of people that still failed after all of that is ever growing.

[hackable_sand]

I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying.

Violence is literally the last thing a person can do. If there is violence then all other means have been tried.

[benreesman]

Plenty of people regard it as one of the first options. I assume you mean that you and I aspire to better, and if so I agree.

Violence can change things very rapidly in a superficial way: change who is holding the gun mostly.

More substantial and lasting change generally requires ideas framed by compelling words and cemented by personal sacrifice.

That’s the sort of change I’m signing up for.

Any idiot can kill someone.

[s1artibartfast]

How can you state that as a universal truth?

[politelemon]

The 'point' differs among individuals. In turn it is dependent on their circumstances and ideals. There isn't one specific moment where there will be collective agreement on its justification.

[lowbloodsugar]

You seem to be working from some kind of principles like justice? Or fairness? We do not live in that world. I was just reading today another story in the Washington Post about how the US stole Native American children and many died.

The US isn’t a society governed by justice, fairness, or even the truth. The rich should be scared because so many support this “execution”.

Of course, they are way ahead, and Robin Hood’s merry supporters will find out that prince john has an army of mercenaries happy to take his coin.