[wnoise]

I haven't set a definition and really don't intend to, only saying the line must be quite far from where you are drawing it.

Tying it to willingness to kill for some goal cannot be it -- not every soldier, cop, and security guard is insane. There has to be some degree of break from reality, not disagreement with societal opinions of morality. (And of course all societies do endorse violence -- from the proper authorities, and against the right targets).

Osama bin Laden was a religiously-driven warlord. But not only was he not insane, he was quite effective for quite some time, and had significant support from the societies he was part.

The Unabomber absolutely could plausibly be argued to be insane -- his attorneys certainly pushed for it (though he rejected that attempt). And the psychological experiments he participated in could certainly have contributed to such a break. Throw in the standard trope of living as a hermit in the woods with limited social contact (which can both be a result of insanity and decrease mental stability), and there's enough there not to reject the label. But his bombing campaign just makes him a criminal, a problem for society, not insane.

[gruez]

>Tying it to willingness to kill for some goal cannot be it -- not every soldier, cop, and security guard is insane.

How about violating bright red line laws/norms of the society you're in?

> There has to be some degree of break from reality, not disagreement with societal opinions of morality.

Okay but surely you agree that "I want abortion but my state bans it" is not the same kind of "disagreement with societal opinions of morality" as executing a CEO because you vaguely have grievances with the healthcare system?

[wnoise]

> How about violating bright red line laws/norms of the society you're in?

Isn't the word for that "criminal"? You can add intensifiers like "serious", "hardened", "deadly", etc to emphasize how bright the line violation is.

> Okay but surely you agree that "I want abortion but my state bans it" is not the same kind of "disagreement with societal opinions of morality" as executing a CEO because you vaguely have grievances with the healthcare system?

There certainly is a greater consensus for it; 50-50 is quite different than what I would guess is about 85%. And I'm for that consensus. This kind of violence becoming common would be disastrous. But that consensus certainly seems to be a lot less solid than it was a year ago, especially when you look at the youth. (I think there are several things contributing to that, but that consensus breaking down does not mean that 41% of 18-29 year olds are insane. That's just not what insane means.)

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/17/united-healthcare-ceo-killi...

[gruez]

>Isn't the word for that "criminal"? You can add intensifiers like "serious", "hardened", "deadly", etc to emphasize how bright the line violation is.

So what, the only difference between a serial killer and some guy committing tax fraud is that the former is more "serious"/"hardened"/"deadly"? You don't think mental health has any role to this? When people mean "insane", that's what they're gesturing to, not what the DSM-5 or whatever says.

>but that consensus breaking down does not mean that 41% of 18-29 year olds are insane. That's just not what insane means.)

"acceptable" isn't the same as willing to undertake the action themselves. Mangione is being called "insane" because he actually killed someone, not because he answered yes on a poll asking whether it's acceptable to kill healthcare CEOs.