As a photographer I'm wondering why would billionaires give autofocus about poor people...
/s obviously
For the amount of references to people defending CEOS and billionaires, I never actually see any unless I walk by a TV blaring Fox News.
Come to Germany. We had a wealth tax until 1996 and whenever it's revival is publicly discussed you can see that the majority is against it even when the majority of our people would never have to pay it and would profit from it. It's mind boggling that the people are still willing to defend our current "don't tax the rich" policy...
That's silly, a shocking amount of media sources are in cover their ass mode not just fox. LinkedIn has posts. Twitter has posts. Even SNL, shockingly, is a little bit "can we not be cheering a killer on air?"
So..I call bs, this is everywhere.
I've seen plenty of corpo bootlicking even on Lemmy.
Nobody I work with is on the same page as me about this subject, but they also don't know enough about it to feel comfortable disagreeing with me. I think a lot of people relate more to a CEO than Luigi for the simple fact that they think or feel that it's more likely for them to be in the CEOs position than a shooter. As delusional as that is, it's a factor that has always put the working class against themselves.
You don't have to pick a side. You could just say Brian Thompson deserved to die and that Luigi Mangione should see trial and possibly imprisonment.
My younger brother. He is entirely sold on billionaire philanthropy and believes Elon is a visionary genius that constantly finds ways to upturn the status quo.
He also thinks Jeff Bezos is a nice guy because he's so nice in interviews.
My dogg ur gonna make me upvote this twice
Which is twice what homie got
2x0 is still 0, bro woulda got more than twice what homie got.
Closing bell at the guard rail factory.
This is not about defending billionaires, this is about condemning murder as a matter of principle!
Then why murder than happened on same day had no manhunt?
The principle being complete subservience to a group of wall street military and prison industry profiteers who have used their wealth to hijack our social institutions, our representatives and transformed the vast majority of news media in our country into propaganda dissemination outlets While also enforcing a system that legislates and bureaucratically incentivizes the deaths of poor and working class people including American citizens for profit while denying the reality that this is called social murder and is murder none the less. A principle completely lacking in principle. Id love to know what you consider to be moral with principles such as those.
Username fucking checks out.
Rule utilitarianism states that “an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good”. Murder as a general is right. The reason is that this murder is just a short-term thing that doesn’t undo all the deaths that have happened. The general abidance to rule of law without self-justice is worth way more than any single person dying in nearly all cases.
In the categorical imperativ Kant argues that you should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If it became a universal law that you could kill anyone you deemed evil this would end in a worse result for everybody. Thus it cannot be wanted.
The family and friends around him mourn and the new CEO seems like he is not about to roll over and accept every health insurance claim. The death is dividing citizens which believe he is a hero while others believe he is a murderer. The responsibility off of all those unneeded deaths are claimed by not only the CEO but also by legislators who didn’t account for universal healthcare. It is on the sitting government and parties for not supporting change. It is on the employer partly for not buying a higher premium package that includes more things or choosing a different company with a smaller denial rate. It is on the individual employee inside UH denying claims. It is on upper management like Brian Thompson and the people around him who are at fault for making this worse. And then there’s the stakeholders that don’t press on more ethical practices. Then its also on Americans voting against parties that wish to change the healthcare system in a beneficial way for everybody.
As the head of a company Brian Thompson also had the responsibility to steer it in an ethical way which it seems he did not do. His death has sparked public debate which is a good thing. This does not necessarily mean choosing a murder was the right way of doing things that optimizes utility for everybody.
I think they way most people see it is that anyone in their right mind has a point where murder is okay. WWII, for example - the vast majority of people understand it was okay to kill Nazis. The context was that the world had no choice but to go to war with them. It was either kill or be killed.
We're in the same situation here in the United States. Our political system is broken. Politicians are bought and sold by the 1%, and they will continue to kill us en masse no matter how many peaceful protests we join and whoever we vote for.
Not only is it that murder is ok for everyone at a certain point but its that we are conditioned to praise retributive violence and killing so long as the ones being beaten maimed and or killed are marginalized people whom the ultra wealthy see as sub human and their casualty benefit their end goals. Like all the non violent labor and civil rights protestors who have ended up bludgeoned by batons and less than lethal munitions, or targeted by extra judicial unconstitutional surveillance and suppression tactics such as yale used against pro Palestinian demonstrators over the last year. There are too many examples of this double standard to go over without writing a book as thick as the king james Bible.
I believe this is just not true. The US is one country. First-Past-The-Post system sucks but systematic change can happen. Its just... you guys elected Trump. I do not think the majority of Americans wants change bad enough. There is also no defeating the system through these actions. It would take a whole as insurrection, not one murder and I doubt anything good would come of it for the average American.
Im European so I really sympathize with the struggle for a decent healthcare system for you guys. I just don't think this is the right way.
Murder is an unjustified killing. Killing somebody who is socially murdering people is a form of self defence and is thus not murder. Don’t try and change my mind. Not condoning any action though and I would prefer if the CEO got a jail sentence instead (but that would never happen).
The same people that will justify the murdering of a CEO are the same people that will lose their minds at the first sign of any justification of capital punishment. Apparently a prison can’t put a man to death for committing crimes, but a kid on the street with a gun can. Essentially: A murderer is only a criminal if their victim is someone they don’t like
There was someone in a comment I read yesterday that was talking about their unwritten instance rules stating that calling for the death of people they don’t like is okay, it calling for the death of leftists is against the rules.
This is how it is around here.
Even the concept of nuance is tempered with bias.
How is that hypocritical? I'm sure most people would want to see the CEO serving life instead, but his ilk are not who the prisons are made for. Slavery and murder can be legal when done with policy, and rather than the state going after these villains it defends them with force.
The difference is self defense. As stated elsewhere in this thread, we should all agree its morally acceptable to kill nazis. With them, it's either kill or be killed. If we didn't step up against them in WW2 it would have been disastrous. And with CEOs, billionaires, and other business execs it's no different. They're actively killing everyone they can as quickly as they can because it makes them a quick buck.
So ultimately it boils down to self defense.
A state however gets no self defense out of capital punishment. It instead becomes a way to silence political opponents, innocents routinely are executed, and so on. The state cannot be granted the power to kill because it will abuse it. The people eventually need to defend themselves from the state when it is granted this power.
The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor.
Opposing capital punishment without a trial != defending millionaires.
so what crime would Thompson be charged with?
oh? no crimes were committed you say?
preposterous! his executive actions were costing thousands of American's their lives!
that's not illegal? ...because his support group in the DOJ won't ever make corporations take responsibility for killing people?
well...what do you get when you oppress citizens and ensure they have no legal way to stop you?
Someone died. Even if that's a billionaire from health insurance, someone dying is usually not a good thing. What is good about this situation is how it has put class consciousness in the public eye in a way that it wasn't before.
I'm glad he's dead and I know he's burning in hell.
So you can applaud that this topic has come to focus of the public without celebrating a murder right?
