[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The slide toward fascism over the past 8 years has certainly had far-reaching effects. I think a lot of people have had the same response as you - going from hope and optimism about the future to hopelessness after seeing one democratic institution after another being demolished. Voting doesn't work anymore. Protesting doesn't work anymore. The government and its built-in protections against internal abuses of power are being intentionally and systematically dismantled. What's the solution? What's the way out?

This is an astute observation. I think a lot of people believe that they have to stop playing nice and start playing hardball to be able to win elections and power again. They are less afraid of “beating them by becoming more like them”. That’s especially true if you are convinced that the consequences could be dire.

Would you take a 5–10 % chance of the US sliding into authoritarianism? What would you do given the exceptional circumstances? I think it is easy to construct justifications for crossing lines that — under ordinary circumstances — you would never want to cross.

I think we all remember the discussions on the Iraq War and the invasion of Afghanistan. These days a majority of Americans is of the opinion of the ones who were highly critical of the Bush Administration’s actions. Nobody has “thanked” the “liberals” for having been right all along. But still, I think it is valuable to stick to your beliefs. Don’t expect thanks or apologies. Just stick to the right thing.

If we want people to not go down that dark path, I think we (= society) has to offer another solution. We cannot expect that everyone has the mental fortitude of a stoic, and remain unperturbed by turmoil. We have to offer an alternative. A lot of issues have piled up, e. g. that the cost of living (rents, etc.) have skyrocketed, especially in urban areas. I make good money, but about 1/3 goes towards rent alone. And there were so few suitable rentals on the market that we only got one offer to begin with. In the US medical expenses and tuition have been exploding and nobody in politics did something (that has had an effect). I think we have to try to show that politics is effective, even if it is on the local scale.

One common denominator of this new breed of conservative movements (which in many places are extremist as well) are that people are unhappy with the current economic system. If we let those extremist define what that new economic order should look like, we are in deep trouble. Brexit and Trump’s tariffs are cut from the same cloth.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The United Healthcare CEO’s death remind me of the assassination of Shinzo Abe, former Japanese Prime Minister. He got murdered, because the assassin wanted to shine a spotlight on Abe’s and Abe’s family’s dealings with the Unification Church. Since then, the LDP (the Japanese Conservative Party) has worked hard to cut ties with the Unification Church. The assassin succeeded, and I doubt anything would have happened if he hadn’t killed Abe.

Wow, I’d completely missed the fallout from that!

Going down that rabbit-hole, this stuck out at me:

„Later on, Abe became less cautious. In September 2021, he delivered a prerecorded video address at an online church conference, praising Moon’s widow, Hak Ja Han Moon, for her “tireless efforts in resolving disputes in the world, especially in relation to the peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula.” (Donald Trump delivered a speech at the same event.)“

(This was the event where the assassin saw Abe and decided to make him the target.)

Errr, what?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...oonies/675114/

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m trying to explain the pathology behind why someone might glorify Rittenhouse, and how that’s distinctly different behind the pathology behind glorifying Mangione, which I can’t say I understand.

People glorify Rittenhouse and Zimmerman and war and the police because "bad people" are dying at the hands of "good people." It's not more complicated than that. I'm sorry I brought up Rittenhouse, I was hoping people were smarter than to still take the culture war bait but unfortunately it did was it was designed to do and derailed the conversation.

[subego]

Sorry I was too dumb for your discussion.

[Laminar]

[subego]

Is that a rhetorical emoji?

[Laminar]

A smart person would know the answer to that question.

[subego]

Precisely why I’m asking.

[Laminar]

Okay, back to the beginning.

"Murder is cool now."

I'm asserting that it has always been cool to conservatives, and its coolness is increasing as they fall further down the culture war disinformation rabbit hole.



I see these stickers on cars and (usually) trucks fairly often, and on t-shirts too. Note that the victim is tied up and helpless. Hopefully glorification of a trial-free vigilante execution is a clear enough demonstration of the celebration of murder that has always existed among conservatives.

I'm proposing that you're only noting "murder is cool now" because you see liberals condoning it.

[Spheric Harlot]

This feels like a good time to bring up what is, to this European hippie, legal state-committed murder, a.k.a. the death penalty.

How cool is that?

[reader50]

The death penalty is fairly hard to get, in the states that still allow it. Years of appeals, plenty of lawyers. You have to kill multiple people and/or a protected class (like a police officer, public official, judicial officer, elderly or kids). There's plenty of due process.

Back during the Bush (jr) administration, our drone assassinations bothered me more. No due process, and we killed people in countries that Congress had not declared war on. Afghanistan and Pakistan mostly, but Trump killed a sweetheart Iranian General in ... Syria?

I'd worry more about state sponsored assassinations, and less about death penalties.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

This feels like a good time to bring up what is, to this European hippie, legal state-committed murder, a.k.a. the death penalty.

How cool is that?

In my mind, if we've ever death penaltied an innocent person, we shouldn't death penalty anyone.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Okay, back to the beginning.

"Murder is cool now."

I'm asserting that it has always been cool to conservatives, and its coolness is increasing as they fall further down the culture war disinformation rabbit hole.



I see these stickers on cars and (usually) trucks fairly often, and on t-shirts too. Note that the victim is tied up and helpless. Hopefully glorification of a trial-free vigilante execution is a clear enough demonstration of the celebration of murder that has always existed among conservatives.

I'm proposing that you're only noting "murder is cool now" because you see liberals condoning it.

I find it much, much easier to empathize with the desire to murder someone for being a violent criminal than the desire to murder someone for being the CEO of an insurance company. Is this not the same for you? Honest question.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I find it much, much easier to empathize with the desire to murder someone for being a violent criminal than the desire to murder someone for being the CEO of an insurance company. Is this not the same for you? Honest question.

Rephrase the question, but this time assume the accused pedophile is a drag queen and has committed no crimes or abuse, and the CEO of the insurance company has specifically led to the bankruptcy, financial ruin, and death of hundreds of thousands of people.

[subego]

I’m not sure where this is going.

I don’t empathize with the desire to murder an innocent person, fabulous or not.

I do empathize with wanting to murder that CEO, but find it improbable responsibility for all that carnage can be laid at the feet of a single corporate executive.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

In my mind, if we've ever death penaltied an innocent person, we shouldn't death penalty anyone.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence

I think the standard of evidence the prosecution has to meet for the death penalty can be raised high enough it would effectively be impossible to execute an innocent person.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

I do empathize with wanting to murder that CEO, but find it improbable responsibility for all that carnage can be laid at the feet of a single corporate executive.

If not the guy in charge of the company, then who would be the more responsible party? Who sets those denial conditions, other than the guy who gives the orders? When Congress wants to discuss a corporate policy, they always invite (or subpoena) the CEO.

The board can fire a CEO, and stockholders can replace board members. But operating policy is set by the CEO. Unless you can point to someone else.

[subego]

Presumably, this CEO didn’t set operating policy from the ground up.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

(This was the event where the assassin saw Abe and decided to make him the target.)

Errr, what?

Abe's assassination was literally two generations in the making, starting with his grandfather (a war criminal). The assassin's mother had donated the family fortune to the Unification Church, which prevented him from e. g. attending university. At the same time, the LDP used the Unification Church for its purposes and protected it from scrutiny and prosecution in return.

Originally Posted by subego 

I find it much, much easier to empathize with the desire to murder someone for being a violent criminal than the desire to murder someone for being the CEO of an insurance company. Is this not the same for you? Honest question.

I can easily see situations where someone desires to murder the CEO of a healthcare company. Say, my family lived in the US, we have two great jobs, a nice house, two cars, our three kids go to great schools, etc. Then my wife gets cancer. In addition to battling cancer, my doctors and I would consistently battle the insurance company. The insurance company denies potentially live-saving treatment and the mother of my three children dies. In addition, I'm in so much debt that I am going bankrupt. I don't know where to live as we our house is in foreclosure. Feel free to play out the scenario in your head.

There are lots of parts of the US healthcare system that dehumanize people, and we shouldn't be surprised if many people dehumanize others who are part of the system. (Not a justification, just an explanation.)

I would argue that the insurance company's behavior would feel as personal as if a robber had shot my wife instead. If I felt that my wife's death could have been prevented, I might seethe with rage.

Originally Posted by reader50 

If not the guy in charge of the company, then who would be the more responsible party? Who sets those denial conditions, other than the guy who gives the orders? When Congress wants to discuss a corporate policy, they always invite (or subpoena) the CEO.

The board can fire a CEO, and stockholders can replace board members. But operating policy is set by the CEO. Unless you can point to someone else.

The murder of the CEO is also the “right symbol” since his murder would get more coverage than the murder of some worker in said insurance company. He was the figurehead of the company, and the buck stopped with him. (Quotation marks, because I don't condone murder.)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Abe's assassination was literally two generations in the making, starting with his grandfather (a war criminal). The assassin's mother had donated the family fortune to the Unification Church, which prevented him from e. g. attending university. At the same time, the LDP used the Unification Church for its purposes and protected it from scrutiny and prosecution in return.

The linked article gives a great rundown of the story.

I was referring to the highlighted morsel that Donald J. Trump was also a speaker at this exact event.

That was an unexpected twist.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The linked article gives a great rundown of the story.

I'll have a look once I am home. It's always good to keep up with news from my alternate home.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I was referring to the highlighted morsel that Donald J. Trump was also a speaker at this exact event.

That was an unexpected twist.

Ah, I see. It is always interesting to see that this ilk is attracted/not repulsed by the same kind of people.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m not sure where this is going.

Your response seemed to align with the alt-right stance, which surprised me. I posted a slogan that shitty, violent, deluded people love and you jumped directly to assuming those they accuse of being pedophiles are actually violent criminals.

I'm always interested to see if someone can fairly articulate the other side's viewpoint with no snark or qualifications to the point where someone would say, "Yes, that is what I believe."

[subego]

What percentage of people with that bumper sticker do you think would be bothered if they murdered an innocent person?

[Laminar]

Like they followed through with their sticker and murdered someone they thought was a pedophile, but later found out that the person wasn't a pedophile? I'd cite similar Culture War™ cases where a vigilante had no remorse for murdering an innocent person they believed to be guilty of something but I don't want to go back down the rabbit hole of arguing viewpoints. The brain has ways of protecting itself and finding rationalizations to avoid discomfort. "Even if that drag queen didn't actually commit any crimes, they're part of a system that promotes depravity, and I just know their actions are bringing death and destruction to America." Boom, kill justified.

Someone putting that sticker on their vehicle isn't just a little bit off, by the time you're stickering up your car like that, you're both completely and utterly delusional about reality and unable to understand how to be a functional member of society.

[subego]

I’ll rephrase the question.

What percentage of people with that bumper sticker desire to murder an innocent person?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Your response seemed to align with the alt-right stance, which surprised me. I posted a slogan that shitty, violent, deluded people love and you jumped directly to assuming those they accuse of being pedophiles are actually violent criminals.

I should clarify this. My assumption was the sentiment applied to violent criminals. I can get behind that. This is independent from how someone who displayed that sticker would translate their sentiment into justice if nothing was stopping them. Like you said, they’d likely have no problem including innocents. I wouldn’t be behind that.

Of course, something is stopping them, because the vast majority of people displaying the sticker don’t kill anyone.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’ll rephrase the question.

What percentage of people with that bumper sticker desire to murder an innocent person?

I don't think that matters, because "innocent" means something completely different to them.

Originally Posted by subego 

Of course, something is stopping them, because the vast majority of people displaying the sticker don’t kill anyone.

Lack of opportunity?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

What percentage of people with that bumper sticker do you think would be bothered if they murdered an innocent person?

The question is not whether or not the person is innocent, but how the person is perceived. According to all we know, the healthcare CEO has not been suspected of any crimes, but I think a lot of people don't view him as innocent. I reckon a lot of people think that he was part of an immoral (≠ illegal) healthcare system.

The same standard, I think, applies to others. Maybe the protestors had it coming, because they went to a rally that they had to know might turn violent. Maybe the protestors had it coming, because they support a cause you think is despicable.

To me the whole sentiment of taking the law into your own hands is at issue here.

Originally Posted by subego 

I should clarify this. My assumption was the sentiment applied to violent criminals. I can get behind that.

What special about violent criminals? If you think someone's greed caused the preventable death of a loved one, I can see how people see it personal as a violent crime. Add to that financial pressure to put it mildly, which you typically don't have after a violent criminal kills someone.

The baby of a friend of mine is in a persistent vegetative state after a medical error during birth. I don't think she'll murder anyone, but the emotions involved are intense. And she lives in a country where she wouldn't have to fear medical bankruptcy for something she did not cause.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What special about violent criminals?

The use of violence?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Fun times going down in S. Korea today. President declaring martial law in an attempt to essentially conduct a coup against the legislature.

The 2nd impeachment attempt succeeded. He's suspended until South Korea's Constitutional Court confirms the action. His office was raided by police, and he's forbidden to leave the country.

In the meantime, two ministers have been impeached, and everyone's being questioned who might have anything to do with the martial law decree.

This is how a democracy should defend itself. Not fool around 2+ years before filing charges, find every excuse to delay, then vote a criminal back into power.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If you think someone's greed caused the preventable death of a loved one, I can see how people see it personal as a violent crime.

As I said earlier, in most situations it’s going to be reductive to lay responsibility for that at the feet of one person.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said earlier, in most situations it’s going to be reductive to lay responsibility for that at the feet of one person.

Sure. I'm not justifying people's actions. But if the murderer's intention was to shine a spotlight on an issue, murdering the CEO of the largest US healthcare company is much more effective than e. g. committing suicide or starting demonstrations.

Just to reiterate: I'm not condoning or justifying, but I'm sharing my observations.

Originally Posted by subego 

The use of violence?

I think you focus on the wrong thing. I think what motivates people is if they are pushed to the extreme, if rage and despair are allowed to build up. The (especially preventable) death of a loved one coupled with fiscal collapse will do that to individuals.

How many people commit suicide as a result each year in the US? (Honest question.) But I do know that those suicides get almost zero or exactly zero attention, whereas the death of a healthcare CEO does.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How many people commit suicide as a result each year in the US? (Honest question.) But I do know that those suicides get almost zero or exactly zero attention, whereas the death of a healthcare CEO does.

Here in the US, suicide gets a lot of very pearl-clutchy attention, but only in a very prescribed “if you or a loved one need help, please seek help or call the suicide prevention hotline...” manner. There’s never, ever, ever discussion or movement to actually, realistically discuss the external, systemic reasons that increasing numbers of people resort to suicide. It’s always some “depression is bad, m’kay” declaration, that works to slightly “other” the people succumbing to the pressures of their lives. It’s always “take long walks” or “talk to someone” or “meditate” or “seek help.”

There’s never a realistic discussion of what those pressures actually are, and what we, as a collective society, should be doing to mitigate (or even eliminate) those pressures. Suicide is largely met with the mental health version of “thoughts and prayers.”

Sorry for the rant. This is a very raw subject for me.

Back to the show!

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Sure. I'm not justifying people's actions. But if the murderer's intention was to shine a spotlight on an issue…

This makes it terrorism, no?

I’m using this word as a descriptor, not a judgement.

[reader50]

subego, you seem stuck on the idea the CEO was "innocent". Not responsible for thousands of preventable deaths.

Originally Posted by subego 

Presumably, this CEO didn’t set operating policy from the ground up.

So, the gunman* should have shot ... one of the previous CEOs, who was responsible for the ongoing company policies?

*the arrested suspect has neither confessed, nor been convicted. Members of the public are donating to his legal defense.

[subego]

I default to the gunman shouldn’t have shot anyone. That may change once I know specifics. Right now, the specifics are all hypothetical.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

subego, you seem stuck on the idea the CEO was "innocent". Not responsible for thousands of preventable deaths.

If I were in this CEO’s shoes, I very well might have made the same choices he did. I’m confident there would be incentive, sometimes very strong incentive to make most of those exact same choices.

So, I’m not really in a position to declare him guilty. Doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty, only I’m not entitled to pass judgement.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

This makes it terrorism, no?

I’m using this word as a descriptor, not a judgement.

Not necessarily, I don't think the descriptor fits well nor adds any insight. It was an assassination, in my book that fits best. When e. g. Reagan was shot, that wasn't a terrorist attack either, although it sure was an attempted (= unsuccessful) assassination. (Partly) politically motivated assassinations are very old, many are not terrorist attacks.

The attribute “terror” is often added to express disgust or strong disagreement. The killer wasn't part of a group (that we know of), he hasn't published a manifesto (that we know of), he hasn't professed belief in or as being inspired by some group.

Originally Posted by subego 

I default to the gunman shouldn’t have shot anyone. That may change once I know specifics. Right now, the specifics are all hypothetical.

Sure, nobody here is arguing for his murder. But I think it is important to also not assume the CEO wasn't responsible for what happened at his company. Assuming responsibility is different than the presumption of innocence in a criminal court. (And again, even if we agreed that he was responsible, it still doesn't justify his murder.)

Originally Posted by subego 

If I were in this CEO’s shoes, I very well might have made the same choices he did. I’m confident there would be incentive, sometimes very strong incentive to make most of those exact same choices.

You do have a choice to (not!) take the job. I'm sure I could have made a lot of money if I had gone for a job in the banking or insurance sector, for example. But I have had no desire to.

The CEO's job was being a good fiduciary to the financial stakeholders, and that meant reducing payouts (hopefully within the margins of the law).

Originally Posted by subego 

So, I’m not really in a position to declare him guilty. Doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty, only I’m not entitled to pass judgement.

You are conflating guilt in the criminal law sense and moral responsibility. The two are very different.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You are conflating guilt in the criminal law sense and moral responsibility. The two are very different.

How so?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

How so?

Legal behavior can be immoral and vice versa. If you believe that women should have the right to an abortion, an illegal abortion could be entirely moral and ethical by your moral standards.

If you are the CEO of a chemical company in the 1950s and 1960s and you know and support that the company dumps its toxic waste into the river, you may have not done anything illegal, but it certainly was immoral. Ditto for lots of aspects of the US healthcare industry.

[subego]

When I say “I’m not in a position to declare him guilty”, I’m talking morally. Where am I conflating legal guilt with that?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

When I say “I’m not in a position to declare him guilty”, I’m talking morally. Where am I conflating legal guilt with that?

Just by your imprecise formulation, I'd say. If you are talking morally, then I wouldn't use the words “guilty” or “innocent”, but rather “responsible” or “not responsible”. If you want to judge him morally, you could also say the CEO's actions were immoral.

I'm not a native speaker, but that's how I'd use these words anyway.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Suicide is largely met with the mental health version of “thoughts and prayers.”

I think there are situations where suicide could be the logical thing to do if someone is in a very desperate situation. E. g. if I were in horrible, unrecoverable medical debt and it would avoid financial ruin of my kids, assuming they are all adults, I might consider suicide.

I think you are spot on if you compare it to “thoughts and prayers” after yet another (mass) shooting.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just by your imprecise formulation, I'd say. If you are talking morally, then I wouldn't use the words “guilty” or “innocent”, but rather “responsible” or “not responsible”. If you want to judge him morally, you could also say the CEO's actions were immoral.

I'm not a native speaker, but that's how I'd use these words anyway.

Ah. My apologies. I was talking morally.

[Waragainstsleep]

One dead CEO won't be enough for the others to sit up and take notice. It'll need a few more, then the others will try something to protect themselves and that measure then needs to fail (at least a couple more dead CEOs), then they might actually entertain the idea of becoming less shitty.

The growing wealth inequality strongly suggests we are headed for some kind of capitalist neo-feudalism. It seems that most people still feel it is too early to implement the traditional solution to this problem. Many more lives would be saved and many many more improved if it happened sooner rather than later.

[subego]

I’ve got lots of dangling stuff here. Not blowing everyone off, just have been really busy.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The growing wealth inequality strongly suggests we are headed for some kind of capitalist neo-feudalism. It seems that most people still feel it is too early to implement the traditional solution to this problem. Many more lives would be saved and many many more improved if it happened sooner rather than later.

We're still a long way off. Russia is much closer - sham elections and pointless military conflicts and government assassinations of journalists and dissenters and AFAIK no one is rising up there.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

We're still a long way off. Russia is much closer - sham elections and pointless military conflicts and government assassinations of journalists and dissenters and AFAIK no one is rising up there.

Errr… countering a claim with a reference to a textbook autocracy in which the leader reached his term limit, installed a puppet, took back power, had parliament increase term lengths by 50% and then remove term limits altogether is not the argument you seem to think it is.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

We're still a long way off. Russia is much closer - sham elections and pointless military conflicts and government assassinations of journalists and dissenters and AFAIK no one is rising up there.

Have a look at Hungary, Turkey and Poland, I think those are the cases you should worry about IMHO. Some political scientists call those “illiberal democracies”, because they still retain many of the accoutrements of a proper democracy. However, many of those features are a facade: the administrative state has become partisan. State media works in favor of the ruling party and does not treat alternate viewpoints equally. People with power dole out money/state contracts as a favor. The judiciary is no longer independent. Opposition parties have to fight uphill battles during election in various forms.

These countries exist on a spectrum. In Poland, for example, the opposition has managed to win the last election. But the years of PiS rule have left a lot of the damage to public institutions.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Errr… countering a claim with a reference to a textbook autocracy in which the leader reached his term limit, installed a puppet, took back power, had parliament increase term lengths by 50% and then remove term limits altogether is not the argument you seem to think it is.

Well, maybe "a long way off" is only about 4 years...