Just to give one more take (without contributing any hostility, I hope!) - one way to look at it might be that you see this new development (Thompson’s murder and the nation’s “hell yeah!”) as the scary, dangerous step too far, whereas maybe many of us see the scary dangerous step(s) too far as having already happened (maybe long) in the past.
We’re in a really scary situation as a country, and that was almost exactly as true the day before Thompson’s murder as it is today. The significant events leading to our scary situation are a list of egregious misdeeds and manipulations by people in power, stretching back years - even if I take your premise that it’s wrong, this is just yet one more event (if a notable acceleration). I sincerely believe that a few more gray hoodies might actually send things back in the right direction and bring the owner class back to the negotiating table. As it stands (and ~equally true two weeks ago), the social contract in this country is in tatters. The rich get everything, everyone else - nothing, not even the healthcare we already frickin bought.
Laws are not virtuous by default, is it a moral judgment against killing itself here, or is the problem that it was not a legal act? Of course don’t let me reduce your position to one of my own two phrasings lol, but I am curious about the specific objection you have.
I really appreciate your perspective. It definitely helped me feel better about how hostile the rest of the responses have been.
I do already share that same thinking that it has been pushed too far long ago, though slowly to an extent.
I guess I have trouble wrestling with how far of a distance there is between the CEOs actions and their effects having caused deaths of many. It seems that the logic of that makes obvious sense, but there’s so many steps in between that it also seems so different from direct murder. Because of that distance of actions is what I feel makes it murder.
If we don’t consider this a murder and then continue that logic, at what point of involvement with the company does it stop and then become murder?
Still, I feel like this action, that I still feel is very wrong, is starting to give the people more power and the voice we should have had all along. So the results of this have seemed to benefit the people who have been victims of the predatory health insurance system.
I personally don’t ever want to feel good about killing another person. Even if justified. That just seems wrong.
Well, I can understand your point of view without sharing it. As for the hostility, beyond most folks just following whatever up/downvoting they see taking place already, there’s a critical element here that shouldn’t be missed - the positive response has been largely bipartisan, which is rare and valuable. And not only is it bipartisan, it points out an important truth which any resident of this country would do well to keep in mind -
At this stage of the game, we might be a hair’s breadth from realizing that it hasn’t been Democrats vs. Republicans for a long time, it’s just all of us regular folks vs the abusive rich (+their enablers).
I’m reaching here, but if other people feel that way, I can imagine wanting to discourage anything that takes away from a sudden (much needed) feeling of unity.
I’m just concerned about the lack of acknowledgement that this was a murder and the glorification of killing. Like I said before, I don’t see why we can’t feel good about what this has accomplished so far while also acknowledging that murder and killing is bad. It just seems like a mindless mob rather than a rally behind an ideology backed with logic.
