Here’s the article, for anyone interested.
It basically boils down to: Brian Thompson grew up in a working class family in Iowa, while Luigi Mangione came from wealth and went to private schools. He compares Mangione to Osama bin Laden, and other “Angry rich kids jacked up on radical, nihilistic philosophies,” who “cause a lot of harm, not least to the working-class folks whose interests they pretend to champion.”
The author then mentions some polling that says people like their health insurance provider, actually. And then finally he says this:
Thompson’s life may have been cut brutally short, but it will remain a model for how a talented and determined man from humble roots can still rise to the top of corporate life without the benefit of rich parents and an Ivy League degree.
Without a stitch of irony. Thompson may have come from working class roots, but that ain’t where he ended up. So if it’s ok to become rich, but it’s not ok to be born rich, then I guess this author supports a 100% inherence tax? Yeah, somehow I doubt it.
The fact that he came from working class roots and chose to become a massive piece of shit makes him even worse than someone who was born into privilege.
Likewise, Luigi Mangione came from a background of privilege, yet gave it all up in the fight for the rights of all Americans.
Turns out you can be born into the working class and still be a piece of shit, and you can be born well off and still be a decent person.
The people writing these opinion pieces should be thrilled to hear that there is still hope for their children.
Likewise, Luigi Mangione came from a background of privilege, yet gave it all up in the fight for the rights of all Americans.
That’s very true. Mangione sacrificed his upper class life to fight back against the system, whereas Thompson used the opportunities afforded him by the system to enrich himself at the expense of others.
Yes! Brian Thompson and Luigi were both class traitors for completely different reasons. Thompson betrayed the working class for his own selfishess while Luigi was like Engels in that he walked away from extreme privilege because he was disgusted by what his class was doing to us.
Siddartha Gautama (better know as the Buddha) was literally born a prince and gave up his life of privilege in order to live as a beggar. Sure, he never killed anyone (except his own future life as a king), but he still became a saint. Meanwhile, Jesus may have come from more humble roots but he could have become a king had he chosen to do so.
All I’m saying is Reuters clearly knows where their bread is buttered.
As a side note, I recommend reading a lot of Buddhist writings for everyone!
It’s cool how something so old has found its way to being useful in modern clinical psychology.
The article in question was an opinion piece published by the New York Times. Why are you bringing Reuters into this?
People aren’t responsible for how they’re born. Being born into a family that’s benefitted from human suffering is out of their control.
Choosing to harm people in order to join a class of societal leeches is different.
Staying in that position of privilege you were born into is also a choice.
(I agree with you while people are young though)
Staying in that position of privilege you were born into is also a choice.
is it? You can just undo like 15 years of child rearing in that privileged position? Seems factually incorrect to me.
