That’s my point. You see one as an atrocity but not the other. So you don’t have a problem glorifying it. But it’s still doing exactly that.
Well, advocating for common decency doesn’t work in the US. USians only understand arguments that use bullets.
Discussing is certainly not the same as glorifying. And yes, I did label one and not the other as an atrocity, but I hope you understand that’s a simplification.
I do think in this case it’s an important question to be asked: why did the killer commit this murder; and why are so many people supporting it. And in this case, I don’t think it does justice, nor does society good, to wave it away with, “they’re a bad person who did a bad thing”. Perhaps in all murder cases some discussion, by some people, is necessary. But here, on balance, it seems particularly important and public.
Then discussing Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto, the Unabomber’s, McVeigh’s, or a school shooter’s isn’t glorifying either.
This isn’t a situation where you can say one is glorifying and the other isn’t. That’s just thought terminating propaganda which is really dangerous around acts of violence.
I’m not saying that discussing their motive is a bad thing. I’m saying sharing the manifesto either is or is not a glorification of their violence. There’s no gray area where it’s not glorification because you believe it was good or interesting. We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals. So the mere act of glorification isn’t bad in and of itself.
I think that’s probably the biggest problem people are having here. They think if they’re glorifying violence it’s automatically bad, or radical. But watching cool training videos for the Army is glorifying violence. Celebrating battlefield wins for Ukraine is glorifying violence. But so is saber rattling at Iran and proudly announcing the sweep of homeless encampments.
If we’re not asking the right questions then we can’t get the right answers. Especially when we use loaded questions that turn it into a team sport. This entire thread has shown that there is a thought terminating line of argument out there, “Glorifying Violence is bad, ergo sharing the manifesto is bad” and people assume they need to argue whether it’s actually glorifying violence. But that’s where conservatives want the argument because they can easily just hand waive it away. He literally shot and killed someone, his manifesto is obviously connected to violence. Instead the argument they need to be making is why discussing that manifesto is as good and proper as the discussion on whether we should invade Iraq in 2002.
Then discussing Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto, the Unabomber’s, McVeigh’s, or a school shooter’s isn’t glorifying either
I agree, I don’t think it is. Nor is publishing Mein Kampf glorifying Nazism. Sharing the manifestos can be part of glorifying the actions, but also doesn’t need to be. But sharing them does suggest some relevancy of the actions, which to some people suggests you should consider agreeing with them. So there’s a balance of when it’s appropriate, especially if some people are using that to glorify the actions - as, indeed, is very much the case here.
We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals
We do, but I’m not sure it’s quite right. Maybe when we simultaneously say, “glorifying violence is bad,” we recognise the tension and perhaps our own cognitive dissonance. And maybe what we really want, is to glorify the stopping of evil, and accept (perhaps) the use of violence to achieve that. The glory of the politician going after criminals is of stopping the criminals, not of the superiority in violence used to achieve that. But the school shooter? Is there any glory there to be had, adjacent to the violence?
Which brings us back to this CEO shooting. Even if we say violence per se is a bad thing, or if we say only judicially sanctioned violence is acceptable, still the abuses this CEO represents are evil, and we might glorify the opposition to those abuses. That leaves us with a tension. Glorify the principle of opposition, but not the method applied. In that context, the manifesto is relevant.
And it leaves us with a discussion. Do we really say all violence is wrong? Is this healthcare system really as abusive or illegitimate as people think? Does the CEO have responsibility in that? What is a right attitude, and means, toward this in the future? All these we can discuss - and consider the manifesto part of that - without a priori ascribing glory (or condemnation) to the killing.
It is true many people are glorifying Luigi, and whether that’s right is a separate question. For similar reasons we censor sharing all sorts of things, like Mein Kampf, or like dumping Bin Laden’s body in the sea. But those things don’t, of themselves, need to be glorifying what they represent; it is the opinionated balance of social factors that makes us censor those things. In the case of the school shooting, I probably agree: censor the manifesto. (Actually, I’d say let it be public for those who wish to know, but not widely shared.) But in this case here, I think the balance is in favour of publishing Luigi’s (apparent) manifesto.
