Hello! So two things:
-
I would like to have a discussion about the UHC CEO killing and if it is at all any different than the ~45 murders a day in the USAβ¦(other than the obvious βhe was richβ one). -Typical Christmas family get together brought this up as a topic and was curious about the different perspectives. Argument made by others was βthis sets a bad precedentβ, and the response was βhow is this any different than someone getting murdered for literally any reasonβ. Hate, lust, money, your carβ¦whatever the motivation, how is this any different?
-
Is there a better location to post said discussion topic?
I mostly lurk Lemmy, so not really sure how to find the correct communities for said topic.
Thanks!
People say violence is never an option and that you should use your words. Those people are lying violence is ALWAYS and option (not always the best) this violent act of murder has done more towards equallity of healthcare for americans than thousands of people speaking could have hoped to achieve.
The french did not get liberty by asking the lords, the rich, and the king for rights. They took their liberty by forcfully exercising violence to remove the heads of the ellite.
Is murder inherently wrong? I would argue no (its ok to murder hitler etc) so where do we draw the line on accepted murder? By applying a utilitarian perspective of least harm then it could be argued that the murder of this ceo and potentially others is mortally required.
Remeber the best definition of a country is the group who holds a monopoly power for a specific area. Violence is the only message that has reliably worked throughout history.
Ps. I do not support or encourage anyone in enacting violence upon anyone else.
I think the issue Iβve been grappling with is, where do we draw the line as to what is an βacceptableβ murder? Like what if another Healthcare CEO is killed, but theyβre violently knifed to death? Are we still celebrating then? What if theyβre shot, but raped first? Are we still printing t-shirts? What if theyβre shot, but so is their family? What if innocent passers by also get caught in the cross fire? Do we still cheer for them? What level of mental gymnastics do we have to do to justify something as βjusticeβ vs just plain old βmurder?β Where does this take us? Where does that reasoning end?
Its a classic conundrum and one you have to decide for yourself based on your own morals. I tend to take a ends justify means approach to things but that has been critiqued extensively by people far smarter than I.
These ceos are responsible for killing thousands of people and will kill thousands more in the future. The maths would argue that any action that reduces harm in the future is justified. That then changes ur question into one of what do u value more? Thousands of people dying preventable deaths due to corporate greed or another healthcare ceo being violently stabbed to death after being raped and their family shot and innocent bystanders getting shot?
There is no right answer. All u can do is decide for yourself in a manner u believe is congruent with ur personal morality.
Knifed to death is still good. The others are two-parters and should generally be avoided if possible.
this violent act of murder has done more towards equallity of healthcare for americans than thousands of people speaking could have hoped to achieve.
What exactly did it do to help with the equality situation? Itβs delusional to think UHC hasnβt simply replaced its CEO and increased security. Business as usual.
It has united the people in two ways.
- Yes, we all are suffering in the same ways and for the same reasons (oppression by the ruling class).
- Here we collectively see a solution.
The killing of this CEO did very little directly. But indirectly it unified the people, and that is a big big thing.
