Was killing a murderous CEO a good and inspiring thing to do, and do we need to see more of that kind of direct action? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Is putting anyone, however much you might admire an action/s they took, up on a pedestal, ever a constructive thing to do? No.
Is spouting bigotry ever acceptable? Never.
And the only thing overlooking and brushing off bigotry achieves is more bigotry, and sending the message to the marginalised people around you that you care more about venerating a stranger who causes them harm but made you feel warm and fuzzy for a minute, than you do about ending their oppression.
This is why “no war but the class war” fails every time - intersectionality is essential, and if you don’t use your privilege to prioritise protecting those who are more marginalised than you, even from supposed allies (which a frankly terrifying number of people seem entirely reluctant to do) - then what the fuck are you doing? (enabling and participating in bigotry is what)
If you can’t deal with valid criticism of someone you consider a hero, you’re not a fan, you’re a cult follower, and nothing good has ever come from being part of a cult.
E: Just adding what I’ve seen so far, if your knee jerk reaction is to defend these posts, or brush them off as “error in judgment” or whatever (especially if you would be outraged if, say, some random MAGA had made similar statements, as I’m sure many have), you are saying that their content, and the people it is aimed at, are acceptable collateral damage to you.
I work with people from about 15 different countries and everyone asks everyone where they are from. I’m a white Australian and I have been asked where I am from numerous times. It is a perfectly fucking normal way of making conversation and plenty of people enjoy telling others about where they are from. This is really the woke bullshit tbat gives the left a bad name.
Maybe we should learn the context of her statement before jumping to conclusions
The context is just her life. That she’s attempting to apply to everyone always. The problem is not the question like she seems to assume. And her solution to ask “Where do you consider home?” is awkward and doesn’t really help.
To note, the problem is the underlying assertion that they have to be from somewhere foreign when other people in the same area won’t have that assumption applied to them. So the context the question is asked in matters a lot and her blanket statement completely takes that context out of it.
I live in a pretty diverse area and everyone loves talking about where they’re from. It’s like a universal ice breaker that can start an engaging conversation with people you otherwise have nothing in common with. Honestly if someone asks where you’re from there’s a far greater chance they’re trying to get off with you than fine tune their racism.
Yeah, I agree with the second one. Like ending bigotry would be nice, but assuming everything that can be motivated by bigotry is motivated by it isn’t going to accomplish that and ultimately (IMO) is why so many people see “wokeness” as a bad thing (though not discounting that there are a lot of actual bigots out there). I think it was also a factor to why Trump won in 2016 (and Hillary played right into that by acting like she should be president because it was about time there was a woman president, not to mention the DNC uniting to keep Bernie out).
he was a right winger
He might be a sexist, racist nazi, I’ll still give him a pass. Deeds speak louder than words.
Exactly! Idk how we went away from this but whatever goes inside your head doesn’t matter at the end of the day, you can be hateful all you want if your able to do good actions.
That’s what freedom of speech is suppose to mean, it’s fine when it’s all thought experiments and hypotheticals, but when you put thoughts into action, then there can be consequences if said actions are bad.
Yo, if that one guy had killed Trump, I’d have called him my hero. Republican gun nut or not.
Even if he’s scum of the earth (doubt it) the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
He seems run of the mill rich gen z tech bro with serious back problems. Which makes his points even stronger being a traitor to his class. Assuming he’s the shooter.
This story isn’t going away and the rich -especially those rich from blatantly problematic industries - should be scared.
There’s a very deep genuine anger in this country and it’s tied to emotionally charged life or death issues. I’m just surprised it’s taken this long for the powder keg to start to blow…
He’s not a traitor to his class. He’s working class, not owner class. He had jobs, he worked. He’s working class, even if he’s rich.
I feel like that’s debatable. He had direct access to wealth, his family owns many businesses. Perhaps he is estranged from them financially but we don’t know that yet. I put him in the capitalist class - if he stayed on a “normal” path he would of inherited the businesses.
Based on his Twitter history he’s a “rationalist” aka “gray tribe” - generally tech-savvy guys who believe pure reason sits above ideologies.
AKA generic I-am-very-smart libertarian, AKA just another smug Republican. People who think ideologies are like accents - they’re what other people have. Them? Nooo. They’re the default!
He should read some Kant and Hume.
Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind.
Reason is and ought only to be a slave to the passions
I don’t think they’d find that very insightful.
It’s plain hedonism. I’m sure they’re familiar with the idea.
Hedonism is obviously the best ethical theory. Bentham had the right idea
He may have read both - apparently he’s very well read. My guess is he would disagree with Hume on that point, but I don’t know the guy.
Well Hume was right. Reason can’t derive axioms. It can’t create purpose from nothing. It can’t solve the is-ought problem. Passion can. Passion can say “the world should be like this. Why? Because I want it to be”. Reason can’t do that. And thus, reason should exist only to serve passion.
I was constantly lurking on rarionalist forums until late 2016, and much less so now. When Bernie made his arguments the entire community shifted left. Given Yudkowsky’s positions on responsibility (in short all of us should do everything we can to maximize utility) I am entirely unsurprised to learn that one of us is the person who merc’d the guy. My radicalization started with Yudkowsky and then it was set into overdrive by watching the DNC be selfish while the GOP had been abjectly horrid.
Whether we’re successful more often or not the rationalists are mostly trying to reduce suffering and maximize pleasure for as many people as possible. That’s why we’re so into tech; we see it as a way to improve as many lives as we possibly can. Luigi likely saw this as the way he could do the same. The fact that he was spurred to action by his own particular suffering doesn’t change the fact that he was probably right.
Thanks for the comments on rationalism - the more I read about it the more it feels like I tend toward that way of thinking myself. But assassinating a CEO only seems rational at meme level. Historically, industries consistently soldier on after incidents like this. There’s an immediate reaction - in this case suddenly allowing more insurance claims - and then normal business practices gradually resume as the public loses interest. And the public reliably does lose interest, due to distractions, ever-diminishing attention spans, and the fact that all news becomes boring as it gets older. I don’t see how Mangione could have expected shooting a CEO to have a different outcome if he were thinking rationally. IMO he wasn’t. This shooting seems like a pretty typical, ultimately ineffective act. The people it will affect most could be the cheering multitudes flying high with revolutionary zeal, who will crash the hardest when nothing really gets better.
