Yes it is. It’s the same reason we don’t share school shooter manifestos.
The only question here is do you agree with this violence? If you do then carry on.
The difference is no one is cheering on school shooters. Luigi did what he did for a good reason. He is not crazy, or evil like a school shooter
I’m saddened there haven’t been copycats yet. Hopefully that means people are just taking their time in planning like Luigi did.
People can learn from his mistakes and maybe the next one will get away.
No because it was warranted and deserved. Take a look around, this is not an edgy opinion. The majority of Americans feel the way I do, why is that?
I am one of the most non-violent people. I’ve never struck a person in 35 years of life.
The only time violence is warranted is when it is a response to violence. Social murder warrants actual murder. Tens of thousands dead vs one CEO dead. You are crying about the wrong death
Just because you can’t tell the difference between this guy and a school shooter doesn’t mean other people can’t, or that the distinction is arbitrary. This guy killed more Americans than Bin Laden and his death was celebrated.
Is it okay to support Ukraine shooting Russians?
Violence is inherent in our systems. Violence is inherent in politics. States are literally founded and upheld through violence (the military and the police). Believing anything else is just closing your eyes to the violence that happens every single day, and making you powerless against injustice.
I think there’s a difference. School shootings are an atrocity, and, for the most part, we all agree on that. Sharing the manifesto lends a kind of legitimacy to the shooter and their reasons, and, on balance, we’d rather turn our back on them and condemn the violence.
With this CEO murder, many of us agree there’s such life-destroying abuse in the American healthcare commerce - of which this CEO was directly part, whether or not he’s to blame - that the problem is a serious topic of public conversation. The manifesto, and the events associated with it, are a relevant part of that conversation, whether we support them or not.
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.
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.
Well, advocating for common decency doesn’t work in the US. USians only understand arguments that use bullets.
does it seem a little…wordy… to anyone else
Are you sure? Your position that it’s not wordy to anyone else can be defeated by even a single person whose position agrees with mine. It’s indefensible. If you want you can wait to see your position defeated publicly, or quietly accept defeat. Let me know what you pick (silence is an answer :) and I’ll be sure to celebrate appropriately. Have a day.
Okay I’ll bite
What is the point you’re trying to make
I think it’s like 262 words or something.
Can you name a single “manifesto” that’s more precise?
Also for what it’s worth communism has been tried at a social experiment in several countries.
It’s always led to brutal trampling of human rights in those respective countries at the time of the communist regime
Care to comment on that?
note that reddit didn’t have a problem with “orks must die jokes” or people celebrating war fotage as long as they celebrate the right peoples deaths
Yeah they keep calling him radicalized. I just keep thinking this is a normal reaction and that corporate America and its shills are the radical ones.
I’ve read the manifesto. I have the same thoughts as you. I wonder with all these people calling him radical if maybe there’s a fake manifesto out there. Something created JUST to make him sound crazy? That would explain the wildly different views of him being radical.
Remember, one month ago, the shooting hadn’t happened yet. Nobody knew Luigis name or face. So if you go from not knowing he exists, to seeing him murder a guy, and then get told he has plans for domination, and kill all the people…it would be logical to understand why someone would call that perspective radicalized.
That’s not what he is, or what he wrote, but if you read a fake manifesto, believed it to be real, that would explain people saying that.
Otherwise, I’m confused where “radicalized” comes from.
“Would you shoot literal hitler in the back?” “Fuck yeah, bud” “Who radicalized you, everything that man did was legal”
Hey, hey, let’s not bring the H man into this. It’s not like the US is rounding up immigrants into concentration camps and making them work to pay off their deportation fees so that the US can have its slave labor without being dependent on China because we are at war over Taiwan……
Yes it is. So what. The rich glorifies violence against the poor.
The leader of the country once said: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”
So if its apparantly okay to use violence against alledged thieves (which is not okay btw, stealing should never equate a death sentence), then it must be okay to use violence against mass murderer CEOs.
“When the denying starts, the deposing starts” would be my rebuttal to that phase the ex-president said. Violence begets violence.
You get points for honesty, at least. Most people in here don’t even admit this is a call for violence.
It certainly doesn’t state it explicitly. It just says that the killer was the “first to face it” that way that implies that there is a possibility for more but the way I understood it was that current measures being taken aren’t enough, that doesn’t mean that other people wanting to take action should do so violently.
So if its apparantly okay to use violence against alledged thieves (which is not okay btw, stealing should never equate a death sentence), then it must be okay to use violence against mass murderer CEOs.
The reason violence against “looters” is permitted stems from their violation of the principles of the American caste system
Contrary to popular belief, you are not allowed to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. You are only allowed to help yourself when you’ve received lending permission from a state recognized philanthropic sponsor. Otherwise, you are supposed to quietly drown in your own filth, where it isn’t inconvenient for anyone higher on the totem pole than you.
The caste system is sacred. Brian Thompson earned his position. Luigi Mangione deserved his miserable fate.
I like that you put “looters” in quotes. After hurricane Katrina, the news would show “looters” and “people trying to survive,” taking food items from grocery stores. I wonder what the difference was?
the difference
Skin hue
Yes, people were also taking electronics, but for food?
Yes, people were also taking electronics, but for food?
I believe there were a number of people accused of robbing stories when they were actually evacuating them from rising floodwaters. But, again, that boiled down to skin tone.
When the looting starts, the shooting starts
That was some fascist cop in Miami in the 60’s. Not the leader of any country.
President Trump told reporters Friday evening that he didn’t know the racially charged history behind the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Trump tweeted the phrase Friday morning in reference to the clashes between protesters and police in Minneapolis following George Floyd’s death.
