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.
“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……
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.
That’s what reddit banned, it’s so innocuous.
They didn’t ban it because it was dangerous or violent, They banned it because the anti-corporate and spez is a musk wanna be
Thiel is one of reddits earliest investors. spez is a Thiel boy.
This whole time I can’t believe how reddit managed to hold up a facade of being a cool progressive college student platform. They pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes. It’s as if they put lipstick on /pol/ and /b/. And everyone was like, alright a hip liberal platform. Sure if you ignore the iceberg of right wing bootlicking shit beneath the surface of the default subreddits.
I mean, he claims responsibility, confirmed the existing evidence, then states his motives which aren’t hard to understand for even those out of the loop. I think the brevity and simple reasoning speak volumes louder than some maniacs scribblings found in a cabin. The fact that even those considered Semliterate would be able to grasp the bulk of his message was likely intentional.
Its actually not shitty at all, presuming his purpose was to inspire a shift in public discourse around the topic.
If he wanted it to be the centerpiece of a dramatic documentary miniseries, then yes, it was shitty.
I appreciate how quick a read is it. Much more likely for random people to read it and start thinking and then you can jump out of the bushes and go “surprise, you just read a manifesto!”
There are like 50 sentences of basic reality in there, but I suspect that a lot of the moderation challenge comes from one small phrase dropped into the middle: “it had to be done.”
With the inclusion of that, the 50 sentences of reality are recast as not just true but a valid justification for murder, even an argument that it was a duty, and that’s the rub.
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.
If sharing Luigi’s manifesto is glorifying violence then so is sharing the Declaration of Independence.
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
