235 points

Shocked its so low

permalink
report
reply
114 points

People aren’t exactly gonna tell a random stranger and probable Fed that they support murder even if it’s really based

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

It’s not illegal to say you believe Brian Robert Thompson deserved to die. Hell, you could, perfectly legally, file paperwork to hold a parade in Luigi’s honor, right through the heart of DC. It’s illegal to make death threats, but it’s perfectly legal to express support for someone being killed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

With the incoming administration, I don’t want to be on record as saying that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Why not? Feds support murder, certainly. Heck, the Constitution supports murder: it establishes an Army.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

When they do it, not us peasants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

after the Nov 5th display of oligarch worshipping, maybe not as surprising it isn’t higher

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Shit was rigged, you know they made the question something insane to get more people to not agree with the killing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Link to study

Do you think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO are acceptable or unacceptable?

I’ve seen worse phrasing for survey questions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

O damn that’s actually not worded to bad. I expected way worse than that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Exactly. The question should have been, “did the CEO deserve to die?” It was likely, “was the killing acceptable?” It’s perfectly possible to believe the bastard had it coming without thinking one person has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

https://lemmy.world/comment/14023778

Apparently it was basically that, was it acceptable ot unacceptable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m genuinely shocked… Maybe they didn’t want to go on record saying it because they were concerned about backlash.

permalink
report
parent
reply
106 points

Only? Wtf

permalink
report
reply
61 points

When I was young, I wouldn’t have found it acceptable. It doesn’t matter how badly you’re treated, you need to find a peaceful way to resist. It’s something drilled into my and my peers’ skulls since I can remember.

After seeing little progress (but mostly worsening) with polite requests and peaceful protests, I really can’t figure out how it can be unacceptable.

A lot of those kids probably just haven’t gained that wisdom yet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

For one thing, you can sympathize but not find it acceptable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

51% think he should have been set on fire.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s still the majority opinion.

19% don’t care.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

the word you’re looking for is plurality.

Majority means over 50%.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

If 19% don’t care, then it is acceptable to them.

They are not upset it happened, they accept it. They do not explicitly support it tho.

Add the 19% to 41% and get 60% do not have a problem with a broad daylight execution of a healthcare CEO.

So if you want to be pedantic, email the person (or ai) that generated the headline.

But 60% didn’t have a problem with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
87 points

That low?

permalink
report
reply
59 points
*

There’s a teensy bit of data massaging to make the approval rating appear lower… in my opinion of course.

The respondents were asked to rank “acceptability of the killers actions” on a scale of 1 to 5.

Assumin’the average “young voter” views gunning strangers down as:

[1.very unfavorable]

(You would, if asked about murder, say it was bad As a rule. right? I would too. Ya know, unless it was justified.)

Looking at it that way, the same data looks a lot different suddenly.

33% young voters still think the killer is completely unjustified.

7% think there was some justification

19% are undecided if the CEO deserved to die for what he did

24% think the killer was mostly justified… But have reservations

17% believe he was 100% in the right

I got a little free with the interpretations but you get the idea, You could decide to frame the data this way too. there’s a saying: statistics don’t lie but statisticians do. Here’s my 100% true alternate title using the data but presented with the story I want to tell:

67% of Young Voters at Least Partly Approve of Killers Actions

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Selective selection of selected data by billionaire controlled media still can’t get below 41%

It’s awesome how willfully they exclude or manipulate in attempt to soften the information.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

“Don’t completely disapprove” might be better phrasing

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Yeah that’s the shocking point for me

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

I’m of two minds about it. Half the time, I want to build a statue of Luigi

The other half of the time, I’m feeling the Tolkien quote, “many that live deserve death, and many that die deserve life. Will you give it to them?”

In other words, at no point do I feel that Brian Robert Thompson didn’t objectively deserve to die. He is objectively doing more good for the world as worm food than he did as a living man. My only question is on the ethics of anyone actually killing him. On one hand, no one should have a right to make that call on their own. On the other, it’s not like he was ever going to face justice any other way.

I wonder if this dilemma is reflected in this poll. You can believe that killing the CEO was unacceptable, while also believing he absolutely deserved it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well said.

I don’t usually wish cancer on people, but if I had to choose, I’d probably have wanted him to go this way than by vigilante justice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I’ve been trying to tell you guys this is an echo chamber on the issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
67 points

The fact that politicians and executives consider this a “shock” is part of the problem.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

I’ve heard a saying that if you do anything enough, it becomes normal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yeah, good habits n such are important to cultivate until they’re second-nature.

permalink
report
parent
reply
64 points

Yeah that is shocking. My guess is lots of people declined to say for obvious reasons. The number has to be closer to 80%

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Neutrals are 19%, so even if we assume half of those are actually ok but didn’t say so, that’s still only 50,5% acceptance

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 10K

    Posts

  • 197K

    Comments