Terrorist is often a boogeyman label for freedom fighter.
Yep.
This and virtually all countries were founded by people who would fit the definition of terrorist.
How history remembers you is solely on the basis of how successful your “terrorism” was.
George Washington is a very well regarded terrorist in modernity.
I’ve had this issue in a story I’m writing, because one faction in this story is fighting for a cause that’s essentially good, but they’ve become extremely jaded by lack of change and have resorted to extremely violent measures. So it’s obvious the government they’re fighting would call them terrorists, but a hundred years later, history should view them with reserved optimism. It’s hard to categorize how the narrator and heroes should view them though, since the heroes don’t necessarily directly cooperate.
It amuses me that the media has no idea how to spin Luigi into the villain of this story.
It means Italians aren’t white.
Italians, like the people that populate Italy, don’t think of themselves as white. They see themselves as Italian.
Americans of Italian descent have a complicated relationship with “whiteness”. White is not a biology. It is a malleable group designed to keep people labeled black underfoot.
I mean, it was inarguably violence, and that violence seems to have a political motive (since changing or reforming the healthcare system is considered a political issue), and there is an element of using fear to further that end (since he would obviously have known that he cannot realistically change everything by himself or even just shoot every health insurance CEO, but shooting one while featuring a catchy phrase to make it clear the motive was being fed up with the health system, potentially makes all the other such CEOs and people in similar positions afraid that the next guy to try this might go after them next, and that more might be inspired seeing the shooting). Id argue that it does technically fit the term. People are just so used to that term being used alongside causes that they have no agreement with that they think it can never apply to a good one, or consider if it can ever be justified.
I’d argue the US for-profit health insurance system is state sanctioned terrorism of the civilian population, for profit.
What greater way to terrorize a population than to deny them and their families healthcare, under the threat of bankruptcy? How about the threat of bankruptcy either way, whether they’re insured or not?
The industry kills 30x 9/11 every year, bankrupts 500k, while stealing 500-700 billion from the population (compared to the public systems of the developed world). At the very least, it’s financial terrorism and extortion.
He was wealthy enough to have no problems paying for all of his surgeries without insurance, tbh. His dad is head of Mangione Enterprise which owns and operates a lot of real estate including large resorts.
He had a Bachelors in Engineering and a Masters in Computer Science.
You can certainly interpret the killing that way, but there are many other reasonable interpretations, and to get a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we have a quote of him saying before the murder or publishing at any time something indicating that he was killing this guy to send a message to all the evil m************ who act just like him? If we do, your conclusion is warranted. If we don’t, your conclusion is speculation.
Let me give you a parallel. Imagine someone cuts me off in traffic and I pull out a gun and I shoot them. Am I terrorizing other bad drivers? Probably not. Probably I’m a psychopath dealing with road rage in a terrible fashion. In other words, the fact that other people can draw conclusions about similar behavior does not in itself make my actions threatening to them in any way.
I don’t consider him a terrorist because I don’t consider what he did as a political action.
How’s that? It seems very political to me
Unless we’re doing a “I didn’t see nothin” bit, that’s cool too
Luigi didn’t make any political demands. He just said this CEO was a bad man and so he killed them.
No specific demands, but this was absolutely not only about the man Brian Thompson, and very much about larger political and economic issues in the country.
…If the manifesto is to be believed, anyway. I understand not everyone trusts the veracity/provenance of it, and that’s a reasonable doubt to have.
it’s not political because politics shouldn’t have anything to do with healthcare.
kinda depends on your definition of politics
the one I heard that I think is the most useful is, On the broadest level, Politics is how societies decide how and where resources are distributed
by that definition, healthcare can only be a political question, cus no matter how you set it up, you’ve made a decision about how it’s staffed and funded, who it caters to and what its goals are
