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.
At first there were a lot of things floating around with people claiming to somehow have gotta access. Lot of sick fucks out there want to push an agenda.
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.
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?
::: spoiler 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.
most CEOs don't murder, even the health insurance ones simply are committing theft analogs, simply not funding healthcare, not preventing those than can independently afford it from accessing it.
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.
So copycats are now the authors of the things they copy? Whatever. This phrase had meaning as evidence of fascism in the US in the 1960's but now it's just another dumb, easily forgettable trump thing. Congrats, history is erased and now you got another trumpism! Wow!
If only Thomas Jefferson had somehow managed to cap a member of English Royalty. Instead, then Jefferson crossed the pond to suck up to Louis XVI, shortly before the man went full Ropespierre's Necktie.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security.
Of course not, it's just Spez sucking up to the billionaires in the hope that one of them will be dumb enough to toss him a few million for his shitpile.
The jailbait subreddit was regularly on the front page and openly joked about for years, Spez was even a mod for a bit "as a joke" until Anderson Cooper did a story about it.
It's an acknowledgement that there's a massive problem.
These companies are literally willing to bankrupt you to death. Their behavior is inexcusable. They profiteer off of human suffering.
We live in a country founded by people who were unhappy with the status quo and were willing to pick up a gun to change things. We shouldn't act surprised that it still happens. I don't think we should celebrate it, because it's sad that this is happening in the first place, that someone feels they need to do this. This problem is solvable, and it can be solved civilly, or it will be solved uncivilly.
Thats exactly how I feel "Its sad that this is looking like the solution"
Like, it had to come to this? You couldnt just set up your little racket and keep the golden goose fat and happy? Or atleast adequately provided for and left alone?
Reddit was full of false outrage and fake stories long before GPT ever existed. Just the last few people that were willing to post have kind of wandered off. I think we got the best of them here
Some communities just don't really have an equivalent elsewhere but I'm purely only lurking now. Don't comment anymore, use a modded third party client on mobile and ublock origin on desktop.
See, then you are giving a murderer's message publicity. As opposed to UnitedHealthcare, responsible for far more many deaths, having the ability to have as much publicity and as many lobbyists as they want.
I think he is more than just the (relatively trivial) allegations against him. He has rallied support for massively reforming the American Healthcare system, which will save countless lives, improve our quality of life, and ensure the financial stability of the American Public.
He has rallied support for massively reforming the American Healthcare system...
I would disagree with this. Nobody is talking about health care reform. People are talking about destroying an economic system that creates billionaires, and also about destroying the billionaires themselves. This hasn't been a call for reform, it's a call to arms.
The scariest thing is that people are beginning to accept that the system has always been rigged, and there is no other way to fix it.
I've definently noticed how more and more things are being disallowed to talk about on social media. It's just a matter of which platforms has which rules, but the rules are also changing as more and more people are complaining about reading things they don't agree with.
I suspect we will just discuss memes in the future, and politics, since politics is something that the leaders want us to care about and fight eachother over.
I had the realization about this distinction several years ago regarding reddit. Over the years of attrition by various controversies, reddit no longer has moderators. They've all left. There are moderators in name but they do not moderate.
Many set the mod bots to do bot things and then fuck right off. To be fair moderating global scale messageboard is kind of an impossible task. Much less to do it for free. Can't fault the the old school internet moderators for leaving.
On another note. There's no way to tiptoe around the issue of intelligence. The baseline level of discourse just isn't capable of hard topics as it used to be. People seem to like the social drama that arises out of lack of moderation. That biases towards the lowest common denominators. It's like a modern day Jerry Springer shock jock entertainment. But live and interactive! Social media users seem to revel in it. Bread and circuses...
We used to make fun of Chinese social media censorship. Soon sharing images of Nintendo's Luigi will be as censored as sharing images of Winnie the Pooh in China.
Anyone with half a brain can see that it isn’t “glorifying” violence, it’s merely giving an explanation of why Luigi did what he did. Glorification would play more into pathos, but the manifesto is mostly ethos
Hi I’m new to Lemmy since Reddit decided to permaban me due to support I showed for Luigi. Good riddance to be honest. I should have fully quit when they shut down Apollo but didn’t know Lemmy existed.
Just keep in mind that if you are not satisfied with how your particular instance is running, you don't have to stop using lemmy like you did with reddit. You can switch to a different instance and keep on chilling!
No more switching services! Gotta love this place.
To expand on this: You can migrate accounts fairly easily. You can export your subscribed communities, and import them into your new account. So the only real thing you’re losing is your post history, but even that is seen as a bonus by many users who are looking to burn their old account.
I've always thought well educated people have a great potential to be dangerous and achieve transcendental goals if organized. A group of engineers, of chemists, physicists, biologists, computer scientists after specific goals may be formidable enemies if they wanted. The 0.001%, the dirty rich, should now be aware.
I think I saw a report many years past that engineers make a bigger than expected proportion of radicalized people, in the context of middle east insurgencies.
Depends on the context in which you're sharing it.
If you share it with a title like "We need more of this", then yeah, because you're encouraging further acts like it. If you share it with a title like "This is the manifesto written by the alleged CEO killer", then that's not inherently glorifying violence, you're just sharing something you found and being informative. But if you share it in response to the question "Hey Reddit, what are some fun things I can do in NYC this weekend?", then you're back toward the "glorifying" side. Context makes all the difference.
Whether or not anybody gives a shit about that distinction, though, is a different question.
I think that statement could be interpreted a few different ways but regardless I think it's helpful background information to know that they aren't considering the context at all.
I started to realize that the thing I liked about Reddit were the analytical and thoughtful people like me on the platform. When I came here, I found that many came over. When I visit Reddit, either because I'm nostalgic or because I have a specific need for something there, I'm finding more and more recent posts that are mostly filled with trash. Sure, some of the insightful, thoughtful and analytical people are still hanging around, but the vast majority has shifted away from that type of person. Reddit has also become so mainstream that is a stone's throw away from xitter or Facebook in terms of quality. Everyone and their mother is starting a Reddit account.
Their excuse is monnney. Look at Twitter, people are pulling their ads because they are not happy with what's happening there. Keep the people who give you money happy and everything is fine. No matter if you would have to sell your soul (like Disney in China, to not get banned and miss millions of subscribers). Since the ad companies usually are big corporate, you can imagine what reddit their stance is.
In this case, I think of more like Guy Fawkes…..there is clearly a problem with the us death care system. And we are right to be angry with these companies that profiteer on our sickness and in some cases that result in people dying from delayed or denied care. Is is right to murder someone? No, of course not. I think the question to ask is who is the real murderer?
I think federal government probably sent a pretty please over to reddit HQ to censor this.
They're afraid of it fomenting further dissent. It's a delicate situation when the plebs are upset. A little bit is OK, in fact preferable. But too much can lead to a chain reaction that cannot be controlled.
Why would it be? The only actual reference to violence is the fact that it happened ("[…] faced it with such brutal honesty.") and the reasoning behind it.
No, it's not. But there's a general fear that spreading manifestos of terrorists could cause people to believe them. They did the same thing with Bin Laden's manifesto.
For the record, I oppose this, it's just that I can understand why this sort of thing is done.
While I am certain you can cite lengthy manifestos from other killers and I applaud your work, it won't be necessary. The length of those works is irrelevant.
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.
So far, I have not seen anyone other than you express this position in any discussion of this document. You have not demonstrated that there are others who agree with you.
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.
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.
Then discussing Osama Bin Laden's manifesto, the Unabomber's, McVeigh's, or a school shooter's isn't glorifying either.
This isn't a situation where you can say one is glorifying and the other isn't. That's just thought terminating propaganda which is really dangerous around acts of violence.
I'm not saying that discussing their motive is a bad thing. I'm saying sharing the manifesto either is or is not a glorification of their violence. There's no gray area where it's not glorification because you believe it was good or interesting. We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals. So the mere act of glorification isn't bad in and of itself.
I think that's probably the biggest problem people are having here. They think if they're glorifying violence it's automatically bad, or radical. But watching cool training videos for the Army is glorifying violence. Celebrating battlefield wins for Ukraine is glorifying violence. But so is saber rattling at Iran and proudly announcing the sweep of homeless encampments.
If we're not asking the right questions then we can't get the right answers. Especially when we use loaded questions that turn it into a team sport. This entire thread has shown that there is a thought terminating line of argument out there, "Glorifying Violence is bad, ergo sharing the manifesto is bad" and people assume they need to argue whether it's actually glorifying violence. But that's where conservatives want the argument because they can easily just hand waive it away. He literally shot and killed someone, his manifesto is obviously connected to violence. Instead the argument they need to be making is why discussing that manifesto is as good and proper as the discussion on whether we should invade Iraq in 2002.
Then discussing Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto, the Unabomber’s, McVeigh’s, or a school shooter’s isn’t glorifying either
I agree, I don't think it is. Nor is publishing Mein Kampf glorifying Nazism. Sharing the manifestos can be part of glorifying the actions, but also doesn't need to be. But sharing them does suggest some relevancy of the actions, which to some people suggests you should consider agreeing with them. So there's a balance of when it's appropriate, especially if some people are using that to glorify the actions - as, indeed, is very much the case here.
We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals
We do, but I'm not sure it's quite right. Maybe when we simultaneously say, "glorifying violence is bad," we recognise the tension and perhaps our own cognitive dissonance. And maybe what we really want, is to glorify the stopping of evil, and accept (perhaps) the use of violence to achieve that. The glory of the politician going after criminals is of stopping the criminals, not of the superiority in violence used to achieve that. But the school shooter? Is there any glory there to be had, adjacent to the violence?
Which brings us back to this CEO shooting. Even if we say violence per se is a bad thing, or if we say only judicially sanctioned violence is acceptable, still the abuses this CEO represents are evil, and we might glorify the opposition to those abuses. That leaves us with a tension. Glorify the principle of opposition, but not the method applied. In that context, the manifesto is relevant.
And it leaves us with a discussion. Do we really say all violence is wrong? Is this healthcare system really as abusive or illegitimate as people think? Does the CEO have responsibility in that? What is a right attitude, and means, toward this in the future? All these we can discuss - and consider the manifesto part of that - without a priori ascribing glory (or condemnation) to the killing.
It is true many people are glorifying Luigi, and whether that's right is a separate question. For similar reasons we censor sharing all sorts of things, like Mein Kampf, or like dumping Bin Laden's body in the sea. But those things don't, of themselves, need to be glorifying what they represent; it is the opinionated balance of social factors that makes us censor those things. In the case of the school shooting, I probably agree: censor the manifesto. (Actually, I'd say let it be public for those who wish to know, but not widely shared.) But in this case here, I think the balance is in favour of publishing Luigi's (apparent) manifesto.
I think it's tied to why you're seeing the manifesto. If you're seeing it to discuss motivations and learn that's not glorification. But let's not lie to ourselves. Mangione's manifesto is being shared with a wink and a smile on social media. That is 100 percent glorification. For the purposes of figuring out if what he did was the right thing it's far better to look at facts and statistics. But let's go back to Mein Kampf. The only people sharing that on social media with a wink and a smile are Neo Nazis. I don't know what group sharing Mangione's manifesto aligns with but it's a similar situation. That's not a call to rational discussion, that's a call to approval.
Mangione’s manifesto is being shared with a wink and a smile on social media.
Agreed. Lemmy especially is all for glorifying both manifesto and actions. Yes, it's being shared for that glorification.
But so is his mugshot. For likewise reason we sometimes avoid sharing the name or photo of certain criminals.
Maybe... maybe you're right. Maybe I'm also supporting a point of view because it gives me an outcome I want: the outcome of the manifesto being public, without a priori judging the actions. But I feel there's something I'm missing. I think it's to do with censorship. The other rhetoric, apart from this glorification, seems to be that there's nothing to be said here except to lament and condemn the murder, and move on. Even the BBC report on why social media are supporting Mangione, felt like it was subtly shifting the perspective to make sensible people shrug the support off as irrational hype largely from Mangione's good looks. That perspective then leverages the "glorification of violence is bad" argument to avoid or censor other discussion, including sharing the manifesto: this bothers me. So that even if the manifesto is being shared mostly only by those who seek to glorify Mangione, and I don't wish to glorify his action, I would like it shared.
I despise murder. Outside of fiction, I do not wish to glorify vigilante executions. And yet, I have a deep anger at injustices such as from certain members of the US healthcare system. Something must be done: and when the response to this something is to erase discussion, that feels wrong. Your answer, if I understood right, is that it's right to glorify certain violence, including this: and therefore sharing the manifesto is good. Mine, I think, is that it's right to fully and frankly consider all that's going on, including this manifesto: and if that gets mired in people glorifying the shooting, I'm willing to put up with that. The manifesto is being shared to glorify the shooting; but sharing it is still important if not glorifying the shooting.
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'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that we choose when it's okay to glorify violence. Denying that this glorifies violence denies that we choose when it's legitimate. It covers that choice up with a screen that says this is violence and that's not violence.
Yes, it's not an incompatible theory. The Harm principle for example is all about balancing one person's rights with another. Or put another way, choosing when violence is legitimate.
I understand what you're saying. The answer is yes, we choose when violence is justified.
Lemmy doesn't do well with nuanced discussion. The communication dilemma present is the lack of the bridge between where one party in the discussion wants to continue narrowing the parameters of discussion until we are left with a binary choice (the quantum side of discussion) and the other party wants to keep the discussion broad and cognizant of all the variables (the general relativity side of discussion).
Both sides have valid reasons for existing. Usually you do have to narrow parameters in order to actually come up with a solution or action to implement. Similarly to how in a valid experiment you attempt to control all variables except what you're testing. But you also have to be aware of all the variables in the first place to adequately control them.
Yeah, that may be true. Some people have their minds made up and they somehow think any further discussion is somehow a weakening of their position or something like that.
I like to think that any fear of discussion simply means you're afraid your reasons aren't sound and you don't want to question the reality that you may be acting on emotions rather than reason. I think you can definitely have this discussion rationally and still end up supporting what happened.
That was a serious question. If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don't then what kind of morals are acting on? Yeah it came because I was frustrated that people can't seem to get off trying to evade the idea of glorification. But it's still serious, if your knee jerk reaction is to say it's not a glorification because it's justified then you run a real risk that vigilantism is only part of. Authoritarian states work the same way.
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
You're confusing 60 percent support for healthcare reform with 60 percent support for murder. Off the internet this is a highly contentious act.
You cannot be non-violent and pro-murder. That's incompatible.
I haven't once said the murder was a bad thing. You've just been assuming that because I'm out here challenging your ideas about yourself. You need a better internal guide than, that felt good unless you're really lying to yourself and you're hoping for mob violence. You need a strict guide as to when it's permissible. The first step to doing that is to admit that you are glorifying a violent act.
I wish Luigi had another tactic to use, but we know the legal system will not serve the individual over the half-trillion dollar company.
The system has made violence the only option. I don't glorify the violence itself, I glorify ending the life of a man who led a company whose denials kill 40 people per day. If anything Luigi acted in self defense, and in defense of the American people.
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 didn't bring Hitler into this. "Literal Hitler" is an analogy, a character, not the real thing.
I’m making a joke
ah yes, i clearly noticed.
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.
The media attempting to paint a narrative. Consent manufacturering machine go brrr.
People don't read the manifesto, just the headlines calling him radicalised.
At first there were a lot of things floating around with people claiming to somehow have gotta access. Lot of sick fucks out there want to push an agenda.
Sadly reasonable conclusions based on reality is pretty based.
Oh no, reality is leaking into the media! We must stop this unapproved narrative!
Read that in his voice, well done.
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.
barbara streissand has taught them nothing apparently
It's pretty shitty as far as manifestos go.
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!"
You agreed with a murderer, now what?
4/5 stars.
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.
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.
It also calls them parasites in the plural sense, as justification for it needing to be done.
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?
::: spoiler the difference Skin hue :::
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.
Probably.
Robots need to eat too
most CEOs don't murder, even the health insurance ones simply are committing theft analogs, simply not funding healthcare, not preventing those than can independently afford it from accessing it.
That was some fascist cop in Miami in the 60's. Not the leader of any country.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864818368/the-history-behind-when-the-looting-starts-the-shooting-starts
So copycats are now the authors of the things they copy? Whatever. This phrase had meaning as evidence of fascism in the US in the 1960's but now it's just another dumb, easily forgettable trump thing. Congrats, history is erased and now you got another trumpism! Wow!
The police chief may have coined the phrase, but the president still used it.
Yay! You won a pedant point. Now you can flush the original down your brand new trump toilet! Oh boy! You won!
If sharing Luigi's manifesto is glorifying violence then so is sharing the Declaration of Independence.
If only Thomas Jefferson had somehow managed to cap a member of English Royalty. Instead, then Jefferson crossed the pond to suck up to Louis XVI, shortly before the man went full Ropespierre's Necktie.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security.
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
Drone kill footage is like the reciepts of investment, if not the product itself.
Of course not, it's just Spez sucking up to the billionaires in the hope that one of them will be dumb enough to toss him a few million for his shitpile.
Stop using Reddit
For a website with sections called nsfl and fight porn reddit takes a weird stance on manifestos.
You mean the website that didn't ban creepshots until MSM reported on it? That website?
The jailbait subreddit was regularly on the front page and openly joked about for years, Spez was even a mod for a bit "as a joke" until Anderson Cooper did a story about it.
Fight porn is not what I was hoping for, yet not exactly disappointed in the result.
No, it's not.
It's an acknowledgement that there's a massive problem.
These companies are literally willing to bankrupt you to death. Their behavior is inexcusable. They profiteer off of human suffering.
We live in a country founded by people who were unhappy with the status quo and were willing to pick up a gun to change things. We shouldn't act surprised that it still happens. I don't think we should celebrate it, because it's sad that this is happening in the first place, that someone feels they need to do this. This problem is solvable, and it can be solved civilly, or it will be solved uncivilly.
Thats exactly how I feel "Its sad that this is looking like the solution"
Like, it had to come to this? You couldnt just set up your little racket and keep the golden goose fat and happy? Or atleast adequately provided for and left alone?
We're are explicitly given the right to bear arms as a check to tyrannical governance.
Our government outsourced their tyranny to corporations.
Corporations should be well aware of strings being attached.
Agreed! Sad that all the debt and death these companies allow is ignored in these discussions.
I can't believe you've done this
Is anyone with a pulse still on reedit? All I ever see there are AIO/AITA/best of creative writing exercises that reek of ChatGPT
Reddit was full of false outrage and fake stories long before GPT ever existed. Just the last few people that were willing to post have kind of wandered off. I think we got the best of them here
I'm there for certain communities that aren't active here. I still don't use the official client though, it's horrible
What client are you using?
I'm using rdx. It scrapes old.reddit.com for the results, so it doesn't need the api.
On the odd occasion I go to reddit front page, AITA is always at the top with an obviously AI generated ridiculous story.
I'm there for a couple of videogames and the homelab/selfhosted stuff. Curated subreddits are still active and real.
Some communities just don't really have an equivalent elsewhere but I'm purely only lurking now. Don't comment anymore, use a modded third party client on mobile and ublock origin on desktop.
Constent manufacturing factory manufactures consent, millions shocked.
There’s a book called Manufacturing Consent for those interested.
Noam Chomsky. If you studied anything related to linguistics or even dabbled into that field, you will know the name.
I learned about this from a System of a Down rabbit hole :)
See, then you are giving a murderer's message publicity. As opposed to UnitedHealthcare, responsible for far more many deaths, having the ability to have as much publicity and as many lobbyists as they want.
Alleged murderer.
I think he is more than just the (relatively trivial) allegations against him. He has rallied support for massively reforming the American Healthcare system, which will save countless lives, improve our quality of life, and ensure the financial stability of the American Public.
I would disagree with this. Nobody is talking about health care reform. People are talking about destroying an economic system that creates billionaires, and also about destroying the billionaires themselves. This hasn't been a call for reform, it's a call to arms.
The scariest thing is that people are beginning to accept that the system has always been rigged, and there is no other way to fix it.
Robert Kennedy also did quite a bit of rallying on that front. Kennedy’s why I voted for Trump.
Who? Never heard of 'em.
I've definently noticed how more and more things are being disallowed to talk about on social media. It's just a matter of which platforms has which rules, but the rules are also changing as more and more people are complaining about reading things they don't agree with.
I suspect we will just discuss memes in the future, and politics, since politics is something that the leaders want us to care about and fight eachother over.
That's because America is the land of the free to shut up and do what you're told, or else.
which is why people need to start understanding that moderation is different from censorship
No, they have to put fear in your bones and make examples out of you.
I had the realization about this distinction several years ago regarding reddit. Over the years of attrition by various controversies, reddit no longer has moderators. They've all left. There are moderators in name but they do not moderate.
Many set the mod bots to do bot things and then fuck right off. To be fair moderating global scale messageboard is kind of an impossible task. Much less to do it for free. Can't fault the the old school internet moderators for leaving.
On another note. There's no way to tiptoe around the issue of intelligence. The baseline level of discourse just isn't capable of hard topics as it used to be. People seem to like the social drama that arises out of lack of moderation. That biases towards the lowest common denominators. It's like a modern day Jerry Springer shock jock entertainment. But live and interactive! Social media users seem to revel in it. Bread and circuses...
Interesting. Might be cool if Lemmy allowed mods to apply a NSFW tag that only a mod our admin could remove.
We used to make fun of Chinese social media censorship. Soon sharing images of Nintendo's Luigi will be as censored as sharing images of Winnie the Pooh in China.
If the feds don't get you, Nintendo's legal team will.
They’re the same picture.
Anyone with half a brain can see that it isn’t “glorifying” violence, it’s merely giving an explanation of why Luigi did what he did. Glorification would play more into pathos, but the manifesto is mostly ethos
I mean, lots of .world communities will censor it too, and they’re still FEDerated.
I literally found my way here because of lemmy.world bullshit. No, discussing jury nullification isn't inciting to violence.
A mod said that the manifesto would be allowed
https://lemmy.world/comment/13922763
People can try. If it gets removed, report it on ![email protected]
A mod said that the manifesto would be allowed
https://lemmy.world/comment/13922763
People can try. If it gets removed, report it on ![email protected]
Hi I’m new to Lemmy since Reddit decided to permaban me due to support I showed for Luigi. Good riddance to be honest. I should have fully quit when they shut down Apollo but didn’t know Lemmy existed.
Just keep in mind that if you are not satisfied with how your particular instance is running, you don't have to stop using lemmy like you did with reddit. You can switch to a different instance and keep on chilling!
No more switching services! Gotta love this place.
To expand on this: You can migrate accounts fairly easily. You can export your subscribed communities, and import them into your new account. So the only real thing you’re losing is your post history, but even that is seen as a bonus by many users who are looking to burn their old account.
Additionally, some instances disable up/downvotes as well so you don't even need to worry about internet points if you don't want to.
It's worth looking around and finding a few instances you like and checking them out. Some tend to have their old local culture which is kind of neat.
I've always thought well educated people have a great potential to be dangerous and achieve transcendental goals if organized. A group of engineers, of chemists, physicists, biologists, computer scientists after specific goals may be formidable enemies if they wanted. The 0.001%, the dirty rich, should now be aware.
I think I saw a report many years past that engineers make a bigger than expected proportion of radicalized people, in the context of middle east insurgencies.
Engineers tend to be less accepting of the "debate and theory" part of science and more of the "analyze and act" part.
As in, the debate is stupid, the theory is that the rich have fucked us all, now let's see what we can do immediately to make it work.
Fuck Reddit.
Depends on the context in which you're sharing it.
If you share it with a title like "We need more of this", then yeah, because you're encouraging further acts like it. If you share it with a title like "This is the manifesto written by the alleged CEO killer", then that's not inherently glorifying violence, you're just sharing something you found and being informative. But if you share it in response to the question "Hey Reddit, what are some fun things I can do in NYC this weekend?", then you're back toward the "glorifying" side. Context makes all the difference.
Whether or not anybody gives a shit about that distinction, though, is a different question.
My understanding is it’s being removed regardless of context.
That's the point of their last sentence.
I think that statement could be interpreted a few different ways but regardless I think it's helpful background information to know that they aren't considering the context at all.
Maybe they should take it as "glorifying justice"? No, of course that doesn't align with Reddit's ruthless ruling.
Reddit said so because it's CEO is known to be a greedy bastard who threw everything and everyone Bunder the bus for money. Luigi would not approve
Reddit also thinks appealing a ridiculous van is harassment, so not exactly the brightest bulbs over there.
I started to realize that the thing I liked about Reddit were the analytical and thoughtful people like me on the platform. When I came here, I found that many came over. When I visit Reddit, either because I'm nostalgic or because I have a specific need for something there, I'm finding more and more recent posts that are mostly filled with trash. Sure, some of the insightful, thoughtful and analytical people are still hanging around, but the vast majority has shifted away from that type of person. Reddit has also become so mainstream that is a stone's throw away from xitter or Facebook in terms of quality. Everyone and their mother is starting a Reddit account.
I miss when old.reddit.com was just reddit.com.
I agree. I've noticed a tendency towards willful blindness here. It's a little off-putting.
Did you try installing Linux tho
You're a funny dude.
Hey man, people can drive what they want, saying their car is ridiculous is not cool
They really couldn't figure out that that first [indecipherable] is "fourth"?
I filled in "fucking" for a little extra oomph
And the second most likely something like "parasites"
Fuckers. Bastards. Cocksuckers. It's like manifesto Mad Libs!
Their excuse is monnney. Look at Twitter, people are pulling their ads because they are not happy with what's happening there. Keep the people who give you money happy and everything is fine. No matter if you would have to sell your soul (like Disney in China, to not get banned and miss millions of subscribers). Since the ad companies usually are big corporate, you can imagine what reddit their stance is.
They must have some data that this time some thing is awakening against the corporate greed.
No .... and stop following anything that stupid website says.
Would it's get me banned to reply with "I love reading about CEOs getting killed, and I want more of them to die"?
Edit:in minecraft.
Why would they mind the deaths of Creeper Entity Objects?
Kek
Not much of a Manifesto..., that's just a Note my dudes.
Manifestnote.
Reddit is a free advertising platform. I literally just now use it to secretly advertise side hustles.
Good luck with your OnlyFans
Lol they're shopify stores. I'm ugly.
Good luck with your OnlyFans
Spez is one of these CEOs.
In this case, I think of more like Guy Fawkes…..there is clearly a problem with the us death care system. And we are right to be angry with these companies that profiteer on our sickness and in some cases that result in people dying from delayed or denied care. Is is right to murder someone? No, of course not. I think the question to ask is who is the real murderer?
Thank you for posting this. I’ve been curious about what he wrote.
Shorter than some git commit messages. I’m a fan.
sharing information is important. whether or not you are glorifying it depends on context.
No. It’s just Reddit’s thought police.
50% wtf!
https://youtube.com/shorts/dFK_u8pDV3Q
I think federal government probably sent a pretty please over to reddit HQ to censor this.
They're afraid of it fomenting further dissent. It's a delicate situation when the plebs are upset. A little bit is OK, in fact preferable. But too much can lead to a chain reaction that cannot be controlled.
I be searching like this these days:
-site:www.reddit.com
Fuck reddit. Fuck Spez and Fuck the police.
What reddit thinks about anything matters to nobody but themselves
i would argue no, but then again, there's a difference between posting it, and supporting it.
glorifying and supporting violence is almost always against the rules on any platform anywhere. So.
Why would it be? The only actual reference to violence is the fact that it happened ("[…] faced it with such brutal honesty.") and the reasoning behind it.
r/combatfootage has glorified violence for years now. That's the only reason it exists.
Stick and stones...
No, it's not. But there's a general fear that spreading manifestos of terrorists could cause people to believe them. They did the same thing with Bin Laden's manifesto.
For the record, I oppose this, it's just that I can understand why this sort of thing is done.
does it seem a little...wordy... to anyone else
It's pretty concise, actually.
Especially as far as manifestos from high profile cases go.
While I am certain you can cite lengthy manifestos from other killers and I applaud your work, it won't be necessary. The length of those works is irrelevant.
It's not.
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?
How are you measuring precision? And what qualifies as a manifesto? If you tell me your metrics I'll provide appropriate debate material.
You're the one making the assertion that it's wordy. The onus is on you to try and qualify that.
It's not, really. Have a day.👋
No.
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.
Sounds like a fun Sunday.
So far, I have not seen anyone other than you express this position in any discussion of this document. You have not demonstrated that there are others who agree with you.
Based on this I am satisfied with my position.
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.
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.
Well, advocating for common decency doesn't work in the US. USians only understand arguments that use bullets.
Lmao, that's not true but it did tickle me.
That's how it's perceived in the rest of the world, and USians are doing a lousy job of showing that the perception is wrong, so...
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.
Then discussing Osama Bin Laden's manifesto, the Unabomber's, McVeigh's, or a school shooter's isn't glorifying either.
This isn't a situation where you can say one is glorifying and the other isn't. That's just thought terminating propaganda which is really dangerous around acts of violence.
I'm not saying that discussing their motive is a bad thing. I'm saying sharing the manifesto either is or is not a glorification of their violence. There's no gray area where it's not glorification because you believe it was good or interesting. We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals. So the mere act of glorification isn't bad in and of itself.
I think that's probably the biggest problem people are having here. They think if they're glorifying violence it's automatically bad, or radical. But watching cool training videos for the Army is glorifying violence. Celebrating battlefield wins for Ukraine is glorifying violence. But so is saber rattling at Iran and proudly announcing the sweep of homeless encampments.
If we're not asking the right questions then we can't get the right answers. Especially when we use loaded questions that turn it into a team sport. This entire thread has shown that there is a thought terminating line of argument out there, "Glorifying Violence is bad, ergo sharing the manifesto is bad" and people assume they need to argue whether it's actually glorifying violence. But that's where conservatives want the argument because they can easily just hand waive it away. He literally shot and killed someone, his manifesto is obviously connected to violence. Instead the argument they need to be making is why discussing that manifesto is as good and proper as the discussion on whether we should invade Iraq in 2002.
I agree, I don't think it is. Nor is publishing Mein Kampf glorifying Nazism. Sharing the manifestos can be part of glorifying the actions, but also doesn't need to be. But sharing them does suggest some relevancy of the actions, which to some people suggests you should consider agreeing with them. So there's a balance of when it's appropriate, especially if some people are using that to glorify the actions - as, indeed, is very much the case here.
We do, but I'm not sure it's quite right. Maybe when we simultaneously say, "glorifying violence is bad," we recognise the tension and perhaps our own cognitive dissonance. And maybe what we really want, is to glorify the stopping of evil, and accept (perhaps) the use of violence to achieve that. The glory of the politician going after criminals is of stopping the criminals, not of the superiority in violence used to achieve that. But the school shooter? Is there any glory there to be had, adjacent to the violence?
Which brings us back to this CEO shooting. Even if we say violence per se is a bad thing, or if we say only judicially sanctioned violence is acceptable, still the abuses this CEO represents are evil, and we might glorify the opposition to those abuses. That leaves us with a tension. Glorify the principle of opposition, but not the method applied. In that context, the manifesto is relevant.
And it leaves us with a discussion. Do we really say all violence is wrong? Is this healthcare system really as abusive or illegitimate as people think? Does the CEO have responsibility in that? What is a right attitude, and means, toward this in the future? All these we can discuss - and consider the manifesto part of that - without a priori ascribing glory (or condemnation) to the killing.
It is true many people are glorifying Luigi, and whether that's right is a separate question. For similar reasons we censor sharing all sorts of things, like Mein Kampf, or like dumping Bin Laden's body in the sea. But those things don't, of themselves, need to be glorifying what they represent; it is the opinionated balance of social factors that makes us censor those things. In the case of the school shooting, I probably agree: censor the manifesto. (Actually, I'd say let it be public for those who wish to know, but not widely shared.) But in this case here, I think the balance is in favour of publishing Luigi's (apparent) manifesto.
I think it's tied to why you're seeing the manifesto. If you're seeing it to discuss motivations and learn that's not glorification. But let's not lie to ourselves. Mangione's manifesto is being shared with a wink and a smile on social media. That is 100 percent glorification. For the purposes of figuring out if what he did was the right thing it's far better to look at facts and statistics. But let's go back to Mein Kampf. The only people sharing that on social media with a wink and a smile are Neo Nazis. I don't know what group sharing Mangione's manifesto aligns with but it's a similar situation. That's not a call to rational discussion, that's a call to approval.
Agreed. Lemmy especially is all for glorifying both manifesto and actions. Yes, it's being shared for that glorification.
But so is his mugshot. For likewise reason we sometimes avoid sharing the name or photo of certain criminals.
Maybe... maybe you're right. Maybe I'm also supporting a point of view because it gives me an outcome I want: the outcome of the manifesto being public, without a priori judging the actions. But I feel there's something I'm missing. I think it's to do with censorship. The other rhetoric, apart from this glorification, seems to be that there's nothing to be said here except to lament and condemn the murder, and move on. Even the BBC report on why social media are supporting Mangione, felt like it was subtly shifting the perspective to make sensible people shrug the support off as irrational hype largely from Mangione's good looks. That perspective then leverages the "glorification of violence is bad" argument to avoid or censor other discussion, including sharing the manifesto: this bothers me. So that even if the manifesto is being shared mostly only by those who seek to glorify Mangione, and I don't wish to glorify his action, I would like it shared.
I despise murder. Outside of fiction, I do not wish to glorify vigilante executions. And yet, I have a deep anger at injustices such as from certain members of the US healthcare system. Something must be done: and when the response to this something is to erase discussion, that feels wrong. Your answer, if I understood right, is that it's right to glorify certain violence, including this: and therefore sharing the manifesto is good. Mine, I think, is that it's right to fully and frankly consider all that's going on, including this manifesto: and if that gets mired in people glorifying the shooting, I'm willing to put up with that. The manifesto is being shared to glorify the shooting; but sharing it is still important if not glorifying the shooting.
Well, something like that.
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.
So it's okay because you like it?
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'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that we choose when it's okay to glorify violence. Denying that this glorifies violence denies that we choose when it's legitimate. It covers that choice up with a screen that says this is violence and that's not violence.
I might be inferring the wrong thing here, but do you believe that human rights exist?
Yes, it's not an incompatible theory. The Harm principle for example is all about balancing one person's rights with another. Or put another way, choosing when violence is legitimate.
Fucking team politics. Just because I'm challenging how you view the world does not mean I'm on the other team.
I understand what you're saying. The answer is yes, we choose when violence is justified.
Lemmy doesn't do well with nuanced discussion. The communication dilemma present is the lack of the bridge between where one party in the discussion wants to continue narrowing the parameters of discussion until we are left with a binary choice (the quantum side of discussion) and the other party wants to keep the discussion broad and cognizant of all the variables (the general relativity side of discussion).
Both sides have valid reasons for existing. Usually you do have to narrow parameters in order to actually come up with a solution or action to implement. Similarly to how in a valid experiment you attempt to control all variables except what you're testing. But you also have to be aware of all the variables in the first place to adequately control them.
And from what I've seen, narrowing it to glorifying violence is nothing more than an attempt to terminate the discussion altogether.
Yeah, that may be true. Some people have their minds made up and they somehow think any further discussion is somehow a weakening of their position or something like that.
I like to think that any fear of discussion simply means you're afraid your reasons aren't sound and you don't want to question the reality that you may be acting on emotions rather than reason. I think you can definitely have this discussion rationally and still end up supporting what happened.
Dfc
That was a serious question. If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don't then what kind of morals are acting on? Yeah it came because I was frustrated that people can't seem to get off trying to evade the idea of glorification. But it's still serious, if your knee jerk reaction is to say it's not a glorification because it's justified then you run a real risk that vigilantism is only part of. Authoritarian states work the same way.
That's not the situation, nor what anyone is asserting. Who are you talking to?
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
You're confusing 60 percent support for healthcare reform with 60 percent support for murder. Off the internet this is a highly contentious act.
You cannot be non-violent and pro-murder. That's incompatible.
I haven't once said the murder was a bad thing. You've just been assuming that because I'm out here challenging your ideas about yourself. You need a better internal guide than, that felt good unless you're really lying to yourself and you're hoping for mob violence. You need a strict guide as to when it's permissible. The first step to doing that is to admit that you are glorifying a violent act.
Lethal injections are non-violent murder....
I wish Luigi had another tactic to use, but we know the legal system will not serve the individual over the half-trillion dollar company.
The system has made violence the only option. I don't glorify the violence itself, I glorify ending the life of a man who led a company whose denials kill 40 people per day. If anything Luigi acted in self defense, and in defense of the American people.
HERO