this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
872 points (98.3% liked)
interestingasfuck
6106 readers
1 users here now
interestingasfuck
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dude, read the bhagavad gita. It's all about inner peace during violence. A soldier not wanting to fight his kin on a battlefield. When you recognize that sometimes the cost of peace is enslavement you can take extreme action without any attachment to the outcome and remain in peace in your heart. I used to abhorrent violence still do, but I will act without attaching and face rip any monkey that is hoarding and hurting my fellows. MFRA.... monkey face rip association... even Buddha has stories stating no karma is incurred for some situations of violence. You might be stuck in good vs evil dichtomous thinking. There is no good and evil in nature just nature. We make the definitions and than we suffer them. Cast off your definitions and cultured personality and see the real that exist in many many sahdes.
You're making a lot of assumptions about where I'm coming from here, so let me clarify a bit why I think it's dumb: the OP essay inherits the flaws of the Unabomber Manifesto it is signal boosting. It's hand waving rhetoric and rationalization, right wing extremist flavored. Its only argument that violence will be useful is to bake in an assumption that of course it will, criticize other, independent options, frame the debate as a moral one about whether saving the world justifies violence, and make that argument with name calling.
I recognize that many people respect this type of argument, but they are wrong, it's bad and stupid.
What's the alternative? The health insurers are actively killing people by denying claims. I'm curious.
An absence of a clear alternative isn't a substitute for an argument that slaughtering corporate leaders will help the problem. There are practical differences between the circumstance of a wild animal literally fighting for its survival, and a member of a population being abstractly squeezed to death by systemic problems, in that killing is a clear immediate solution in the former but extremely questionable in the latter. Not bothering to acknowledge this makes it a bad argument. Also, all the other reasons I mentioned why it's a bad argument. Kind of reads like edgy highschooler cringe bait too, though that's subjective.
Maybe a better argument could be made, idk. But this one is dumb.
I hear what you're saying. My issue with your position is that Thompson is not a mere bystander or segment of the 'machine' that is killing - or in your words "squeezing" - other humans. Thompson, by his own admission, was actively pursuing mechanisms by which denial of care and ultimately death are effected. Why does he get a pass, I'm curious?
My criticism is of the writing in the OP, and of Kaczynski's writing, which while contextually relevant, isn't actually about Thompson or even specifically health insurance.
To answer your question though, I don't think he gets a pass, ethically. But I also don't think justice trumps striving for better outcomes in society, and in fact it's the other way around. This isn't exactly being contested; the rhetorical focus is on means and results.
That's fair. I think that makes sense. I don't expect Mangione to be the next Thoreaux in this regard so I don't really focus on their writing. It helps insomuch as to glean their thought process but I don't think it's particularly relevant. I'm more interested in the ethics of harm reduction but yea, I get what you're saying