sugar_in_your_tea comments on Anon pitches the next big movie adaptation of a video game

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I take it you think Brian Thompson deserves sympathy as well?

Yes. I think he was a pile of trash (esp. since my company uses his insurance company), but I will only consider violence as an absolute last resort. These types of problems can and should be solved without violence. Unfortunately, those types of solutions take a lot more time and effort, so I totally understand the desire for a quick fix, esp. for those who are suffering.

So while I think Brian Thompson deserves sympathy, I think Luigi Mangione and everyone who supports him does as well. Likewise for both Trump and those who support the attempted assassinations.

significant ideological disagreement with my own beliefs

I don't see what this has to do with watching a film with him in it. I have deep ideological disagreements with a lot of popular content, but I watch it because that content has nothing to do with that ideological disagreement.

I'll certainly boycott things that are directly related to my ideological disagreements (e.g. I avoid Nestle products due to their unethical sales tactics in Africa), but I'm not going to boycott something just because someone I disagree with is involved (e.g. I'm happy to use Brave despite completely disagreeing w/ Brendan Eich about same-sex marriage).

Watching a Jack Black film doesn't impact Jack Black's public views about Trump's assassination attempts, the two are completely unrelated. Refusing to go to a Tenacious D concert if Jack Black decides to go on tour w/o Kyle Gass could have an impact though.

If violence against a corporate ghoul, fascist, or nazi saves more lives in the long run, it is 100% justified

I absolutely disagree. The ends do not justify the means.

If we condone violence as an effective means to achieve political results, we're literally supporting terrorism, because that's what that is:

terrorism - The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If we condone violence as an effective means to achieve political results, we’re literally supporting terrorism, because that’s what that is:

I never said "political ends". I was reasonably specific "fewer people dying in the long run".

Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don't care about virtue at all.

I also don't put powerful people on the same level as a regular "civilian". When you take on a powerful position and then proceed to abuse the position so thoroughly that you cause mass deaths you might as well be a military general. In Trump's case, he's now literally the commander in chief of the US military.

I also want to point out that I don't even believe in free will and my ethical frame work here isn't that I simply want to "take out the trash" or seek vengeance. On a purely rational level I want the harm to stop, not to make Trump or Brian Thompson suffer or die. If there is a reasonable means to achieving that without killing them I would be in favor. But failing to find a pacifistic alternative I actually would say it is an ethical failure not to.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don’t care about virtue at all.

Closer to virtue, but more on the practical end that it's not a sustainable model. If you recognize terrorism an an effective political tool, where does it end? That's a rabbit hole that should not be explored IMO, and the only form we should get anywhere close to supporting is a popular revolution, which isn't terrorism because it's popular, and even so it should be used incredibly rarely.

I also don’t put powerful people on the same level as a regular “civilian”.

The difference between a powerful person and a "regular" person is in the amount of responsibility they have, and responsibility should come with penalties if it's not used properly. Execs that break the law should be jailed, not shot.

I don’t even believe in free will

As in predestination? Or as in, we're all automatons/there's nothing "special" about humanity?

I want the harm to stop

Assassination rarely inspires reflection, it usually inspires draconian measures to protect the targets. The healthcare industry isn't reflecting on how they should treat their subscribers, they're reflecting on how they can protect their CEOs. The US government isn't reflecting on Trump's policies, they're reflecting on how they can protect the President.

Real change comes from getting the quiet majority on the same page and energized to do something about it. A lone gunman isn't that.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

Sorry for the late response, I only have access to this account at work.

Closer to virtue, but more on the practical end that it’s not a sustainable model. If you recognize terrorism an an effective political tool, where does it end? That’s a rabbit hole that should not be explored IMO, and the only form we should get anywhere close to supporting is a popular revolution, which isn’t terrorism because it’s popular, and even so it should be used incredibly rarely.

Assassination could not also be popular? Given Luigi's popularity I'd argue that we quite literally see that is the case.

A popular revolution would be far more bloody.

Execs that break the law should be jailed, not shot.

"Breaking the law" isn't the issue. Its making decisions for the purposes of self gain that results in social deaths. Under-insured people dying to preventable disease en mass.

That said, sure, if we could jail them that would be preferable to killing them, but I don't think what we do to the CEO is that important in comparison to the reason Brian Thompson was killed.

As in predestination? Or as in, we’re all automatons/there’s nothing “special” about humanity?

We are all biological machines operating in a physical reality. Our will is not free from anything, our will is dictated by that physical reality. Specialness and predestination are both red herrings.

Real change comes from getting the quiet majority on the same page and energized to do something about it. A lone gunman isn’t that.

Except that Brian Thompson's assassination is literally inspiring a large group of people on the internet to gush and post about him and there are top down censorship activities to quell it. Maybe even inspiring enough to start a popular revolution.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

A popular revolution would be far more bloody.

Absolutely. But it would also be more likely to actually effect meaningful change, with a large risk of devolving into authoritarianism.

I don't think we're at the point where revolution is warranted, and I think we can fix the problem with a large-scale protest movement. Assassination isn't likely to improve things, it'll just lead to more protectionism of these people.

“Breaking the law” isn’t the issue.

But they are though. They're making it intentionally difficult for customers to get the benefits they were contracted to receive. There is a very good chance they are knowingly violating the law, but trying to stay at the edge of the gray zone to force lawsuits instead of regulatory investigation.

This is precisely the type of thing the various government agencies should be investigating.

Killing a CEO is an event, and events fade from memory with time. Jailing a CEO shows that the regulatory bodies are willing to enforce the law, and that's a warning to other companies that the same could very well happen to them. Maybe that's less likely w/ this administration, but that's the most effective route IMO.

Except that Brian Thompson’s assassination is literally inspiring a large group of people on the internet to gush and post about him and there are top down censorship activities to quell it. Maybe even inspiring enough to start a popular revolution.

I think you're overestimating the impact here. Yes, it has sparked a lot of discussion and moderation in communities, but it hasn't led to any real action. It seems like a mixture of moderation and time has largely allowed that water to pass under the bridge. And it's less than 6 months since the event.

Things have sparked up a little with the trial happening, but I highly doubt anything major will come of it. People seem to not like the idea of assassination as a tool to solve problems (like me), but they do think we need to fix health insurance, so you end up w/ a weird mixed form of support.

I hope it leads to actual fixes to the healthcare system, instead of normalizing violence as a form of political speech.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

But they are though. [breaking the law]

Sure, maybe? Besides the point though, slavery was once codified in law. Breaking the law isn't the issue: The harm is.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

We didn't end slavery by assassinating slave owners, we ended it by passing legislation banning it (and I'm sure there were assassinations during the slave era). Yeah, we fought a war first (in the US), but in many other areas, governments just passed laws banning the practice and enforced those laws.

Legislation is the proper way to solve this. If what they're doing is currently legal but undesirable, pass some consumer-protection laws to prevent most of the harm, and investigate why things cost so much and attack that so both the consumer and health care providers win.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

You are attributing a lot of credit to legislation in the same sentence that you concede that there was a lot of violence before and after the events that actually fully ended slavery in the US. (ignoring that I guess technically we haven't yet if you count prison labor)

A non-violent resolution is preferable in these cases if it can be done quickly. However, a violent resolution is better than letting it continue unabated and waiting as more suffering and death happens in the mean time.

Now, if you want to argue that your non-violent methods are more effective or tactical, I'm not really going to argue against that because sometimes that actually is the case.

But the idea that violence (covert or overt) is never effective as a means of enacting change is flat out wrong.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago

But the idea that violence (covert or overt) is never effective as a means of enacting change is flat out wrong.

Ok, violence is rarely effective at enacting desired change. Look at how many times the US has overthrown dictators just to get someone worse in power. Look at failed revolutions that resulted in authoritarians in charge. Look at Islamic extremism's results creating even more violence. Look at the complete lack of changes since Luigi Mangione took matters into his own hands.

Targeted violence just doesn't have a good track record for solving problems. It just creates a vacuum, and that vacuum is frequently filled by something even worse.

So yeah, maybe it's occasionally effective, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent