r/combatfootage has glorified violence for years now. That’s the only reason it exists.
Glorifying violence is A-Ok when the government awards people the Medal of Honor.
Reddit needs to come up with a more accurate excuse for their censorship.
They must have some data that this time some thing is awakening against the corporate greed.
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.
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.
sharing information is important. whether or not you are glorifying it depends on context.
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
What reddit thinks about anything matters to nobody but themselves
Thank you for posting this. I’ve been curious about what he wrote.
Shorter than some git commit messages. I’m a fan.
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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
Agreed! Sad that all the debt and death these companies allow is ignored in these discussions.
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.
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.
Well, something like 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 not true
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…
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?
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 deathYou’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
Just because you can’t tell the difference between this guy and a school shooter doesn’t mean other people can’t, or that the distinction is arbitrary. This guy killed more Americans than Bin Laden and his death was celebrated.
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.
If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don’t
That’s not the situation, nor what anyone is asserting. Who are you talking to?
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.
because you like it
we choose when it’s legitimate
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.
Stick and stones…
Stop using Reddit
I mean, lots of .world communities will censor it too, and they’re still FEDerated.
A mod said that the manifesto would be allowed
If it’s confirmed, I don’t see why not. Depends on the community, of course. I’m sure !lemmybewholesome would remove it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13922763
People can try. If it gets removed, report it on !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
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
If it’s confirmed, I don’t see why not. Depends on the community, of course. I’m sure !lemmybewholesome would remove it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13922763
People can try. If it gets removed, report it on !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Yes it is. So what. The rich glorifies violence against the poor.
The leader of the country once said: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”
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.
“When the denying starts, the deposing starts” would be my rebuttal to that phase the ex-president said. Violence begets violence.
When the looting starts, the shooting starts
That was some fascist cop in Miami in the 60’s. Not the leader of any country.
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!
Yay! You won a pedant point. Now you can flush the original down your brand new trump toilet! Oh boy! You won!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Kennedy also did quite a bit of rallying on that front. Kennedy’s why I voted for Trump.
Who? Never heard of 'em.
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.
