2mo ago

Two in one stupidish question- Debate about United Healthcare CEO and best place to have it

Hello! So two things:

I would like to have a discussion about the UHC CEO killing and if it is at all any different than the ~45 murders a day in the USA...(other than the obvious "he was rich" one). -Typical Christmas family get together brought this up as a topic and was curious about the different perspectives. Argument made by others was "this sets a bad precedent", and the response was "how is this any different than someone getting murdered for literally any reason". Hate, lust, money, your car..whatever the motivation, how is this any different?
Is there a better location to post said discussion topic?

I mostly lurk Lemmy, so not really sure how to find the correct communities for said topic.

Thanks!

73 comments

“What is so much worse than vigilante violence without accountability is systemic violence without accountability. The most prolific vigilante in the world, hell the most prolific serial killer in the world, could not kill as many people per day as the CEO of United Healthcare is responsible for.”
via Tumblr
- via !latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
  
  They really messed up when the whole squad got together for that photo op. That's a powerful image.

For the first….
Honestly, it’s probably less offensive and more justifiable than most shootings.
Is it still murder? Yes, imo.
Vigilantism is bad. It’s horrible. If you add up all the Brian Thompsons that get taken out, vs, all the others who didn’t actually do anything- Ahmaud Arbery, comes to mind…
Guess what I’m saying is that Luigi did something awful, but his target selection was most appreciated.
- The way I see it, this was just another shooting. Except, instead of targeting innocents or literal children, it was someone who actually played some part in making them so desperate
  And in the first 48 hours, the adjuster did more to shake the health insurance racket than decades of the public demanding change.
  They say we need the rule of law, otherwise we just have mob rule... But maybe it's worth wondering if mob rule isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be
  
  It's been said that those that make change via peaceful means impossible, invite violence.
  I don't like that someone was shot, but this is the direction we're heading unless we can get this fixed.
  It's not just health care either, it's every large corporation trying to get more from their employees and more from their customers without giving back anything in exchange ... or realizing that they have enough.
  The infinite growth mindset is out of control and ridiculous.
  
  I'd argue that this wasn't mob rule. It's not like a chaotic group that went a too far. This was a targetted attack on an evil aggressor. This was the people getting a little bit of justice.
  
  You want to bring back "mob rule" such as allowing people to gang up and lynch people they don't like? That's disgusting.
- Vigilantism is horrible, and it's it's a symptom of a system that is failing. It means people feel that other non-violent options don't work.
- I'll go a step further and say that, while I agree that vigilantism in general is bad for society, I don't think that's a universal truth. Targets and motives and effects matter. Sometimes vigilantism is both necessary and good. And that happens when the system itself becomes badly biased against true justice - where things are so bad that the people perpetrating the mass injustices aren't even considered to be breaking the law, let alone just not being prosecuted for it. Not to Godwin things so quickly on purpose, but it would have been considered vigilantism to kill nazis as a German citizen in the 30's and 40's. I think most people today would agree that it would nonetheless have been completely justified. I'm not saying we're that far gone just yet - but I'm saying when things get to the point where vigilante justice is the only justice, and when the system itself is structured to support injustice...
  I'm also not sure what Luigi did fits a strict definition of 'vigilantism", but that's kind of irrelevant to the point. In a way he's kind of an anti-vigilante? Using crime to handle horrible people who technically aren't legally criminals?
  Either way, there are a lot of things deeply wrong with the US currently, on a systematic level, and it's clear to almost everybody that the justice and healthcare systems are are major parts of that unwellness. The system as a whole has been getting worse and worse for decades. It's frankly surprising that it took this long for something like this to happen - but I'm sure it won't be the last time.
  It's clear that a lot of people are feeling the same sort of way - it's not often that a law-abiding citizen is publicly murdered and the nation, as a whole, celebrates and sends their well-wishes to the shooter. People wouldn't react that way if they already felt the system was serving justice acceptably.
  
  The US spent trillions to chase one guy who caused less US citizen deaths than this CEO. I think a Bin Laden makes for a much better example of the hypocrisy than Nazis.
- It's very much in the "cool motive, still murder" category. I'm not living in the US but I heard the healthcare horror stories and I can relate to someone just snapping. He who sows wind, reaps the whirlwind.
  
  Its more in the catagory of "killing the murderer of my child", but replace child with millions of US residents who couldn't afford treatments due to arbitrary denial of coverage
  It may be murder, but this then brings the question: "Should a jury be allowed to be instructed to, not only being the judge of facts, but also the judge of law?" (aka: should a jury receive the instruction that they are allowed to acquit even if they technically committed a crime, but the jury feels the law should not be applied in this circumstance? They are technically always able to to that via Jury Nullification, but they never are allowed to receive that instruction that they are allowed to.)

The difference is Brian Thompson deserved it. Brain Thompson was a legitimately evil person who - in a system where consequences can happen to the rich - would have been severely punished and/or executed for the harm he has done.
And therein lies the problem. We are not in a system where consequences can happen to the rich. People like Brian Thompson can abuse the public at large for his own gain. They've purchased congress, they have purchased the white house, they have purchased the courts, they have purchased the police.
All legal recourse has been denied to the average citizen. Voting, writing congressmen, petitioning, picketing, protesting...these things have no effect on public policy or corporate behavior. The rich own the government, the government will do what the rich people want it to do. They'll never arrest a rich person for, say, torturing millions of people.
The soap box fails, the ballot box fails, what's left is the ammo box. The men who wrote our founding documents fought a grape shot, musket ball and bayonet war for the chance to write them; the idea that - when all else fails - things sometimes have to get fucking ugly was on their minds. Hence the constitutional right to bear arms in this country, with the implication being sometimes you've got to walk up to a rich and powerful person who is doing a lot of harm and catastrophically damage his vital organs.
I'll leave this topic with this: I've seen topics of discussion here on Lemmy that read something like "You say marriages used to last before no-fault divorce? Naw, it's just women used to murder their husbands a lot more." And the comments section of these were nothing but cheers and applause. The overall Lemmy community is perfectly fine with that. A person in a lower position of power and an intolerable position takes the opportunity to end the life of a person in higher power over them to escape that intolerable position. It's okay when a wife kills her husband because he's beating her, right Lemmy? So it must also be okay when an ordinary citizen kills an oligarch because the oligarch has been denying them necessary healthcare. "He was beating me so I killed him." "He was keeping me from getting treatment, so I killed him." The difference I see is there are people who aren't saying "You go girl" to the second one.
Probably but whatever.
- Hear hear!
  "[A]ll experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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 to provide new Guards for their future security."
- The killing of Brian Thompson was cold blooded murder and should not be celebrated. No one is saying we should celebrate any other average person who gets gunned down like that.
  
  This response is so boot-lickingly simplistic and lacking in context and nuance. I wish I could get to live in the world where this blanket statement just made everything okay again. It's almost as if you actually have no reasonable counter to the points raised by the commentor.
  
  Wrong. The last thing that was, was “in cold blood”, i.e. out of nowhere. Definitely there was cause.
  
  files finger nails

People say violence is never an option and that you should use your words. Those people are lying violence is ALWAYS and option (not always the best) this violent act of murder has done more towards equallity of healthcare for americans than thousands of people speaking could have hoped to achieve.
The french did not get liberty by asking the lords, the rich, and the king for rights. They took their liberty by forcfully exercising violence to remove the heads of the ellite.
Is murder inherently wrong? I would argue no (its ok to murder hitler etc) so where do we draw the line on accepted murder? By applying a utilitarian perspective of least harm then it could be argued that the murder of this ceo and potentially others is mortally required.
Remeber the best definition of a country is the group who holds a monopoly power for a specific area. Violence is the only message that has reliably worked throughout history.
Ps. I do not support or encourage anyone in enacting violence upon anyone else.
- I think the issue I've been grappling with is, where do we draw the line as to what is an 'acceptable' murder? Like what if another Healthcare CEO is killed, but they're violently knifed to death? Are we still celebrating then? What if they're shot, but raped first? Are we still printing t-shirts? What if they're shot, but so is their family? What if innocent passers by also get caught in the cross fire? Do we still cheer for them? What level of mental gymnastics do we have to do to justify something as 'justice' vs just plain old 'murder?' Where does this take us? Where does that reasoning end?
  
  Its a classic conundrum and one you have to decide for yourself based on your own morals. I tend to take a ends justify means approach to things but that has been critiqued extensively by people far smarter than I.
  These ceos are responsible for killing thousands of people and will kill thousands more in the future. The maths would argue that any action that reduces harm in the future is justified. That then changes ur question into one of what do u value more? Thousands of people dying preventable deaths due to corporate greed or another healthcare ceo being violently stabbed to death after being raped and their family shot and innocent bystanders getting shot?
  There is no right answer. All u can do is decide for yourself in a manner u believe is congruent with ur personal morality.
  
  Knifed to death is still good. The others are two-parters and should generally be avoided if possible.
- this violent act of murder has done more towards equallity of healthcare for americans than thousands of people speaking could have hoped to achieve.
  What exactly did it do to help with the equality situation? It's delusional to think UHC hasn't simply replaced its CEO and increased security. Business as usual.
  
  It has united the people in two ways.
  Yes, we all are suffering in the same ways and for the same reasons (oppression by the ruling class).
  Here we collectively see a solution.
  The killing of this CEO did very little directly. But indirectly it unified the people, and that is a big big thing.
  
  The same day Thompson was killed Blue Shield backed off their announcement to stop paying for anesthesia during surgery. A healthcare improvement directly tied to that killing.

As for your family discussion, generally it's advised to avoid bringing up controversial topics because it almost never ends well.
That being said, I've found that the following statement is pretty universally agreeable:
Thompson led a company that was number one in the industry in denying coverage for routine and life-saving healthcare to people who had paid good money for and were legally entitled to coverage, meaning it's almost certain that multiple people have died as a result of the policies he oversaw the execution of in the name of profit. So while I don't condone murder as a method to solve problems with the healthcare system, it's difficult for me to feel any sympathy for the victim.
- Plus, you can't deny the results; insurance claims immediately started being approved at higher rates.
  
  Not disagreeing, but do you have sources? I wouldn’t even know where to start looking.
- Thanks, yes generally zero political or hot topics are brought up by me. However this one was thrown in my face randomly by my parent hoping to pick a fight.
  Only response was "how is it any different than any other murder ?"
  Not in the real hopes we have a conversation but to highlight its not just a black and white topic... And it effectively shut the convo down because this person wasn't in their echo chamber and those type of people don't really like a healthy real conversation :)

On Lemmy?
Lemmy has a bias against the ceo so you'll just have a thread of everyone (including me) agreeing with the sentinment that the ceo deserved it, so it wouldn't really be a debate.
Reddit will have less of a bias, but then reddit doesn't really like you talking about this topic, and your thread will mysteriously get deleted. Honestly I'm not sure theres really a place on the internet where you actually have an unbiased audience to debate this, and not get censored. You'll have to look IRL for people to debate.
You can try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
~~or !AskUSA@discuss.online~~ actually nvm, they don't like overtly political posts... 🤷‍♂️
or !chat@beehaw.org
but, again, you'll get a very biased audience
- Reddit definetely has a bias, just not the same as lemmy
  
  Reddit the company does. Reddit's users are celebrating with the rest of the country while their posts get deleted.
- AskUSA is actually going to be terrible for that, as it will just be biased sentiments. It will be better to discuss in a place that contains both US and non-US views.
- Thank you!
- The murder wasn't justified. Don't act like everyone is okay with it.
  
  Look around. Read the room. You don't speak for "everyone," kiddo.

The only way it is "worse" (or better) than typical, everyday violence was the motivation. It wasn't just someone getting mad and acting in the heat of the moment. It was someone getting mad who wanted to send a message. There was a legitimate, culturally relevant reason Brian Thompson was killed, and it could very well lead to other killings for the same reason unless the status quo sees significant changes.
- Without making any judgment one way or another I can see this line on reasoning. Thanks

Would you kill a mass muderer? Because that's what an insurance CEO is. I'd argue the existenc3 of any millionaire CEO begets mass social murder
- Its called an execution, not a murder. A murder is a crime.
  
  This was murder. It was a crime.
- Except that's false because he did not murder anyone (that we know of). Be angry at the system and the government allowing it to exist not the ones using it as intended. Much of what I see here is jealousy of millionaires and virtue signalling instead of people truly suggesting change. Anyone here can start any business, go start a fair insurance business, no one's preventing you, and that will actually help the issue instead of crying online
  
  "Go start a fair insurance business"
  I cannot fathom how you can believe what you are writing.
  
  There are actually very high barriers to entry in the insurance and health care markets (which in the USA are tightly intertwined).
  The health insurance industry doesn't want there to be fair alternatives because then everyone would buy that instead. This is an oligarchy, not a democracy.
  
  Just because he didn't do harm directly he still profited in an industry that does. There is some culpability there. He wasn't forced to make millions in that particular industry.
  I am not saying I am casting my vote on either side of the argument on the shooting, but there was obviously some level of culpability here

!actual_discussion@lemmy.ca Let's get that community back up and running
- Good idea
- I think maybe the period at the end is messing up that link.
  
  Are you sure? Works fine on my end. I've edited it though

i would also like to know a place to chat on this

Hello folks! Thank you for your responses! Sorry for delay I was very overwhelmed by the holidays and didn't see how many people contributed until now.
Hope you are all doing well and taking the time to read it all now.

73 comments