UnitedHealthcare CEO shooting suspect thanks people for mail on new website
Luigi Mangione, who is charged with first-degree murder in the ambush killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, made the comments on a website set up by his defense.
You're viewing a single thread.
More celebration of murder as somehow "uplifting". America really is sinking.
PS: Brigading just makes you all look insecure while increasing even more the hostility level of this supposedly "uplifting" community. I personally don't care if a thousand of you downvote my comment. I'm secure in my conviction that murder is always bad. But others, maybe with more ambivalent takes, are gonna be put off by your mob mentality. And then you'll have nothing but others in your mob to tell you how right you are and maybe lessen any doubts or insecurity you have. Is that really what you want from a community? I must admit I don't get it.
You say murder and I say kill. Semantics, hey?
Downvoting isn't brigading.
There is something most people go through at some point, it's the realization that violence is sometimes necessary for the advancement of justice. There would have been no civil rights movements in the US without violence. There would have been no resistance against nazis without violence. There would have been no french revolution without violence. The very roughly "equal chances" society you enjoy today is the result of violence.
Simply put, when the system is dysfunctional and the safeguards originally put in place have been compromised/corrupted, you can either sit there and watch it dispense its injustice, or you can use violence. It's whatever works. Luigi allegedly did something very, very courageous and selfless, and he's owed our collective respect. I hope you get around to that.
A passably substantive argument! Though you couldn't resist a patronizing note of condescension right at the end. To me that suggests insecurity and so undermines your point.
I do know history, more or less (in fact I have a degree in it). And I take different lessons from it than you. The French revolution had two phases, non-violent and violent. Almost all of the useful reforms happened in the first phase. The mass spilling of blood was unnecessary, caused by impatient mobs who just could not wait for those reforms to bear fruit, and who had other unproductive agendas such as vengeance. What is certain is that 200 years later many European countries have achieved the same level of economic development and social justice as France (some of them even more so) without any need for a violent revolution.
As for civil rights, to me that's even clearer: it was not violence but non-violence - boycotts, sit-ins, marches - that won over public opinion and so made it impossible for the Kennedy-Johnson government to continue doing nothing.
I think MLK would have been horrified to see the rhetoric you deploy to defend the indefensible. I certainly am.
The mass spilling of blood was unnecessary, caused by impatient mobs who just could not wait for those reforms to bear fruit, and who had other unproductive agendas such as vengeance. What is certain is that 200 years later many European countries have achieved the same level of economic development and social justice as France (some of them even more so) without any need for a violent revolution.
Okay you gotta be kidding me. Can you give me the names of those countries? Because the examples that come to mind (Britain, Germany, the Netherlands) were very much violent.
The guillotine alone killed 17,000 people during the French Revolution. Clearly there is no comparison with what happened in the countries you mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
You've got a civil war for Britain, a war of independence for the Netherlands and a foreign occupation after a bloody war for Germany.
The actual reforms brought by the French revolution happened mostly during the nonviolent part before the Terror. Comparable reforms in the UK for example happened throughout the 18th and 19th century with hardly any violence.
The actual reforms brought by the French revolution happened mostly during the nonviolent part before the Terror.
The nonviolent part that had people checks notes storming the Bastille? That aside the actual revolution part of the French revolution ended up mostly nonviolent because the Ancien Regime capitulated nonviolently; had they dug in their heels the whole thing would've been a lot more violent.
Comparable reforms in the UK for example happened throughout the 18th and 19th century with hardly any violence.
Okay but those reforms happened after the royalists were beaten into submission. The English Civil War and other events happened in the 17th century and were the basis of later democratic reforms in Britain. They were nonviolent because the prerequisite violence necessary to keep reactionary royalist forces from messing everything up had already happened.
MLK would absolutely disagree with you.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
Justice delayed is justice denied. Anyone who says “Yes, you should have civil rights!…Later.” is saying No.
Many have already tried to argue that the American Healthcare system is broken, and were shot down or given vague promises that it was steadily improving.
Gandhi also preferred violence over sitting on your hands
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.
"Direct action", yes. Murder: no.
what do you think "Direct action" means?
As mentioned: protests, marches, sit-ins, strikes, there are plenty of forms of direct action. Direct action is not the same thing as violence.
This is written word, it's incomplete, it's flawed. Please do not assume the worst. I am responding in good faith to you here : I am genuinely hoping for everybody to come around to the fact that violence plays a central part in our societies, that it historically has, and that it may again -even if we don't like it
I am genuinely hoping for everybody to come around to
I do assume good faith. But can you see the problem with saying, "I'm hoping that everyone eventually sees that they're wrong and I'm right"?
the fact that violence plays a central part in our societies
On its face I agree. But I think it plays a pernicious role and personally I don't want anything to do with it.
You are extremely dishonest in interpreting the message from the one user who is excercising way too much patience with you. You should wash your mouth when you speak about MLK when spouting for your moralism.
Also, unfriendly tip: if you're gonna critizice people for being condescending to you, you shouldn't start your argument being condescending towards everyone a priori.
Finally, you have no moral high ground, your "non violence" apparently only applies to popular opinion and not state or politicians actions. Also, citing the French revolution as an example is woefully reductive and shows that maybe you should dust off your degree and read just a bit more.
MLK was one of the 20th century's three best known proponents of non-violence as a political method, along with Gandhi and Mandela. All three were hugely successful in achieving their aims.
About condescension, I'm trying but it's a difficult trick to pull off. Dishonesty is a more serious accusation that you would need to back up.
How's that boot tasting?
Yawn.
Yeah, make sure you get that boot right in there.
Believe what you want, but don't characterize opposition to your shitty opinion as "brigading".
But mass downvoting is a form of brigading, just look it up. And now you're adding insults to the mix. Well done.
Again, I personally could not care less. But by behaving like this, you're not encouraging people to share their thoughts (unless of course they agree with you, that's different!). And you're certainly not creating an "uplifting" community.
To be clear, I don't care about your downvotes. I DO care that you're excusing the inexcusable and helping to normalize political violence.
You comment a lot for someone who could not care less.
Should I shut up so that nobody contradicts you?
You should probably shut up because nothing but shit oozes from your maw. Keeping your mouth shut so you can handle your shame in private.
Preferably you should learn to deal with criticism, even if almost anyone is disagreeing with you. Crying on social media about a majority disagreeing only makes you look like a fool and basically animates a crowd of trolls to make fun of you. Also be aware that reactions to you so far were comparably civil, on more toxic platforms you'd have already been stomped into the ground.
If your sense of self-worth isn't strong enough to deal with massive civil / anonymous disagreement by other people without resorting to throwing shit around you should focus on improving it first before writing comments about controversial topics.
No no, again, I don't care about your "criticism" and your bullying and your mob behavior. I care that you are excusing murder and helping to normalize violence as a way to solve political problems. That is dangerous.
Stop moving the goalpost around, you literally cried about people "brigading", "mob mentality" and threw insults about supposed insecurity around. People are rightfully calling that out.
The best thing you can now do is to, indeed, just shut up and go for a nice walk through the park or similar. Calm down, sleep a night over this, then come back and either delete your comments or apologize for lashing out (while clearly standing with your valid opinion) if you feel like it. But stop digging your grave even deeper.
I get that this topic is fucking rough. People are dying. People get killed. And your original opinion condemning violence and asking if such things should get posted here is a completely valid opinion. BUT what really screws you over now is your inability to not lash out when confronted with huge disagreement. Conflating this with your valid point won't get you anywhere, it will only make you look like a fool even more, causing even more strongly worded disagreement (or trolling).
The anger and insults and hypocrisy here are quite something.
Let's get back to basics. There are lots of people here excusing murder. I am saying that is a bad thing. That is all.
No one is celebrating murder. First of all Luigi is innocent, because the cops are incompetent and just grabbed the first patsy available. Secondly because no murder happened. What happened was the inevitable. When it becomes clear that there are no consequences for bad behavior of the ruling / owning class, we start chopping off heads and shooting people. Unions were the compromise, and they have murdered that compromise. It is time to bring back the fear that the rich felt during The Gilded Age.
You can try to reframe it as much as you want so that you don't see grey, but the rest of us are celebrating a true American Folk Hero.
I'm going to ask again, Are you Dora the Explorer on an acid trip? You are completely incapable of not licking Boots. I don't think that poor monkey needs much more of a tongue bath.
If you're being attacked with the possibility of dying then defending yourself with equal force isn't murder, it's self-defense. If the attack is systemic and the system is objectively failing and beyond repair through its own institutions, then what would be a murder in different context becomes an action of self-defense.
The person killed was, without a doubt, a perpetrator of the system that caused phenomenal amounts of suffering and death. A system that couldn't get fixed in decades. So what you call "excusing murder" others will call celebrating a hero.
For the same reason this community celebrates any news about big corpos and rich people getting screwed over. Because it's a piece of fairness in a broken system. There is no hypocrisy if you allow to look through others people's perspective; given this is a hard thing to do if you just got tons of very critical, if not offensively-critical replies, I see that.
That's a more civil effort than your previous one. If you read the comments I've received, I think you'll find that many of them were offensive. Lucky then that I don't subscribe to harm-trauma-safety culture. Too bad for me if I get insulted! But a thoughtless comment is never going to inspire a thoughtful reply. And many of these comments are clearly just from people angry and surprised to have their views questioned.
I do understand the argument you are collectively making. I find it to be unconvincing sophistry. The murder victim was a "perpetrator" of a harmful system just as you and I are perpetrators of harmful systems. We live in a complex society full of harmful systems. But we don't necessary all agree on what constitutes "harmful", that's why we have laws. And this guy broke none of them. If people find that to be a problem, then they need to get the law changed so that the penalty for being CEO of a health insurer is mandatory capital punishment with no appeals allowed. That way, everyone will know in advance where they stand, including him. To the extent that this is not the law, that's on us collectively, not on him.
For instance, I personally consider that people who eat factory-farmed meat are responsible for perpetrating a system of terrible cruelty. Those people probably include you. Do I therefore have the right to gun you down in the street? Of course not. You broke no law and I don't get to invent my own on the hoof. (I wouldn't do it anyway because I believe murder is wrong is all circumstances bar none.)
It seems to me that nobody here is thinking very deeply about this question. Pure ethics aside, the future world you are all promoting is one of bloody chaos. It will certainly not be a democracy.
The mob is really against you here for showing rationality and thinking better of humanity. Thank you for giving the opposing viewpoint.
The rest of you.
Violence is only the answer after all other options are exhausted. Take this energy and make meaningful change.
Protest, Rally, and Vote people. We are in this situation because a massive amount of people fail at doing their part. Be a part of your community and influence your local governments.
Burden yourself with your own civic duties. People with the knowledge and influence are out there to make the changes we want to see happen. They need our help. We the people have to make ourselves heard and take back control of our lives, so that those capable people can do what needs to be done.
Don't let our concepts of Life, Liberty, and Justice go silently into the night.
Violence is only the answer after all other options are exhausted.
Precisely
Thanks for the support! And to the handful of upvoters too. Nice to know I'm not completely alone.
mass downvoting is a form of brigading, just look it up
I did. You're lying. Check this if you don't believe me: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brigading
by behaving like this, you’re not encouraging people to share their thoughts
They're discouraging takes that go against the hive mind. Simple as is. Yours just happens to also be a really shitty take.
To be clear, I don’t care about your downvotes.
You cared enough to make a comment about it.
No, all of these people are telling you that you aren't contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.
These people are slowly but surely destroying the fabric of society and you're sitting here clutching your pearls about murder? Shut the fuck up.
you aren’t contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.
Seriously? What "discussion"? There is no discussion. Everybody agrees with you except me. And yet still that's not enough, apparently. And what have you "contributed" exactly - except to say exactly the same thing that everybody else here is saying? Do you really come to a forum just to read people who already agree with you, and then write their own lines back to them? What's the point? Validation? I don't get it.
Shut the fuck up.
Just to be clear to anybody else here who wants a response: this was an exception. I will not reply to comments with insults, "shut the fuck up", "everybody thinks you are [insert insult here]' (is that supposed to be an argument?) etc etc. I'm not at primary school any more and I've got better things to do. What bothers me is apology for murder. So far there's been about 3% serious good-faith attempts to justify it, the rest has been empty anger and insults. I'm happy to reply to the former. The latter I ignore.
I've contributed to the conversation by pointing out you're a part of the problem, because you are. This limp dicked thinking is the reason liberals in the U.S. have been shifting further and further right these past 45+ years.
Had more been done to stop these people sooner, sure - we may have the luxury of not calling for people to die. We are running out of time, globally - and yes people like you need to get out of the way.
This limp dicked
Stopped reading there.
I'm sorry that hit close to home, but then again you are being detestable. Read the room.
Still resorting to "read the room" in 2025, I see. Disappointing.
Where's your attack on the violence dealt out by so-called health insurance companies then?
Just asking because you seem to have an issue with normalizing violence.
Your agenda is very one-sided.
Whatever that is, it's not murder. My agenda has two points. I am against the killing of defenseless unarmed people in the street, whoever they are and whatever they have done, on grounds of basic ethics. And I'm against political assassination, on the grounds that it's gratuitous and counter-productive.
How is pointing out that Healthcare United had the highest claim rejection rate in America, known for its profit-based healthcare system, political assassination? "They're making me look bad by pointing out the things I say, do, and believe!"
Some misunderstanding. Was talking about what the shooting suspect (almost certainly) did.
So you choose to ignore corpo violence, because it's not murder in your opinion.
That way you kind of normalize that violence.
I'm against the killing of defenseless sick people by health insurance denying claims.
I'm against economical assassination on the grounds that it's despicable to collect insurance premium and embezzle insurance benefits instead of granting them.
And I'm happy that Luigi gets mail.
But mass downvoting is a form of brigading
The downvote button is just a "I disagree" button. By saying you don't want people to downvote you, you're saying you don't want people to disagree with you.
now you're adding insults to the mix. Well done.
That's a bit passive aggressive innit? I don't think that was close to an insult.
you're not encouraging people to share their thoughts
this is !upliftingnews@lemmy.world, not !unpopularopinion@lemmy.world.
I DO care that you're excusing the inexcusable
I think Luigi's (theoretical) actions are the opposite of excusing the inexcusable. Murdering thousands a year for profit is inexcusable and should be stopped immediately. If that takes the death of the person orchestrating the murders, so be it. I see it as indirect self defense that's just more controversial than direct self defense.
The CEO chose to kill people and accepted the risks that come with it.
Again, I personally could not care less
I doubt that.
First, to re-clarify, I don't care about the downvotes myself. I'm a pretty resilient person, that won't be enough to shut me up, which is apparently what you all want. I do care about the effect of the downvotes, which is to announce to everyone browsing this "discussion" that there's a mob out, and you better say the right thing or else.
And I absolutely care about what so many people are doing here, which is to excuse murder and to normalize political violence. That's because murder is inexcusable, period.
As if it matters, I also think that the abuses of the US healthcare system are also inexcusable. And therefore I'm not excusing them. To be glib, two wrongs do not make a right.
Huh? Where's the brigading here? A whole bunch of people just thought this was a shit take.
I rarely downvote, and even more rarely downvote and comment, but I can assure you that downvote was wholly organic. Perhaps if you feel like you're brigade all the time, you should engage in some self-reflection.
Do you genuinely believe that if an opinion is popular in a certain in-group, it must therefore be right?
No. I downvoted because I believe you're wrong. I said if you get piles of downvotes, maybe you should engage in some self-reflection, because maybe you're wrong. I never said you're wrong, and this is one of those areas that isn't black and white, so assigning right and wrong is only reasonable to leave as a personal choice. That said, I also think it's very wrong to put forward your opinion and then be offended when others do the same, whether it be through comments or up/downvotes.
Personally I don't believe that something is more likely to be wrong because that is the view of 100 self-selecting people in this subset of a corner of the internet with entirely predictable opinions. We will agree to disagree on that point.
And I didn't say it did. But when a bunch of people say you're doing something shitty, it isn't a bad idea to take a few moments and ask, "Am I?" And coming back at them for saying it is never a good look, even if you're right.
It's 1800 and I'm against slavery, should I "take a few moments" and ask, "I'm in the minority, maybe they're right?"? It's 1935 Germany, is it "never a good look" to say that Jews are not in fact evil vermin? Etc. This is morality we're talking about. The votes don't matter.
You keep acting like I said the majority think something so they must be right. Yes, I think if you were living in those examples that you should take a good look at why you believe differently than the majority and be able to defend it. No, I don't think, even in those situations, spouting off on people disagreeing with you without giving an adequate defense of your position and merely that they're hating because of your differing position is useful and is going to convince someone of your stance.
It's me spouting off on people? Have you seen the comments I've received? What do you make of them?
In other comments in the thread I've gone on for paragraphs and paragraphs about exactly why I believe what I believe. If you really are interested, then read them. It boils down to: I'm against murder as defined by the law, and I think political violence is dangerous and counter-productive.
Ah, so you're edit in the original post was justified because they started it. Is that how morality works? They started the mud slinging, so it's okay now?
I did read your posts, and commented on others, and I agree with your stance. I'm pretty sure JFK did, to. It's basically the corollary of, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution impossible." So what peaceful solution do you propose to solve the healthcare problem in America given the state of your government for the last number of decades, and is it really a peaceful revolution if thousands are administratively killed in the process? And is that better or worse than killing a few people in the streets who have amassed obscene levels of wealth by promoting those deaths to make that happen a little faster, whether that be due to legislation or sudden policy reversals due to newfound altruism?
There are no easy answers in morality. This is why philosophers have written so many books about it.
So what peaceful solution do you propose to solve the healthcare problem in America given the state of your government
It's not my government. I live in Europe and benefit from cheap universal healthcare. Boringly, I suggest that Americans pull the levers of their still-functional democracy, of which there are many. And then exercise some patience. Because the alternative - the inevitable authoritarian backlash to political violence - is worse.
How do you feel about this murder? https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-asthma-medicine-lawsuit-walgreens-optum-8b4130ab404e513fbd68c9e02b51976b
Will you post comments asking where the justice is for this lost life?
That's very sad but it doesn't fit the definition of murder.
Will you post comments asking where the justice is for this lost life?
No, because I think murder (first degree, premeditated, cold-blooded) is worse than that, and I think it's a problem that people are excusing it.
It's clear as day to me what's going on here. You are all angry and frustrated. You're not murderers yourselves and you wouldn't do what "Luigi" did, partly because you're too cowardly, mostly because you're better people than him. But the absence of "justice" (just quoting you) in America's dysfunctional healthcare system is so egregious and so shocking (I agree: it is), that you feel the need to strike out somehow, to show how strongly you feel. And so you come here and excuse murder. Coz, wow, speaking up for an actual murder! That's pretty big, right? Basically it's a mutual support session for people who feel bad - like, really bad - about the state of American healthcare.
Personally, I don't think that excusing murder is going to get you a better healthcare system. In fact the opposite is far more likely: if political assassinations are normalized, an authoritarian backlash becomes all but inevitable. And that will push healthcare right down the list of your priorities. And all for what? For the fleeting buzz of perverted righteousness that you get from excusing the inexcusable. It's not worth it.
I think murder (first degree, premeditated, cold-blooded) is worse than that
Someone has died in both cases. So why?
Except the political persecutions continyally escalate REGARDLESS of violent political actions. Tell me, how many political murder of this calibre have there been in the last 20 years in the "civilized" or rather colonized global North?
No idea. You tell me, and why it's important.
systemic violence and murder are still violence and murder. diluting the guilt by splitting it between the c-suite and the shareholders doesn't make them less violent and murderous. retaliation against a murderous system isn't murder, it's fighting for freedom from and change in that system. (it's the thing where someone can be a terrorist for one side, while the person is a freedom fighter for the other side)
The market celebrates murder every day and you don't bat an eye.
We celebrate the market feeling fear for their daily for profit murder spree for the first time.
People like you have no problem when murder is done with a confidence scheme and a claim denial letter after people paid in advance for care when they got sick.
Shame on you.
Title "UnitedHealthcare CEO shooting suspect thanks people for mail on new website".
People and myself find it uplifting that the accused person gets mail and not only the usual torture routine in jail that is sleeping on the floor in a turtle suit etc.
You are seeing people celebrating murder.
We're not the same.
This is disingenuous. You know very well why the story only concerns this particular prisoner, who is in all likelihood a murderer. And not, say, the one the nextdoor cell who dealt some marijuana.
To be clear, I do agree that it good he's getting treated properly.
What they did shouldn’t really be relevant when talking about the inhumane treatment of prisoners
So according to you, murder is bad, but getting tortured is being "treated properly."
Weird
Moralism did not best fascism
That's fair. The usual response, which I subscribe to, is that you have a tipping point at which conventional diplomacy (or politics) fails and then you're essentially in a different world, of wartime (or civil war) where different rules apply. America today is clearly not yet in a state of civil war, so the usual rules continue to apply.
That is just an illusion, those rules never apply, it's just a playpen for us civilians but death is factory made and unlawfully mass distributed to the whole world mostly by those who are supposed to uphold these "rules". It's childish idealism to truly believe what you say, in my opinion
Where do the Civil Rights Movement or the Troubles fall within that framework? What about the Irish war of independence?
Apples and oranges because involves inter-state conflict.
No? The Civil Rights Movement obviously didn't involve anybody but the US, and before the Irish war of independence Ireland was part of Britain. The Troubles were also within the bounds of the post-Irish independence UK, also known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. North Ireland in particular is still until now British territory. So, back to my question: Where do these conflicts fall within your framework?
This is getting tiresome. Many countries have managed to achieve what the French Revolution achieved without mass bloodshed. You are clearly well informed so you know it as well as I do. Good day.
"Oh no, wouldn't someone think of Osama Bin Laden" 🤣
Wait is the article talking about murder as uplifting or are you referring to the comments on lemmy?
Are you vegan?
Mostly yes.
