Bernie was our compromise
Bernie was our compromise
If they can elect a felon to the white house, so could we.
Edit: Better image, thanks to @[email protected]
You're viewing a single thread.
Disgusting. This is as bad as championing Trump. Rape, murder—what's the difference?
Who you murder matters.
I have zero problem with all the Nazis the Allies murdered in WW2.
This is a class
waroccupation. The Class war was lost in the 80s, the people were tricked into surrendering without terms. Luigi, an alleged traitor to his class bless him, tried to foment a resistence/revolution to the class occupation most of us suffer under.The idea that change must be nonviolent is something that the oligarchs put in our heads to maintain their control, which includes violence using captured government force against us. Most nations were founded using violence, including this one. Further, the oligarchs have captured both major parties, leaving us to bicker on social issues, and without a vote on the shape and priorities of the sociopathic economy both parties are well paid to defend from us, the people that suffer it. Our nonviolent options have been taken away, as we're encouraged to be divided and hate our fellow laborers on every conceivable wedge so we never look up. Divide and profit.
Brian was murdering Americans in swaths. His murder weapon was snake oil, a con: "buy our service as your preparation for inevitable illness! Just give us your money every month, and you'll be prepared when you need life saving care..." "... Oh you're sick now? You'll die without care you expect us to pay for? Whatever gave you the idea we'd pay for your care? Thanks for all the premiums, fuck off and die, poorie sucker."
cough India's independence, Jim Crow Laws. cough cough
Neither of which were achieved through purely peaceful means.
Ghandi had violent freedom fighters supporting the same cause, which are never mentioned in today's history books. And the civil rights movement had Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and riots.
Violent flanks are associated with higher success rates of social movements:
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666?login=false
"India’s Freedom Struggle (1857-1947) was shaped by influential leaders who are called Freedom Fighters of India like Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered nonviolent resistance"
Those riots wouldn't have had any influence whatsoever, along with so much of all the other things done outside of the influence of MLK's nonviolent influence, if it wasn't for him sitting down with the president himself, and pressuring him via calm mindedness logic and reason, not to mention organizing the biggest moment in the entire movement by far.
If only the leader of Poland had sat down at a table and calmly negotiated with Hitler to not invade.
That's obviously not what I'm saying exactly. If you're interested check out Leo Tolstoy's non-fiction: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God Is Within You
You're so close to getting it.
I hope someday I can say the same for you my friend.
You think it's was morally unacceptable for allied soldiers to defend their neighbors. You ain't my friend.
I did say I didn't agree with it at one point i remember, at that point in the war of course I agree with our response, I was disagreeing more with responding to Hitler and his regime with the opposite that he was advocating from the start, collectively.
India’s independence
There was plenty of violence there, even in the Quit India Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi.
Violence didn't result because Gandhi ever advocated for it, it was something that happened as a result of it. Because again non-violence isn't just standing by and doing nothing, it's about resisting evil via non-cooperation. Resisting it by not obeying it; not retaliating, but never to submit to evil at the same time.
Why does this argument assume violence is always evil?
There are plenty of situations where non-violence is not effective, where an attacker does not want or need co-operation, making non-cooperation merely non-resistance to evil. Sometimes the only realistic way to disobey violence is with targeted counter-violence or the threat of counter-violence, we don't always have the luxury of non-violent tactics available to us.
Even groups like antifascist orgs emphasize that non-violent tactics are generally preferred, and I agree completely, but ultimately, there are many real-world situations where non-violent methods just aren't applicable. This is important to realize if we want to stop evil.
"Where an attacker does not want or need co-operation." That's the context in which I'm speaking. That's the whole point, to not submit to both your inherent need to retaliate and there demand for you of something; to not just sit there and do nothing, but resist—non-violently. To not submit to them taking your land, your children, but to do so non-violently. To resist the aggressor, by never giving them your obedience, which includes allowing them to harm you or your loved ones, but without literally fighting back, but by never backing down at the same time.
👊🏻 fuck yeah
Luigi didn’t change anything. He just killed a guy, who will be shortly and largely painlessly replaced by another stooge to do the bidding of the owners of society.
Real resistance must be organized to achieve anything. This Rambo shit is a Hollywood fantasy. And yes, organized nonviolent resistance can work and has worked many times, including in regimes far more repressive than the US.
I recommend reading Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know for those interested in how resistance movements an actually win real change.
Luigi didn’t change anything.
- Overnight sense of fraternity and class solidarity amongst the working class
- Billionaires and execs are already second guessing their safety
- Would be school shooters types were taught there is a better outlet for their anger that will get them national love, attention, and legal donations
- Reinvigorated interest in gun ownership amongst everyone
- Started a national conversation about how the rich are robbing us blind and killing us in mass, a conversation that is still going a full month later despite the media's constant distractions
Yeah, absolutely nothing changed. 🙄
I think you are way overestimating the reach of these changes due to echo chambers. Most people don’t support Luigi outside of terminally online political radicals (no hate, that’s me as well). Loud but small in numbers.
It’s possible his action will take on a symbolic importance that leads to bigger changes in the future. But that remains to be seen, and I think ordinary people are already forgetting about this story. Again, without sustained organization this leads nowhere.
My 80-year-old Trump voter MIL recently told my wife we need more Luigis in the world. Anecdotal but I think it's probably more commonplace than you're imagining.
There was a poll posted indicating 70% of those surveyed view united health care's CEO as "kind of asking for it", not that uncommon.
Most people don’t support Luigi outside of terminally online political radicals (no hate, that’s me as well). Loud but small in numbers.
They don't need to support him for the above changes. But now that you mention it, a rather significant number of people support him even if they're in the minority:
Again, without sustained organization this leads nowhere.
I agree. But it's absolutely silly to think nothing changed.
But that remains to be seen, and I think ordinary people are already forgetting about this story.
I'm not even in the USA and that's not the case here.
Again, without sustained organization this leads nowhere.
Yes, but this is very different from saying it didn't change anything. It evidently has. We're not pretending this is the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the flashpoint of a new era. No, this is one of the small little steps where organizing becomes more viable, when the """public debate""" shifts from 'is it ok to punch nazis?' to 'is it ok to assassinate the worst capitalists?'. For many, it's provided a real window into the corporate mass media's alienation from the people on the ground.
I mean, if actually meeting your end at the hands of a customer your company fucked over becomes a perceived risk to the job, C-suites might think twice about anti-human profit-seeking decisions for their companies
Maybe, but that’s only going to happen through a broader movement and not through a single killing. And organizing a movement to kill enough people will be difficult or impossible (and I believe unethical but I understand I’m in the minority there). OP had it backwards—nonviolent resistance is actually much easier because of state repression, not in spite of it.
Also, I think without deconstructing the structures that produce such outcomes, it would be at best a temporary improvement.
Luigi wasn't working in an organised group though.. he was a disgruntled citizen fucked over by our healthcare system like many, many others in this country. You don't need to organise shit when you're denied life-saving treatment and have nothing to lose by offing another greedy billionaire. Wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing more Luigi's until our government and the billionaires who control it start listening.
https://www.npr.org/2024/12/05/nx-s1-5217617/blue-cross-blue-shield-anesthesia-anthem
To those patients... it matters.
It’s unclear if this is related to the assassination. There were a lot of efforts pushing back against this horrible policy so attribution is difficult without knowledge of their internal deliberations.
Given the timing, and the general apathy and march towards even more malice towards their customers, that would be an unbelievable coincidence.
The day before, they simply had no fear to rescind a profitable new policy. It also happened at the same time BCBS took down all their executive profiles from their website. Was that also just coincidence? Or do you concede that was because of the shooting?
No I think that clearly was. But you are ignoring pressures by various elected officials and civil society on the anesthesia policy. Luigi may have been a factor but he clearly wasn’t the only factor.
I don’t think most of these decision-makers really understood why Luigi did what he did, or why so many people supported him. They think they’re the good guys. And it’s not at all clear that this policy change will protect them from the kind of person who does this anyway. So the causal link is not as clear as you imply.
That said, I’d be interested to hear health care execs talk about how this made them feel or behave, if any are willing to be honest. Maybe I am wrong, it’s difficult to know.
But you are ignoring pressures by various elected officials
Seriously? Both parties are very well bribed to protect their sociopathic corporate greed from civil society.
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/industry-detail/F09/2024 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/unitedhealth-group/summary?id=D000000348
If there were elected officials working against them, there were a hundred elected officials being called by the companies telling the parties to get their spoiler members, because the DNC and RNC only promote on your ability to get the bribe money aka "fundraise," back in line.
Accepting bribes doesn’t mean they are slaves to industry. Politics is never that simple. They still have their own agenda and different constituencies to keep happy and are subject to public pressure as well. The weight of each of these factors differs in each particular case, such that some elected officials still work to limit corporate power some of the time.
The article you posted outlines many such actions. They objectively happened, so I’m not sure where your incredulity is coming from.
I don't accept that taking the money of an industry doesn't mean you aren't a beholden slave to it. It is the very basis of promotion in both parties. You must be a spoiler candidate that both parties loudly hate more than one another to not accept corporate bribe money and be elected.
This whole idea of "well when they took the money, herp derp, did they get caught on 4k hdr with atmos audio saying 'thank you for the bribe, I will do your bidding in exchange for this bribe that Im taking here, officially, I'm taking bribes for favors up in here!' then it isn't acktually a bribe" is lunacy. No bribe ever has happened that way, and money in the sums they bribe aren't given for nothing.
Corporations aren't charities, the opposite in fact, when they "donate" 50k to sick kids, it's marketing. They always then spend millions marketing they donated 50k to sick kids so buy our product. They never spend money they don't expect return on.
It is intentionally obtuse to make the claim that you can accept corporate money as an elected official and not be their lackey. It's the reason in our dystopic money in politics nation many go into politics explicitly, they'd like to be bought please and thank you, look how good I am at "fundraising!" promote me and I'll get even bigger "donations!"
This seems to be more of an argument against a point you imagine someone like me would make than the one I actually made. Yes, bribery is commonplace, that's not what I'm disputing. But politicians also do sometimes go against corporate interests for various reasons. This is an observable fact and your own source proves it. So you are just wrong about this one, sorry, it's not really debatable.
This is not to say it never has influence or isn't harmful. But this kind of black and white thinking is part of why the left is so ineffective. Most people have a very poor understanding of the way politics actually works. It's all about bargaining power. Bribery is a powerful bargaining chip but it's not the only currency in the game and it can be outplayed with the right strategies, especially organized actions by the public and civil society. The capitalists have all of the money, but money is only powerful because it makes people do things. We can do equally or more impactful things without money if we seize the real power of mass movements.
And fundamentally, I don't think murdering people is a very effective way to build mass movements because it's chaotic, morally questionable, and it scares people. Sure, it gets already existing radicals fired up but there are other ways to do that and it's not the most important aspect of why a movement succeeds or fails which is effective strategy and massive public support.
My question still stands: rape regarding trump, and murder in this circumstance—what's the difference?
It wasn't the oligarchs that suggested nonviolence, sweet lord; hate only ever breeds more hate, evil only ever makes more evil. Love (selflessness, i.e., logic and reason) is the only true remedy, as proved in gaining India's independence, and in eliminating the Jim Crow Laws here in America as a couple examples; not to mention leading to mankinds first experimenting with Democracy in ancient Geeece: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codrus
Most of Greece fell to Tyrant rule for the next 400ish years, while Athens stood tall to practice this system of Archons, leading to 9 more positions regarding things like their judiciary system and religion.
Do you think we could have loved the Nazis into standing down and stopping their genocide?
Do you think you can love a sociopath capitalist murdering for profit into no longer doing so?
Do you think plotting to run up and Hug Brian would have saved a single life? Because BlueCross, at least for now, reversed a policy to deny enough anesthesia for surgeries because of what Luigi allegedly did. He brought about positive change to some, for now, however temporary.
I don't believe in justice in another life there's no evidence of. Loving hate just gets you mowed down, this isn't a fairy tale or a movie. If we want to turn an unjust world into a just one, good vibes won't cut it when the people in charge don't even view us as people due to no meaningful net worth.
Yeah, I can assure you, returning good for evil done is far from a fairy tale or movie, and a slap in the face to all the people that have given their lives for its cause and its potential.
We've always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone's lap. The tickle of love or hate in the world both begins and ends with the individual.
You say that as if this is a retaliation, then peace, then retaliation.
United Healthcare murdered people for profit yesterday. They are today. They will tomorrow. This is an active attack. An active slaughter is upon the people, though the owners just call it business, whether we would fight back or not.
Don't confuse quiet for peace. We haven't had peace here in decades.
No amount of murder justifies the murder of even one.
I'm not sure what you mean by the peace retaliation bit, can you explain?
Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
I'm well aware. The problem here in this circumstance is that you're assuming by choosing to eliminate the one, that it will save the majority. The variable asbcent in that circumstance is the fact that it doesn't matter how many CEO's you kill, how many of what you—based off the standards that have been taught to you—consider the worst of the world you eliminate or lock up, there will always be just as much evil and selfishness to replace the evil you eliminate via the same such means.
Evil, hate and selfishness are an ignorance—a lack of knowledge, but of the true value of virtue; being abscent the other side of it, etc. This is what warrants any amount of it to any degree infinite forgiveness. Because it's a blindness, all lack of knowledge; you don't until you know. This would of course include the true value of virtue. We wouldn't hate a blind person for walking into things and making mistakes that are a result of them abscent the ability to see all together. This is what any amount of lack of knowledge—ignorance is: a blindness. So at the core of all this is a knowledge that needs teaching, and people aren't going to want to hear logic and reason (love) if you're screaming at them, or insulting them, threatening them etc.
The moment we hate and murder like them is the moment we become them.
I would say such a view means you couldn't love your own children, not being willing to fight those that would, given the opportunity, take money for your child's care, then deny that care when they needed it to live.
That's like a cow knowing their child is about to get the piston to their skull and telling their child to love the pistoner with grace. Very Jesus-y, but an awful parent.
It's a delicate point of view in general ill admit, in this situation specifically I would do all I can do to defend. I absolutely wouldn't go and assassinate some guy that if any of us were in his shoes, with how he came out biologically and the contemporaries and their influence all their life, would be doing the exact same thing he was lead to think as right, true and just. It's what's called: "taking oaths" I guess. Convincing yourself that all you know now is not only all that's worth knowing, but is no longer up for question, and that would then therefore lead you into any harm, hate or iniquity to any degree; the influence of our contemporaries or peers are a massive wieght in the "oaths" we take, so to speak, hence racism.
We're all just as vulnerable to becoming what we presently consider as the worst of the world, we've just been lucky enough to be abscent the variables and influences that make them so.
This is a salient point. Dethroning the ones in charge by the same means they use (hate, division, etc.) will put someone new on the throne. But using the same means, you've now established a rule of law that works in the way they like to look at the world - with hate. With retribution. It's a cycle. It needs to be broken.
Dethroning the ones in charge by the same means they use (hate, division, etc.)
The insurance industry does not hate the people they kill. It's cold and passionless; it's simply business. And it was hardly divisive, just look at the surprising approval in polls. It really only divides the upper class abusing the masses from the masses themselves, a division which already existed.
This is not cyclic. Doing nothing was cyclic. This is the way out of the cycle of mass social murder. This isn't some symmetrical dispute of vengeance between neighbors or factions, this is oppression by a minority ruling class of sociopaths. You don't need to hate them to know they're passionless mass murderers with legal approval.
Appreciate this comment well said my friend, refreshing to hear.
We've always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone's lap.
Who retaliated on the Allies for winning WWII?
Did the world get worse when the war ended?
Did the Nazis stop of their own accord, or did someone have to fight them?
You're pretending as if you've never heard of Popper's paradox of tolerance or indeed understand that justifies self-defenses can't exist.
If a 50kg woman was regularly raped and beaten by their 200kg muscly husband and never allowed to leave the house, would it be unreasonable for the woman to kill the man in his sleep? In this hypothetical she can not run or contact anyone for help.
She should be a peaceful individual and accept that it's her responsibility to be non-violent so the world is a better place and to to keep just taking the beatings and the rapes?
We have yet to see. 9/11 ring any bells?
What does that have to do with the relevance of returning the evil of that war with good?
This still doesn't prove the irrelevance of it becasue who can say what else would've happened if evils to this degree were met with equal parts good?
I thought we were talking about war here? More specifically even murdering a CEO as a matter of fact. Of course that person should be trying to escape, people have a tendency of not looking at this idea reasonably, and especially to ge off topic and use these specific situations where of course we should be using any means necessary to get ourselves out in that situation. I didn't realize world peace rested on this women trying to change the mind of this one serial killer apparently, I'm assuming.
9/11 has nothing to do with WW2 and everything to do with punishing america for its military adventures in the Middle East where it hurt - the center of the financial system.
You sound young and naive and probably not around for the pre 9/11 world. In summary, bin Laden won.
I'm not saying they're related I'm saying 9/11 would be an example of some of the woes that come with returning evil with evil. Like Japan learned unfortunately. Doesn't mean however that it stopped anything in the future to happen as a result of it. That we more potentially gained a permanent enemy if anything.
In what world is a 50kg woman obese??
I even put cereal killer instead of serial lmao
Lol you're right I think over exaggerated the numbers in my mind for some reason, disregard that.
We wouldn't be appealing to the Nazi's in this regard, we would've been appealing to the people of Germany, and the soldiers—the men that made up the Nazi regime.
My question still stands: rape regarding trump, and murder in this circumstance—what's the difference?
How many examples of public political rapes can you find?
Lt. Commander Data: But if that is so, Captain, why are their methods so often successful? I've been reviewing the history of armed rebellion, and it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Yes, it can be. But I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
Lt. Commander Data: Yet there are numerous examples when it was successful: the independence of the Mexican state from Spain, the Irish Unification of 2024, and the Kenzie Rebellion.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Yes, I am aware of them.
Lt. Commander Data: Then would it be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable, when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Data, these are questions that mankind has been struggling with throughout history. Your confusion is... only Human.
It was literally just explained to you.
I tried to 🤷
You got more patience than I do, so props to you.
You didn't though. If so, would you care to explain further? And make sure to answer the question directly this time.
I can repost my at length response as to who is murdered and why matters, your response to it would indicate you don't see the someone murdering an active murderer, or a member of a mass murder movement, as any different than any random murder of hatred or convenience.
Eva Braun apparently just didn't love Adolf enough to mend his heart.
So who you rape matters? So if Trump raped what he considers as the worst of the world or someone he considers that deserves it and that it's unquestionably justified for doing so, that makes it okay?
You're the one that keeps conflating rape and murder for some reason. Every point I've made has been about how the reasons and subject of murder creates nuance. I think rape and murder are different discussions entirely. Rape is a purely hedonistic act, you can murder in self-defense, or to save others like by ending a war by cutting off the head.
People can and do murder for selfless reasons, knowing they will suffer or die as a result as a shield for those that stand behind them.
And again I ask you: what's the difference between your reasoning that leads you to consider murder as justified, and the reasoning of even the very man you're accusing? Even if it's Hitler for God's sake; by making the claim you're stating that your justifications to what you consider as justified murder aren't any different from if they came from Trumps reasoning. Murder is murder, even if it's seen as something that's being done for good. Because on the other side of things their convinced of the same thing.
I think your problem is believing you can defeat darkness with light, when the reality is that just gets light crucified and bathes all in perpetual darkness. The unfortunate truth is darkness, whether the fires of hatred or the bone chill of sociopathic greed, only responds to the force they're so eager to dole out. Light, goodness, benevolence is by its nature amenable, and it is that very benevolence, that flexible, amenable, "can't we compromise and both exist?" that malelevolence uses to gain dominion, and it never offers the same. Benevolence, when left with no other recourse, must choose to take up the tools so comfortable to malevolence, murder, or be extinguished ie go along which means you're no longer benevolent, just another compliant subject of the malevolent, and thus complicit.
My original question was: Rape in trumps regard, and murder in this one—what's the difference?
Oh, Ok, I'm sorry, I inferred a higher level of query when I should have just taken it at face value.
RAPE: unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the person subjected to such penetration.
MURDER: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
No it wasn't. If so, please kindly reply to me with it quoted so I can understand more clearly. Thank you.
Who you murder matters.
I have zero problem with all the Nazis the Allies murdered in WW2.
So who you rape matters? So if Trump raped what he considers as the worst of the world or someone he considers that deserves it and that it's unquestionably justified for doing so, that makes it okay?
The conversation is about murder, not rape. The purpose of rape is to personally gain sexual satisfaction, or to hurt someone for the sake of it. That is not the case here, and it's a false equivalency.
The original question was specifically: people championing a rapist (Trump), people championing a murderer (Luigi)—what's the difference? Both are championing a great act of terrible violence, both sides just as convinced as the other of its justification; murder is murder, it doesn't matter if it's Hitler or yet another CEO to be replaced. Rape is rape, murder is murder, bad is bad—no matter the extent we take oaths to how justified it is for doing so.
Was it morally acceptable for allied soldiers to kill nazis?
From my point of view, it wasn't. World War 2 was nothing but violence tumbleweeding into more and more. Who can say how many less lives would have been forced into losing if we would've been appealing to the people of Germany and the men that make up its army—that have been dooped by Hitlers propaganda for years regarding Jews. Nothing but incessant of the opposite of what the Nazi's had to offer would have woken them up from all their "oath-taking" so to speak, to stop it from continuing as long as it did.
Bootlicker.