American CEO gets it and Violence Is Never The Answer
Syrian rebels break into Damascus as the Israelis bomb the southern end of the country to powder and I'm told we need to applaud this exciting new turn of events.
Israel
when you tell someone you honestly truly object to both kinds of violence
cuz either you agree with them 100% or you're a hypocrite!
Curiously as I thought about it, both Thompson and Mangione committed wrongdoing and caused harm. I also recognize the harm and wrongdoing caused by Thompson exceeds that caused by Mangione by many many orders of magnitude.
The folks who were detained at Auschwitz and Dachau, I am sure, not only understand that violence was right and appropriate to cease their imprisonment and processing, but really wish the Allies pushed ten times as hard to reach them.
It is an awful thing that sometimes we have to put down rabid animals for the safety of everyone and everything around them. I think we might also want to create effective ways to prevent, detect and treat rabies so that animals don't have to be put down, and might even consider wiping out the lyssavirus entirely if there was a way to do so, so we never have to put down a rabid animal again.
I propose there might be similar approaches we could take towards corporate greed and desperate circumstances that lead to assassins killing rich corporate officers and the entire country celebrating the act of violence. I don't know either what they are or how to implement them when they might threaten current structures of political power. Historically, violence will be necessary, but I'm open to ideas.
I accept that we inhabit a small, moss-covered rock hurtling through the vastness of space. Our existence is the result of a mathematically improbable chance and countless years of what could be described as 'luck.' In such a chaotic and unpredictable universe, it is in our best interest to create social systems that foster order. While we have evolved to shield ourselves from the cold, unyielding expanse of space, we have yet to fully evolve to protect ourselves from one another. It's akin to taking honey from a hive of angry bees without protective gear—bees instinctively defend themselves against a human intruder, but we as humans cannot do the same. We only see other humans. So the problem persists.
Brain Thompson was a fellow bee taking way more honey from us than we would otherwise allow. He was always going to do this, yet we didn't respond until the mask he wore was an insult to much to bear. We gave him every opportunity to change his way, and he had the responsibility to point the company in another direction. It was only after refusing the call again and again, choosing profits over people, that we saw him for what he was. Eventually the matter is settled by someone keeping score. Although I would much rather see him pay for every life he's taken, we all know that was never going to happen. What my man Luigi did was an abortion of justice, but one far far less severe than the ruthless murdering that Brain welcomed, engaged in, and profited from. He was a real life "Napoleon", if you mind the Animal Farm reference. We're simply better off without him.
All state violence is political violence.
No, you see, the state uses 'force' not violence! They're totally different things because someone higher up in the hierarchy we made up said so!
Because it's"lawful" even if it's not ethical.
Just remembering all the other things that were legal once
Child labor. Unlimited work hours per week.
Slave ownership
Asbestos and coal mining without protection
Serfdom and paying taxes to the king
Etc etc.
In 2003, extrajudicial detention and torture of detainees was legal.
Curiously, the English language uses the words sin and crime to talk about wrongdoing, even though sin is wrongdoing against God (as according to whatever ministry whose services you attend) and crime is wrongdoing against the state. We don't have words for wrongdoing against the self, the neighbor, the community, the natural environment or (hypothetically) the universe, and often make up phrases, e.g. sin against nature, or crime against humanity.
(Granted some acts of wrongdoing against these other objects might be regarded as a sin or a crime, but then the focus is on the transgression against church and state; our entire justice system and our entire religious moral system cares very little about the victims, but retribution against the offender. If someone shoots up a school and kills themselves, the state and its justice system cares very little.)
it's not violence if the weapon is money or restriction from life saving medicine or nutrition 😤
Honestly, I think it's OK to hold a bit of both beliefs and have that dissonance generate a sort of shame-tinged discomfort.
Violence should, by any rational and reasonable measure, be avoided. But that doesn't mean that violence isn't necessary at very specific points. To be more specific, the threat of violence can be a powerful equaliser when faced with aggressive, unrelenting abuse wrapped in denial.
We still shouldn't glorify it, though. Snitches get stitches in this not related to current events context, because a show of force is sometimes* necessary to establish the veracity of said threat. But we shouldn't forget that murder is murder, even when the murdered was a murderer.
Violence should be avoided, which is why our healthcare system needs to be replaced by a single payer universal system like the rest of the developed world. The current system is violence. social murder is violence.
100% agreed.
But we should also recognise when violence
a. Is bad
b. Is completely legal
And that this is, in fact, a bad thing. And we should question why such violence is legal.
.... Even if you come out at the other end deciding that yes, this is how it should be. The only "wrong" thing is not thinking about it.
Exactly! Violence is literally just a thing that exists (I'd argue a sun swallowing a whole planet is pretty violent, for instance), the essence is in the how, when, and why!
When you say something like, violence should be avoided, I have no idea what you mean. Avoided by who? Avoided when? Certainly law enforcement has done a lot of horrible things, but if you think they ought to exist, then you are explicitly endorsing the use of violence.
Avoided by any living thing when it would be directed at or would affect any other living thing. I don't care if you punch your fridge, for instance. I do care if said busted fridge would negatively affect someone else (i.e. someone else having to waste money buying a new one) or you punch something with a pulse. That punch better have a damned good reason, like being aimed at a Nazi. Or a cop. Or a Nazi cop. Oh, who am I kidding, that's pleonastic.
Edit: to further clarify, while I do not agree with the police as an institution, I do think a system of accountability needs to exist, just like in any other game.
Oh I think many of the jokes are about him. Of course they're about him. He got rich by killing people, he did it intentionally, all of his family and friends knew exactly what he was doing, and almost nobody respects him for it.
It's kind of comical if you think how pathetically small the reward for information was. $10,000 and then now it's up to $60,000. That's how little his family wanted to track down his killer? That's how little the government cares about who killed him? Jesus.
And UHC has already removed his profile from the website and is talking about a replacement. Part of me was like “I bet one of his colleagues arranged this so that they could take his job.” The jokes are all rooted in a shared (rightful) hatred towards the US healthcare system.
Violence isn't the answer, at first. But if they won't respect our peace,they should respect our piece.
The risk of your movement going violent is that it deters sympathists, and it makes the targets of your violence sympathetic.
If you don't care because you already have strong enough public support then load the cannons. Send out your suicide bombers.
But then your movement will be regarded as one that uses force. Some people will see it as justified. Some won't. But it also weakens the effect when the police are seen busting the heads of your protestors; some will think state force against your protestors is just that wouldn't if your group was non-violent.
This is why Martin Luther King chose a strict code of nonviolence, footage of police dogs attacking the protestors made sympathists of bystanders and activists of sympathists.
Malcom X on the other hand believed white supremacist sentiment in the US was more pervasive than King felt, and the only choice was to defend their rights by force, because the white power factions would not recognize any less.
And this is true: they do not. It's less of a problem when outright bigotry is not acceptable within the Overton window, but it's definitely a problem when the supremacists have a strong following in the community; though usually they only attack when they outnumber you. Hence FBI under J. Edgar Hoover killed King (likely) and also the leaders of the Black Panthers.
You bring up an interesting point, but there's a bit more to it that has been downplayed in most history books
They were two sides of the same coin
MLK did not protest for support or to display their convictions - it was done to fight the legal system. They staged events to get arrested and charged for crimes relating to segregation and rights denied to them - then the lawyers came into play. They challenged the constitutionality of the laws, over and over. They overwhelmed the courts so much it hampered their ability to function. They lost plenty, but every small win persisted and chipped the laws down little by little
The black Panthers were an implied threat - "were watching, and we're armed too. We'll play by the rules if you do". They primarily upheld the rule of law, by limiting extra-legal punitive crackdowns on Black communities. There was some less reactive violence, but that wasn't their purpose
Civil disobedience wasn't peaceful for optics, it was a third path strategy to turn the system against itself. Returning the violence would defeat the primary purpose, because it would weaken the legal challenge
All that being said, the two organizations were separate wings of the same movement. They both played important roles, one faught for fair laws, the other for fair application of the law. Their methods were incompatible though, so they needed strong separation
"Murder is only bad because other people think it's icky" --you
Oh, I think it's icky too.
In fact since WWII we've been aware that only a small percentage of us can get past our killing bad instincts to shoot at other infantry in combat. We humans are really against killing each other.
But we're totally fine when the choices we make kill people offstage, or someone is willing to do the killing for us. Based on a 2015 tally, law enforcement kill four people a day -- most of those not resisting and not armed -- and the number has gone up with each year. And those are the ones that NGOs track via news, obits and coroner reports. Then we have precinct coroners who will fudge so that a police bullet was not a cause of death, erasing one. We estimate up to 75% of the incidents are not detected or reported, similar to unreported sexual assault cases.
And then there's elite deviance. It used to be called white collar crime but when Brian Thompson was doing it, it wasn't actually criminal, but perfectly legal according to the state. (He may have committed some crimes, but the ED included far more than that.)
Elite Deviance, when our ownership class engages in revenue-enhancing shenanigans such as private equity finance, kills more people, causes more destruction and costs more than all the petty crimes combined by multiple orders of magnitude.
That is to say, if we actually prosecuted our industrialists and capitalists, and (hypothetically) completely ignored every mugger, every serial killer, every shoplifter, and heck every corrupt police officer, we would still be saving lives by far. We might also reduce crimes of desperation, given precarity or scarcity informs most petty crime anyway.
But the society we live in does not grant personhood to everyone, and in fact most of us are beneath the interests of the owners and their corporate machines. And then there's the more obvious unpersoning, such as women with complex pregnancies, trans kids, non-whites and immigrants, or families of immigrants.
So it's not so much about whether killing is icky, but the narrow scope of specific cases in which killing is icky, because our society already tolerates an awful lot of it when we don't have to watch a specific incident unfold.
Unironically, though. When you're killing "The Terrorists" or "The Drug Dealers" or "The Evil Foreigners" or whatever, murder is incredibly cool and good.
Slap a "Generic Bad Guy" label on a human and you're free to go full Rambo, because killing Bad Guys is awesome. We love it. Especially when the Bad Guy doesn't look like us.
The folks screaming the loudest about a guy in a North Face fleece getting got are the same ones who couldn't be picked out of a lineup with Brian Thompson's pre-ventilated flesh suit. The folks clapping the loudest over bombs dropped on the perfidious cartels or the insidious Hezbolmas or the vile Asian Menace Of the East also have interchangeable LinkedIn profiles with the ex-CEO of UHC.
It's Identity Politics all the way down.
