UnitedHealthcare reportedly turned down a patient's claim after they were treated for a brain hemorrhage leading to them being in a coma and on a ventilator
How many times do they need to teach you guys this lesson you mean.
The murder sparked a wave of support for the alleged perpetrator and that’s it, no popular movement, no other murder, practices won’t change, your lives will keep on being just as shitty as they were or they’ll get worse because their buddy is becoming president a second time.
You’re just a bunch of keyboard warriors that will never take action because it would mean having to make a sacrifice for the greater good.
Meanwhile someone goes and shoots kids and there’s a bunch of morons ready to imitate them to get their minute of fame!
We have literally no idea of what the long term ramifications of Brian Thompson’s killing will be. Maybe nothing. Maybe a lot more than nothing.
But the idea that you can claim it has had absolutely no impact at all after only one month is unbelievably absurd.
Just the fact that some many people are expressing delight over an event like this is already causing ripples. It’s changing how people talk about this subject. It’s created the opportunity for everyone to say what they’re really feeling, because they can finally see that everyone else feels the same way. A taboo has broken in a way that can never be unbroken. Even without any copycats or other overt acts, there will have been an impact.
The process is the same one that has underpinned basically every large scale societal change; you offer a peaceful path to a better world, with the understanding that if the peaceful path is rejected, violence will be what remains.
It took MLK and Malcolm X to get civil rights moved forward. The one without the other is futile.
MLK and Malcolm X didn’t live in a fascist dictatorship. Everything is futile now. The time for progressive change in America is over for the foreseeable future. People need to get that into their heads.
Probably the logic is, it needs to be a problem people are willing to fix. The only people who can fix the problem are high level execs and lawmakers/politicians. So until it’s a regular problem for them, it’s not going to get fixed.
Or they just give all of those CEOs and lawmakers security forces to guard them. And those security forces will likely not be especially discriminating when they see what they think is a threat.
If your position is “the world is an ugly place”, but simultaneously “violence cannot be a solution” then I can only assume that what you are proposing here is nihilism?
It would take supreme optimism - the exact opposite of your “the world is an ugly place” - to imagine that every large scale societal change imaginable can be achieved without ever resorting to the threat of violence. That flies in the face of the entirety of human history.
So if you are not proposing some idealistic scenario where violence is simply not necessary, and yet you stand against the idea that violence can ever be effective, then all that’s left is a scenario where change is impossible. The world is fucked and always will be.
And yet, contrary to what appears to be your stated position, this too becomes a justification for violence. If nothing will ever change for the better then why not cause as much harm as possible to the people hurting us? Force to them to forever live in fear that one day someone will find a crack in their defences? They have to be lucky every time, their enemies only have to be lucky once.
A realist would acknowledge that the lessons of history are that violence or the threat of violence is often a necessary component of change. You claim to be against that position.
An idealist would say that violence should never be our answer, that it solves nothing and never will. You claim not to be an idealist.
I’m not proposing anything. America is going to be a fascist dictatorship. Future elections will be the type they have in Russia. The chance for any sort of socialized medicine is over.
How many times do we need to teach you this lesson old man?
How many times do they need to teach you guys this lesson you mean.
The murder sparked a wave of support for the alleged perpetrator and that’s it, no popular movement, no other murder, practices won’t change, your lives will keep on being just as shitty as they were or they’ll get worse because their buddy is becoming president a second time.
You’re just a bunch of keyboard warriors that will never take action because it would mean having to make a sacrifice for the greater good.
Meanwhile someone goes and shoots kids and there’s a bunch of morons ready to imitate them to get their minute of fame!
It’s been one month. Please try to get a grip.
We have literally no idea of what the long term ramifications of Brian Thompson’s killing will be. Maybe nothing. Maybe a lot more than nothing.
But the idea that you can claim it has had absolutely no impact at all after only one month is unbelievably absurd.
Just the fact that some many people are expressing delight over an event like this is already causing ripples. It’s changing how people talk about this subject. It’s created the opportunity for everyone to say what they’re really feeling, because they can finally see that everyone else feels the same way. A taboo has broken in a way that can never be unbroken. Even without any copycats or other overt acts, there will have been an impact.
Could it be that vigilante justice doesn’t solve a systemic issue and you can’t shoot your way to socialized medicine?
One extrajudicial killing and you wanna call it off? By that reasoning, elections don’t solve social issues either.
But I get it: murder bad.
Please explain how killing healthcare CEOs would lead to socialized medicine. What’s the process here?
The process is the same one that has underpinned basically every large scale societal change; you offer a peaceful path to a better world, with the understanding that if the peaceful path is rejected, violence will be what remains.
It took MLK and Malcolm X to get civil rights moved forward. The one without the other is futile.
MLK and Malcolm X didn’t live in a fascist dictatorship. Everything is futile now. The time for progressive change in America is over for the foreseeable future. People need to get that into their heads.
This is precisely the headspace the fascists want us in and it does nothing but strengthen their position.
And your plan is what?
“Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.” - Ursula K. Le Guin.
And how do you plan to do that?
Probably the logic is, it needs to be a problem people are willing to fix. The only people who can fix the problem are high level execs and lawmakers/politicians. So until it’s a regular problem for them, it’s not going to get fixed.
Or they just give all of those CEOs and lawmakers security forces to guard them. And those security forces will likely not be especially discriminating when they see what they think is a threat.
That seems a lot more likely to me.
If your position is “the world is an ugly place”, but simultaneously “violence cannot be a solution” then I can only assume that what you are proposing here is nihilism?
It would take supreme optimism - the exact opposite of your “the world is an ugly place” - to imagine that every large scale societal change imaginable can be achieved without ever resorting to the threat of violence. That flies in the face of the entirety of human history.
So if you are not proposing some idealistic scenario where violence is simply not necessary, and yet you stand against the idea that violence can ever be effective, then all that’s left is a scenario where change is impossible. The world is fucked and always will be.
And yet, contrary to what appears to be your stated position, this too becomes a justification for violence. If nothing will ever change for the better then why not cause as much harm as possible to the people hurting us? Force to them to forever live in fear that one day someone will find a crack in their defences? They have to be lucky every time, their enemies only have to be lucky once.
A realist would acknowledge that the lessons of history are that violence or the threat of violence is often a necessary component of change. You claim to be against that position.
An idealist would say that violence should never be our answer, that it solves nothing and never will. You claim not to be an idealist.
So what do you believe?
I’m not proposing anything. America is going to be a fascist dictatorship. Future elections will be the type they have in Russia. The chance for any sort of socialized medicine is over.
You don’t see anyone overthrowing Putin, do you?
But if you were to overthrow Putin, how would you do it?
If you have a fascist dictatorship, how do you end it? How was fascism ended in history?
Literally my first thought