This is not “a” person, this is a specific person who has perpetuated a corporate policy that directly affects the livelyhood of its medical customers. Many customers died because they were denied care, as a result of said corporate policy.
This assassination did get me a positive result. Were I to go into surgery, I am garuteed anesthetics for the full surgery, even if it goes into overtime. This is due to United reversing a decision they made before the shooting. It was only through Brian Thompsan’s death that the company made this decision, as they have a reputation for denying care they are responsible for giving.
The only legal recourse would be lawsuits. This does not work, as corporations of United’s size pay fines as if they were taxes - the fines don’t get the intended result.
Are you against all violence, or unnecessary violence? History has many examples of necessary violence as a means of protecting one’s home or life. Violence is often inevitable, as desperate people become commonplace. And since there is no line dividing functional and dysfunctional societies, one must use their own judgment to determine if using violence will get them the change they want, and if that change is worthwhile.
Even if you aren’t desperate, good luck explaining to the growing homeless how legal reform works better than insurrection, when they could easily steal to meet their need for food. The desperate don’t think long term, since humans prioritize immediate food and shelter over abstract economic stability. And since fewer housed people can afford retirement, their ability to believe in a stable future for themselves wanes.
To invoke “necessary” and “inevitable” violence is a dangerous slope to be on. Yes, I can see such hypothetical scenarios, for example at a moment of maximal tension when peaceful protests are being violently repressed by the secret police of dictatorial regime and suddenly someone breaks the gates of the presidential palace.
The USA in 2025 is absolutely not in that situation. You live in a country with functioning representative institutions. You have a thousand more boring and more ethical ways to try to bring about change than murdering an unarmed executive in the street. And doing things your way, apart from being plainly wrong in itself, will be counterproductive. There’s nothing that Trump wants more than more assassinations like this one. Every wannabe dictator dreams of civil unrest and lawlessness - it enables them to step in and grab more power in order to"fix it". This scenario has played itself out over and over again in a ton of places, the only surprise is that nobody here seems to know.
In the end, what you are all excusing here is both bad and dumb. It’s seems to be mostly about assuaging your (plural) own rage and frustration. It certainly will not solve anything. Anyway, I’ve said what I have to say here. Good night.
This is not “a” person, this is a specific person who has perpetuated a corporate policy that directly affects the livelyhood of its medical customers. Many customers died because they were denied care, as a result of said corporate policy.
This assassination did get me a positive result. Were I to go into surgery, I am garuteed anesthetics for the full surgery, even if it goes into overtime. This is due to United reversing a decision they made before the shooting. It was only through Brian Thompsan’s death that the company made this decision, as they have a reputation for denying care they are responsible for giving.
The only legal recourse would be lawsuits. This does not work, as corporations of United’s size pay fines as if they were taxes - the fines don’t get the intended result.
Are you against all violence, or unnecessary violence? History has many examples of necessary violence as a means of protecting one’s home or life. Violence is often inevitable, as desperate people become commonplace. And since there is no line dividing functional and dysfunctional societies, one must use their own judgment to determine if using violence will get them the change they want, and if that change is worthwhile.
Even if you aren’t desperate, good luck explaining to the growing homeless how legal reform works better than insurrection, when they could easily steal to meet their need for food. The desperate don’t think long term, since humans prioritize immediate food and shelter over abstract economic stability. And since fewer housed people can afford retirement, their ability to believe in a stable future for themselves wanes.
To invoke “necessary” and “inevitable” violence is a dangerous slope to be on. Yes, I can see such hypothetical scenarios, for example at a moment of maximal tension when peaceful protests are being violently repressed by the secret police of dictatorial regime and suddenly someone breaks the gates of the presidential palace.
The USA in 2025 is absolutely not in that situation. You live in a country with functioning representative institutions. You have a thousand more boring and more ethical ways to try to bring about change than murdering an unarmed executive in the street. And doing things your way, apart from being plainly wrong in itself, will be counterproductive. There’s nothing that Trump wants more than more assassinations like this one. Every wannabe dictator dreams of civil unrest and lawlessness - it enables them to step in and grab more power in order to"fix it". This scenario has played itself out over and over again in a ton of places, the only surprise is that nobody here seems to know.
In the end, what you are all excusing here is both bad and dumb. It’s seems to be mostly about assuaging your (plural) own rage and frustration. It certainly will not solve anything. Anyway, I’ve said what I have to say here. Good night.