> Throwing around terms like "murderer" and "terrorism" is a pure appeal to emotion
Not really. It’s intentional killing without colour of law: murder. It’s killing to send a political message: potentially terrorism. He’s been charged with both, so this is not meme-level everything I don’t like is violence.
> days where websites like Reddit are purely a playground for nerds with fringe belief are long, long past us
Yes, someone who thinks their internet echo chamber is right this time, despite its track record, is on the fringes.
i’m curious, would a CEO _purposely_ leading an effort to automate and deny claims at 3x industry average using AI, which affects peoples lives and in some cases kills them, not be considered murder? (kills them because they may not get treatment they medically need until it’s too late - while they fight with customer support specialists for weeks or months).
Ethically it absolutely is murder. The intent is to fuck everyday people like you and me to make the company some extra bucks.
But that’s just the thing with capitalism. As soon as murder is spread out over thousands or millions of customers, and part of a system, suddenly it’s an “issue with the system” and nobody can be realistically held accountable. Funny how our society works. Apparently the person spearheading efforts like that are completely shielded from the law. Make it make sense…
For what it’s worth i agree that Luigi is a murderer and committed terrosism. I ALSO think the ceo committed indirect murder. He absolutely knew what he was doing to thousands of americans each year.
The problem is that 'indirect murder' citations are operations in propaganda and not reason. It involves torturing numbers like it is Abu Ghraib (lets assign all of the deaths of the uninsured to Brian as clearly he is entirely responsible for the existence of the current healthcare system!), take more leaps of logic than Olympic gymnastics, and all mixed together with an extra large dose of motivated reasoning. In order to absurdly alchemize what is an inconvenience and possible financial hardship into the equivalence of mass murder.
The fact "indirect" has to be added as a qualifier to murder is very telling to the illegitimacy of the concept and proof that just murder wouldn't stand undisputed. There is no reduction in culpability in the actual concept of murder.
There is no difference between killing someone with your bare hands, training a dog to push a button on a detonator, or even using a hitman or deliberately creating a lethal rube goldburg machine.
Instead "indirect murder" is just a way to call things which aren't murder a form of murder. That is a quite dangerous form of polemic which is used to justify violence. It can be applied so liberally to argue that dissent harms "the cause", leading to setbacks and therefore is a form of mass murder and justifies killing dissenters.
we can agree to disagree, but thank you for your thoughtful response.
For the record I don’t think killing anyone is acceptable, but I hope this tragedy serves as a catalyst for some serious discussions in government and by the elites to fix the grotesque healthcare system in the US. That would be the best outcome.
It’s pretty “convenient” that right after this murder, the insurance company Anthem Blue Cross repealed their new policy to deny anesthesia claims over an arbitrary time limit. It’s almost like they know what they’re doing is awful. The difference is now they’re under a microscope…
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Citing the charges and pointing out that Reddit and Twitter aren’t representative of the general population isn’t snarky, it’s substantiation.
The track record of people extrapolating from Twitter or Reddit to America is incredibly poor. One needs extraordinary evidence to claim this time is different.
Not really. It’s intentional killing without colour of law: murder. It’s killing to send a political message: potentially terrorism. He’s been charged with both, so this is not meme-level everything I don’t like is violence.
> days where websites like Reddit are purely a playground for nerds with fringe belief are long, long past us
Yes, someone who thinks their internet echo chamber is right this time, despite its track record, is on the fringes.