It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.

It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn’t save lives…people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.

Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.

  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    7 days ago

    murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system

    How would that work, in practice? Who decides which companies are putting evil into the system? Who decides which CEOs to kill? Why not kill the board of directors and VPs as well? Why not kill the nurses and doctors who refuse to treat a patient unless they have health insurance? Why not kill the investors that provided the funds? Why not kill the politicians who made the laws? Why not kill the people who voted for those politicians?

    Yeah, that’ll definitely work.

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah you’re right, CEOs should just be able to destroy the lives of Americans without any repercussion and anybody who tries to do anything about it is bad and wrong. Man, thank you for showing me my error! You truly are the only intelligent person here. You are the chosen one.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        anybody who tries to do anything about it perpetrates an extrajudicial contract killing is bad and wrong.

        FTFY

        Go ahead and do anything you want, nobody is stopping you. Protest, boycott, don’t pay your bills, be my guest. But when you use a silenced handgun to shoot a man in the back who had not been convicted of any crimes, you are unequivocally bad and wrong.

        The false dichotomy in this conversation is insane. What in your addled brain indicates to you that I was suggesting that CEOs should be able to ruin people’s lives without repercussions? You don’t need to be particularly intelligent to understand that anonymous masked gunmen assassins are a bad thing, it’s common fucking sense.

        • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          The judicial system is designed to favour these people. It has already failed, and cost countless lives. You’re suggesting something that is already in place and failing at a catastrophic level. I’m not going to sit here and pretend you have some kind of greater intelligence or moral high ground for pushing an idea that is proven to not work and costing endless human suffering. That would be fucking idiotic.

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            7 days ago

            Again, false dichotomy. Your logic makes no sense.

            The judicial system is not perfect, we can at least agree on that. But that does not necessarily indicate that the system has totally failed; it’s far more rational to assume that the system should be reformed.

            But sure, let’s go along with your first wild assumption and agree that the system has failed and must be replaced. Your second wild assumption is that the best way to replace the judicial system is by hiring masked men to assassinate CEOs.

            If that’s not your assumption, than I don’t understand why you’re supporting it. You could have been like okay, this obviously isn’t a good way of dealing with things, but it does raise a discussion about the inability of the legal system to appropriately punish CEOs. But instead, you didn’t bother, you just went right ahead and said this seems like a great alternative to the judicial system, we should keep doing this. Absolutely unhinged

            • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Whats unhinged is expecting reform from a system that is designed to actively stop reform, and using that to justify protecting people that are responsible for death and suffering at that magnitude for personal gain. Your mentality baffles me, but I guess that mentality is exactly why we are here in the first place. Fucking liberals man, if you’re not going to help at the very least get out of the way.

              • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 days ago

                No, I’m not going to help you murder CEOs without just cause. I’ll keep standing right here, thanks very much.

                • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  If you think that denying people healthcare for profit to the point where huge numbers of them are dying isn’t just cause then you’re just straight up a shit person.

                  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 days ago

                    I don’t know the details of why United Healthcare denied so many claims. I don’t know to what extent this particular man had influence or control over those decisions. Despite your blustering, neither do you.

                    Even if I had omniscient knowledge of the entire process, I am quite certain that the moral liability of this individual human being would not be such that he would be subject to execution under any reasonable justice system. Maybe he did belong in jail, but never in a million years did he deserve to be executed without a fair trial.

            • greenskye@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              Haven’t we spent the last several years trying judicial reform? And honestly things are worse. We have one of the most openly corrupt Supreme Court Justices right now and they’ve made several extremely unpopular decisions lately. Also all decent chances to enact that reform recently died, with several indications that it will become even more corrupt soon. ‘Not perfect’ is an extreme understatement of the current reality.

        • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          When they deny and delay healthcare they’re extrajudicially killing people and murdering them first is self defense.

          How’s that boot taste?

      • timestatic@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        The argument to ask who casts justice and decides the barrier is a legit one. You are using a strawman argument against him by saying they are in favor of allowing destruction of the lives of Americans happen. Such tactics are mostly used by populists and we do not need to stoop to such levels

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      I feel like you are thinking about this wrong. From where I sit I think it’s more likely that you’re expanding the target list than helping put the brakes on this kind of vigilante behavior.

      You aren’t wrong in a lot of what you’re saying though. Street justice rarely stays just for long. This may also be an isolated incident. However, some kind of pushback against this system is inevitable. If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety, and to be honest I don’t think meaningful change is possible until they are. Strikes, sit-ins, and protests have only ever been effective when paired with the implied threat of physical violence if demands are not met. Greed needs to be deincentivized in one way or another. Governments and corporations don’t seem interested in making that happen so action like this seems increasingly likely to me.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I don’t have any aversion to physical violence, if it is directed towards a rational goal with defined objectives and limits to its usage. This is an example of the opposite, an arbitrary and chaotic usage of violence that only serves to exacerbate social dysfunction.

        If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety

        I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society. There is no line that you can draw between yourself and people [who] don’t help improve the situation. We are all, by definition, a part of that group, for as long as it takes until the situation does improve. And that’s why I’m trying to explain that this kind of action is taking all of us further away from whatever improved version of society you envision.

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society.

          Being intentionally obtuse doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Your average person, especially those in other countries, don’t view themselves as responsible for healthcare costs in America. Whether or not that is technically true is irrelevant as their contribution is not nearly as important as the others on your list. Take away the line about voters and maybe the doctors and nurses, though some would likely disagree with that part, and you’ve got a pretty accurate list of the people most responsible for the situation. They oversee these systems and are therefore seen to be responsible for associated outcomes.

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            I’m not being intentionally obtuse. I’m trying to open your eyes to the fact that there is no list that can be drawn up. It’s an impossible task to separate human beings from the conditions of their environment. The system is inherently flawed, it doesn’t matter who becomes the CEO, they are all incentivized to follow the same playbook.

            What you suggest has been tried countless times in the past. When you remove the people occupying positions of power, others just take their place. You’re ultimately advocating removing individual human beings, when you should be advocating changing the system entirely. Instead of trying to overthrow and take over the system that exists, you should be trying to escape the system and build something better.

            • krashmo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              I think we’ve already established that the list you made was a pretty good one so the suggestion that a list of those most responsible can’t be made is pretty odd to me.

              Let’s say I agree with you that violence is never the answer, what’s your alternate suggestion? Your thinking seems to be that oppressed people need to reason with their oppressors but what happens when they don’t listen? How long are people supposed to suffer before alternate methods are morally justified? What sort of escalation path exists within your moral framework? It seems to me that your reasoning ends with “just wait longer and hope justice prevails” but at some point that becomes untenable.

              Again, that may or may not be what’s going on here but clearly some people think it is so the discussion is worth having.

              • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 days ago

                I think we’ve already established that the list you made was a pretty good one so the suggestion that a list of those most responsible can’t be made is pretty odd to me.

                No we haven’t. On what grounds are you taking doctors and nurses off the list? They’re the ones with medical training, if anything they’re the ones with the ultimate power over who gets medical help and who doesn’t. They choose to sell their services to the highest bidder. But they hold no responsibility? Absurd.

                The same is true for voters, or any other group of people. Probably the only groups that could even dream of limited liability would be religious cults/fundamentalists like the Amish, because they are at least making a good faith attempt to avoid participating in society any more than necessary. Or remote uncontacted tribes I suppose.

                Let’s say I agree with you that violence is never the answer, what’s your alternate suggestion?

                Dude wtf, I never said that. I literally already addressed this in my original reply to you, like an hour ago?

                I don’t have any aversion to physical violence, if it is directed towards a rational goal with defined objectives and limits to its usage. This is an example of the opposite, an arbitrary and chaotic usage of violence that only serves to exacerbate social dysfunction.

                I can only waste so much of my time going in circles, I’m out.

            • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Lol and how do you expect to overthrow and take over this system if not by violence? By magic?

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              when you should be advocating changing the system entirely.

              Last 40 years have clearly showed this won’t work.

              Boomers sold us out and when you ask them about it they indignant. When they keep voting against you… what are you supposed to do here?

              Let’s take more dick until they die and their crotch fruit gets the power and keeps fucking us 🤡

              If we gonna live a shiti life, at least make the elites live in fear lol

              Corporate executives are the modern camp guards, why are surprised camp residents are gloating?

              bUT HaVE U tHoUGhT AbOuT BIegGeR pICturE?!

              tell that to people who suffered when United"health" deined their claim, bootlicker.

              • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 days ago

                I just feel bad for everyone because you’re too stupid to see that you’re only hurting yourselves with this childish exaltation of violence. I can clearly see that you people are drowning and it pains me, but you’re lashing out wildly in such a way that it makes it dangerous for someone to try to save you.

                What’s even more distressing is that you aren’t alone out there. There are also children drowning out there right beside you, but you’re making it too difficult to provide any assistance because of your wild flailing. Long after we are dead, the inability of our generation to react maturely and productively to the reality of modern society will continue to haunt our descendants.

    • greenskye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      It doesn’t create good outcomes directly. It’s indiscriminate, highly subject to individual biases and extremely destabilizing to society. It’s definitely not a good thing if it keeps happening over a long time.

      But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence. Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence.

        This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale are you alluding to? That hasn’t ever occurred in America. What usually happens is that people vote, and that’s what causes the government to act.

        Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.

        We got unions and workers protections because of voting and political pressure. The modern framework of labor rights in the US was almost entirely created by FDR, who was swept into office by an overwhelming majority of voters as a result of the Great Depression. He passed a ton of legislation as part of the New Deal and utilized political pressure on the Supreme Court when they tried to strike down the legislation. It was strengthened and expanded by JFK and LBJ, two more presidents who were elected with strong mandates from the American people.

        There is no scenario where gunning down healthcare CEOs applies any sort of political pressure to anyone. I know that it feels like it means something to the common person who doesn’t understand much about the functioning of government or business. But I can promise you that it means very little to the people with the power to make decisions, aside from reminding them of the necessity of private security.

        • greenskye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale

          The battle of cripple creek involved shootings and dynamite explosions between workers and mine owners and was only stopped once the governor stepped in and helped negotiate a compromise.

          I wasn’t trying to imply anything close to a full on war, but violence was a lot more common in early clashes for worker rights. Protests and strikes much more frequently were backed by violent behavior including several deaths.

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            As you go back further in history, essentially everything was decided by violence. But the balance of power has shifted with the rapid advance of technology. Violent behavior is less likely now than ever to make a difference, in my opinion.

            And also that’s not what this is. There wasn’t any manifesto, there wasn’t any protest, there weren’t any unions going on strike. It was just one man gunning down another man in cold blood. To what end?

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      We could start with health insurance and pharmacy benefit manager companies, and then we can move onto “defense” contractors. If that’s not enough we can then move onto real estate investment companies and if there’s still time to make an even stronger point we can go after the greedflation grocery conglomerates. If that’s still not enough there’s the technofascists running the big tech companies and spying for the government. There’s plenty of targets out there who have it coming and I hope none of them every sleep peacefully again.