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 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.
I’m of the opinion that shooting CEO’s that make decisions to deny insurance claims that cost peoples’ lives is the moral high ground.
This is the most Lemmy ass thread imaginable. A bunch of terminally online tech geeks going philosophy 101 to boost their own ego, by attaching themselves to someone who is and was willing to actually do something.
Shit posters came out in force to support the anti hero to let the regime whores and their owners know where we stand…
Thoughts and prayers denied…
Lemmy is super tame compared to reddit. Surprisingly tbh
Multitrack drifting? I’m sorry someone had to say it. Eat the rich.
Could you imagine if he ate the guys arm on the camera or something?
Imagine thinking there’s a “right” answer to the Trolley Problem.
It wont save any lives. The next ceo will be a scumbag as well. the scum floats to the top of any organization.
Tbh this is the logical end-state of a poorly-regulated for-profit healthcare system
Yup!
of a *general oligarchy
Man, people really think this is actually going to change things and it’s hilarious.
Well, hilarious in that I have to laugh to keep from breaking down in tears. On one side you have people who will do anything to squeeze every last penny from our quickly decaying corpses, and on the other we have a bunch of people who did little more than bitch and moan until someone does something drastic and ultimately futile in which case they… mostly continue to sit back and watch while assuming everything is somehow magically going to fix itself for them.
It’s the only thing that’s ever changed things. Nonviolent movements are great but behind every successful one there is a separate violent movement forcing power to the table. The myth of successful nonviolent movements has been propagated as another tool of control.
Things might change if murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system becomes the standard in America. But one outlier incident won’t change anything.
Well sure, if we just kill everyone we don’t like, clearly things will magically get better.
How do we define that, though? Cause every decision made will make someone unhappy, no matter how much good it might do. Are you going to step up and decide what’s right or wrong?
It was a bit messy for the French but they haven’t had a king since.
Already have. I think killing CEOs who contribute to endless human suffering is right, and defending those people from those who’s lives they’ve ruined unjustly is wrong. Next question.
kill everyone we don’t like
Kill people who purposefully, pointedly, and knowingly cause harm, human suffering, and sign death warrants for people who could have otherwise survived. Robbing life and money from families whose kids or parents need treatment, and sending these people into bankruptcy. Or straight-up denying life-saving treatments.
And these people know they’re killing people, but they don’t care because they’re making so much money off of it.
So no. It’s not “everyone we don’t like.” It’s people who purposefully profit from doing harm at the cost of human lives.
This isn’t a “Is killing a person that insulted you right or wrong?” moral conundrum, it’s a “If you could kill Hitler after he had started exterminating people, would that be right or wrong?” moral conundrum.
Most people who would say “it’s the wrong thing to do” for the first one would say “it’s the right thing to do” for the second.
Mind you, the really right thing to do on the situation with this CEO would have been for the State to do its fucking job and protect the people from mass murderers like him, but it refuse to do so, hence here we are in a bad situation.
EXACTLY. These guys are trying to pose this conundrum in such a ridiculous disingenuous way. Like “if we allow someone to kill a person who has systemically killed untold numbers of people then what’s next, killing a baby?!” its absolutely baffling how these people think that’s an argument based in any level of reality or logic.
Yes, it’ll change things like the French Revolution did, where it kept going and going, executing more and more people who had less and less to do with it, finishing with Robespierre, who argued against executing people at all.
CEOs are already killing innocent people en mass. If you have a more effective way of doing things at this point I’m all ears.
Voting works, when people actually do it. It doesn’t work fast, but it works better than random killings.
Random?
And in the mean time while you go around shaming people for not voting endless human suffering will continue to happen because you think vigilante justice to right the wrongs in our society is more wrong than just letting the elites continue to stamp on the necks of the people.
Voting works, when people actually do it.
🤡
Yes, we can’t afford to lose any CEOs because it might cause innocent people to be killed. Meanwhile those CEOs are stacking bodies through negligence and folks like you want to defend them. You just confirmed how you’d steer the trolley.
When the laws don’t apply anymore, the law of the jungle will catch up to you.
You mean the law of the strong against the weak? We’re not winning that battle. We can’t even agree to vote consistently, much less in our best interest. What makes you think we can all agree on who’s the right person that needs killing?
I never said the right people are going to get killed. People are just going to get killed in chaos, sometimes its aligns with the goals of others. This sucks.
G4S and Securitas will make a fortune off security services for execs.
Yeah but are other rich people staffing this corpos or just more plebs???
Asking for friend ;)
Invest now! Wooooo, capitalism baby!
Knowing their hiring standards it sounds like a job there would be a ridiculously easy way to get privileged access to these people. Nah they’ll use higher quality than that.
The justice system should cast justice, and for that we need political pressure and reform. Self justice is not right in that way
The justice system should cast justice
Indeed, but it has failed to do so and now millions of people are suffering.
So it needs to be changed politically. If the people actually voted in their interest there would be no problem. If they vote against themselves they are at fault themselves. Thats how democracy works, even if its sad
Y’all had 35+ years to do it the right way. Too late, we’re gonna do it the hard way now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
anybody who
tries to do anything about itperpetrates 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.
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.
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
When they deny and delay healthcare they’re extrajudicially killing people and murdering them first is self defense.
How’s that boot taste?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good luck with that, Rambo
Laughs in French revolution
It might not change anything but it certainly raises spirits
Well it’s a good thing people are happy with the continued state of affairs where nothing has fundamentally changed!
Poorly regulated economy really
Capitalism really
Which is why I predict events like this are about to become a lot more common.
This isn’t a trolley problem. Killing CEOs is not going to save any more lives or “fix the system” in any way.
There’s no guarantee that the new CEO will be better or worse, and if they feel threatened enough they’ll just hire security.
The secret service can’t even be 100% effective, and most would be assassins have been remarkably incompetent. Trump still got hit.
That fat sack of trash did not get hit by a bullet.
It was ketchup on his hands!
That’s more believable than the pageantry we witnessed.
The problem with the trolley problem is that this event isn’t a trolley problem. Killing one CEO doesn’t save lives, hell just be replaced and more guarded now.
We need proper reform and regulation.
I love this “greater good” end-run-around the law that we follow as members of society; like premeditated murder of a soulless CEO is somehow okay.
How is ambushing ever not weak and cowardly? Swords at dawn if you’re going to make it personal.
This is not how we solve this. Killers are tried and punished in accordance with laws we all agree on, here.
Bootlicker spotted.
Also, tell their to people who got denied health insurance coverage, coward
What you’re missing, I think, is that ambushing isn’t weak or cowardly. It’s just setting up the most favorable conditions for the “fight” as possible.
If you’re engaging in an unbalanced war, and anyone targeting a rich target would be since the ability to hire security means you’ll be going against superior numbers from the beginning, you use the tactics available to you.
You may or may not agree that it’s a war. You might not agree that the shooter is justified. But the shooter most likely is at war in their mind, or (assuming it is part of things) someone that hired them does.
We aren’t allowed to duel, and someone challenged to one has no obligation to agree to it. You can’t usually even make the challenge without running into legal barriers. You send a letter to someone saying “hey, let’s have a sword fight”, expect a knock on your door. It simply isn’t an option. You can’t even arrange trial by champions, where you would face off against a chosen opponent and the other person would be bound by the outcome.
Again, regardless of whether or not you agree or like it, class warfare can be literal, at least in the minds of the people willing to wage such a war. Further, when one person uses their weapons to cause death and misery to non combatants, you can’t be surprised when those non combatants find weapons of their own and fight back any way they can.
That’s the thing you’re missing. From the state of mind of the populace, the CEO I question has a track record of causing death and misery by using the weapons of wealth and power. This means that the question isn’t one of peace time, it’s a question, for that frame of mind, of using the best tactics to achieve a goal.
Like it or not, the shooter achieved the goal of disrupting the machinery of that company, at least temporarily. They achieved the goal of making it known that wealth is not bulletproof, which is a very strong idea when the populace feels disempowered. That isn’t cowardice, that’s just good tactics. It may or may not end up being good strategy, but only time can show that.
If people are in a state of war, and I promise you that a shit ton of people do view the current assault on humanity by financial means as war, then ambush is a perfect tool for asymmetric warfare. It’s a tool to magnify your forces.
This isn’t technically the trolly problem, sorry to be pedantic. But the trolly problem is not in the deaths either track would cause, but in the decision to actively pull the lever and make yourself responsible for the outcome. Inaction means allowing what will be to be.
Eg, if the train is heading towards three people, and you can pull the lever to send it towards one, congratulations, you saved two lives. BUT you just made yourself responsible for the murder of one. Whereas before, you would not have been responsible for the death of the three.
Doesn’t matter how dressed up the problem is, involvement means making yourself responsible for murder.
In choosing to do nothing, you still made a choice, which arguably makes you responsible for those deaths too. That’s why the trolley problem is such a great morally ambiguous thought experiment.
It’s not a real life trolley problem, because there is no mechanism by which killing this CEO saves lives.
CEOs have faced zero consequences for their actions, the people they’ve harmed have exhausted all reasonable peaceful options. This incident alone will probably not change anything for the better but if those in power have no fear of the masses idk what else they expect to happen.
It’s worse than that- they’ve been rewarded for their actions
Which made them feel 100% vindicated.
There is. There’s reason to think the CEO was targeted specifically because of his shitty policies. If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
(This is not a call for violence, and I am not advocating for it, this is answering a direct question about how and why the mechanic might exist)
In general, the employer that purchased the insurance plan decided what they wanted the plan to cover. That’s why you can have great insurance plans when you’re in a union, for example. While for a bottom line, an insurance company wouldn’t want to pay claims, the people actually doing it each day are just following whatever plan guidelines they’re given. This death will do absolutely nothing.
That’s how it works in theory. In reality, insurance companies in the US deny a lot more claims than they should. Somebody posted some stats showing UHC denies about twice as many claims as the other insurance companies, making them the worst of the bunch.
This death will do absolutely nothing.
I’ve already pointed out how it might do something.
This death will do absolutely nothing.
Have you seen other socials?
Have you seen how limp dick fake news is?
I never seen America this united so clearly it did something and some parasite life is a small price to pay for such solidarity haha
If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
…Or they could go the way of prison gang status, where the system selects its leaders based on their willingness to not only do violence to others but also sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for power. That seems way more likely to me than CEOs suddenly growing a fear based conscience and throwing profits/shareholders under the bus and somehow still being allowed to remain in their positions.
And all that is assuming that would-be assassins are in general coherent and reactive to the relative badness of corporate leaders and credibly applying danger relative to harm caused, which doesn’t seem likely either; rationality and being a killer tend to not usually go together, even if this incident seems like an outlier just from its most obvious narrative.
where the system selects its leaders based on their willingness to not only do violence to others but also sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for power
The system already chooses leaders based on their willingness to do violence to others, so I don’t see any downside if they decide to start sacrificing their safety and wellbeing.
And all that is assuming that would-be assassins are in general coherent and reactive to the relative badness of corporate leaders and credibly applying danger relative to harm caused
That’s not strictly necessary, as long as there’s a general trend of risk increasing along with harm done.
so I don’t see any downside if they decide to start sacrificing their safety and wellbeing.
It’s not that it’s necessarily a downside (though it probably is because people like that are potentially even worse to be ruled by), but you said there’s a mechanism for coercion by assassination to work here. This is why there won’t be; you will just get harder corpos.
That’s not strictly necessary, as long as there’s a general trend of risk increasing along with harm done.
It’s necessary because what if the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all, because of all the people fucked over by it? If regardless of their actual efforts to improve the humanitarian situation, executives are judged shallowly, there is no incentive to do anything except to quit and be replaced by someone who has more of a gangsterish disposition.
This is why there won’t be; you will just get harder corpos.
You’re postulating one possible (and in my mind, unlikely) outcome. I’m pointing out that the usual and straightforward result of threatening punishment is that people stop doing the activity (or at least rethink it).
It’s necessary because what if the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all, because of all the people fucked over by it? If regardless of their actual efforts to improve the humanitarian situation
It’s 2024. Stats and numbers are publicly available and easily searchable on the internet. UHC had double the industry average rejection rate. And the CEO had been in charge for long enough that if he had wanted to make changes, he could have. There’s no ‘hypothetical’ scenario here.
It’s weird how only in the US is it necessary for insurance companies to fuck their customers over to survive. I wonder why insurance companies in the rest of the world can survive without fucking their customers over? I suppose it’s a puzzle we’ll never solve.
I’m pointing out that the usual and straightforward result of threatening punishment is that people stop doing the activity (or at least rethink it).
The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality, and this is backed by both research into individual behavior and collective behavior.
I wonder why insurance companies in the rest of the world can survive without fucking their customers over?
Probably because the insurance companies they compete with are bound by the same (specific, predictable, law-based) rules prohibiting that behavior. Probably not because they are afraid of angry customers with guns.
The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality
The idea that punishment works is the concept behind our entire justice system, and most of society.
Probably because the insurance companies they compete with are bound by the same (specific, predictable, law-based) rules prohibiting that behavior. Probably not because they are afraid of angry customers with guns.
You seem to have missed the point. You claimed that ‘the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all’. I’m pointing out that the industry does not inherently have any risk factor, and it’s entirely possible to be in the industry without murdering tens of thousands of people. The rest of the world manages to do it. The risk factor would be deciding to screw your customers over.
The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality
It’s just not a good solution to the agency problem. Coercing someone with a gun to get you $300 from the ATM requires constant presence and the gun sticking into their back continuously. Trying to use the threat of possible assassination to get someone to act in a CEO role in a way beneficial to their millions of customers, that’s just not stable.
Using threat of punishment to motivate behavior is extremely unstable even in the tightest, simplest circumstances. Like you gotta be on the ball to get that person to punch in their ATM code and hand you the bills. Even that straightforward action is barely stable in terms of the incentive structure.
You simply can’t coerce a class of people with targeted assassinations. It’s too loose, too abstract, to unstable as a mechanism of control.
All of how our society operates is under threat of punishment when you have no access to food housing or healthcare by not making an income. If you we have threat of punishment for the working class we can also have threat of punishment for the owners. It’s the only way to fairly enforce the social contract under our current economic system. Obviously it’s bad to operate this way and what we are seeing is a direct result of a class of people not being held accountable for their end of the social contract.
Trying to use the threat of possible assassination to get someone to act in a CEO role in a way beneficial to their millions of customers, that’s just not stable.
Nothing about our current situation is stable. So yeah, of course the violent symptoms of the starving and ill masses won’t be stable either.
You’re right, the thing that would work is if governments held them accountable, but governments have sided with the CEOs instead. These CEOs should beg the government to hold them accountable so that they don’t have to fear the masses.
If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
No. They’ll hire private security and reduce their public exposure. Ironically, this will end up costing the company more and potentially increasing prices as a result.
The last thing they’ll do is suddenly become introspective and sympathetic.
“this may increase costs for the consumer” argument is flawed. It always implies they would have left profit on the table otherwise, rather than squeeze the system and everyone within it for as much as it’ll give and then some.
Nobody’s expecting them to become more introspective and sympathetic. Unlike fines and regulations, which can be passed off as the cost of doing business, threats to their life carries the risk of succeeding no matter what measures are taken. And the cost of such is not something that can be compensated for with money. Hence at some point simple profit / loss analysis will require them to consider not pissing off the public too badly
I promise you, I would risk getting shot every day for a 10 million dollar salary. Many jobs are dangerous for very little pay, give me the cushiest job and maybe somebody murders me?
Not the point. If you’re already getting 10M with no risk, would you want to raise it to 12M and live in fear for your life?
It’s just poor taste to comment on someone’s personal tragedy that has nothing to do with anon, more so gloating as if that event is instigating real reform and anon adding their precious opinions is a necessary part of the public discourse or whatever. It’s not a trolley problem because anon can realize they don’t have to give their two cents on every news item (the processing costs are higher these days) and that’s the equivalent of “there’s no trolley”
Lol wat?
I love all these “reasonable” takes that are never around when when parasite profit off plebs death.
The patterns of behavior between shareholders, boards of directors, and executives is what’s killing people. The same role can be re-cast with different actors.
It’s not that CEOs need to die, it’s that that larger pattern of behavior that gets rich by killing people needs to end. Maybe this spooks other people who are part of that larger pattern into stopping, maybe it makes them do it more, stealthier, and with bodyguards. It’s hard to say.
At the very least, we should all jump at every chance to help things without hurting anybody, wherever we do find it. “Necessary violence” comes with a big ol heap of plausible deniability, and it’s a pretty big ask for somebody to handle it responsibly.
The justification will be alluring even in circumstances where it is not legitimate.
They’re being manipulated. I lost my dad to these fucking ghouls. I texted my mom a message making fun of this dude getting shot and my mom took the side of the CEO and said I’m terrible for wishing death on someone.
He is one of many in the system who killed father and my moms defending him? All she does all day is watch liberal mainstream media who are all slobbing his knob about how this is a tragedy. She’s toast, she’s totally brainwashed by them.
This has been reported a few times for inciting violence. While it is walking a line, I don’t see OP asking for anyone to be harmed. It was presented in the context of a popular thought experiment. Other posts with the trolley problem often include wealthy people in the scenarios, so I think there is good precedence for keeping this post up.
I agree that this post is uncomfortable and possibly insensitive due to timing as someone has actually died and this post is questioning the value of that death. Many fields of economics assign a monetary value to human life, which similarly makes people feel uncomfortable, but those are valuable conversations to have.
I thought this through a bit and try to error on the side of keeping posts up, but I make mistakes and I am open to feedback. If you want to give anonymous feedback you leave a report (I can’t see who writes reports but presumably admins can).
