Yo, if that one guy had killed Trump, I’d have called him my hero. Republican gun nut or not.
For killing Trump, I would excuse a CEO.
A tech bro killed a CEO and united the whole country in their hate for a predatory system that makes money of the suffering of everyday people like me.
I wouldn’t care if he warmed up tuna sandwiches in the office microwave.
First they tried “But he was rich!” And that didn’t stick, so now they’re going back to the old political divisiveness play book with “but he was a right-winger!”.
Don’t fall for it. The powers that be desperately want public opinion to turn on this guy.
The fun thing about this is that the more the media doubles down on “he’s a right-winger!”, the more united the rest of us may become over him.
Think about it - Hardcore right-wingers in the US strongly wish to associate with “their own” team/teammates. If Luigi had been left-wing, this division tactic could have worked to convince a number of them to turn against him. Instead, highlighting his conservative viewpoints gives right-wingers more reason to cheer for him.
Meanwhile, left-wingers and their diversity tend to identify less as a single “team.” They’ve got more free-thinkers, both of the scientific “skeptic” mindset and of the artistic “open possibilities” mindset (or both.) Either way, there is recognition that they aren’t all going to agree 100% with each other on everything, but they still recognize that we’re all in this together.
he was a right winger
He might be a sexist, racist nazi, I’ll still give him a pass. Deeds speak louder than words.
Exactly! Idk how we went away from this but whatever goes inside your head doesn’t matter at the end of the day, you can be hateful all you want if your able to do good actions.
That’s what freedom of speech is suppose to mean, it’s fine when it’s all thought experiments and hypotheticals, but when you put thoughts into action, then there can be consequences if said actions are bad.
Emphasis because you mean “used to be”?
Still not convinced it’s the guy. Luigi taking the fall while Mario walks free, a tale as old as time
exactly! at the beginning everyone was sure of this, and now everyone seems to believe its him, although it obviously is not???
maybe the “cover up” is Working after all.
Even if he’s scum of the earth (doubt it) the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
He seems run of the mill rich gen z tech bro with serious back problems. Which makes his points even stronger being a traitor to his class. Assuming he’s the shooter.
This story isn’t going away and the rich -especially those rich from blatantly problematic industries - should be scared.
There’s a very deep genuine anger in this country and it’s tied to emotionally charged life or death issues. I’m just surprised it’s taken this long for the powder keg to start to blow…
The governor of NY should give him a full pardon, and the mayor of NYC should throw him a parade. What he did was an act of justice, bringing righteous vengeance upon the wicked. He did nothing wrong.
Let’s say that this is the guy, and that he’s a CHUD.
A guy like that still shot a CEO over social ills. Only when it became personal, apparently, but still.
That should leave healthcare executives fucking terrified. A guy like this acted the way y’all think communist revolutionaries like *checks notes* Chuck Schumer will act.
Denying half of all claims makes medical agony personal for a metric shitload of people.
Based on his Twitter history he’s a “rationalist” aka “gray tribe” - generally tech-savvy guys who believe pure reason sits above ideologies.
I was constantly lurking on rarionalist forums until late 2016, and much less so now. When Bernie made his arguments the entire community shifted left. Given Yudkowsky’s positions on responsibility (in short all of us should do everything we can to maximize utility) I am entirely unsurprised to learn that one of us is the person who merc’d the guy. My radicalization started with Yudkowsky and then it was set into overdrive by watching the DNC be selfish while the GOP had been abjectly horrid.
Whether we’re successful more often or not the rationalists are mostly trying to reduce suffering and maximize pleasure for as many people as possible. That’s why we’re so into tech; we see it as a way to improve as many lives as we possibly can. Luigi likely saw this as the way he could do the same. The fact that he was spurred to action by his own particular suffering doesn’t change the fact that he was probably right.
He should read some Kant and Hume.
Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind.
Reason is and ought only to be a slave to the passions
I don’t think they’d find that very insightful.
It’s plain hedonism. I’m sure they’re familiar with the idea.
Hedonism is obviously the best ethical theory. Bentham had the right idea
Bentham developed hedonistic calculus. The foundation is a multivariate ethical vector space. He rationalized hedonism to the extreme. The passions are explicitly tempered for a calculated greater good.
That’s what reasons existing to serve the passions means.
No? Once reason restricts passion, the hierarchy collapses. An action that causes yourself mild pain, but pleasure of greater extent to others, is preferable to an action that causes many others pain even if it gives you pleasure personally. Reason demands you restrain yourself from the passions that would harm others. That’s not unilateral fealty. Axioms must be assumed, but the most powerful systems assume as few as possible, and leave most of the legwork to reason.
Empathy is a passion. Without empathy, there’s no justification for helping others at your own expense.
I mean it’s the only one that explains why we actually do anything at all
He may have read both - apparently he’s very well read. My guess is he would disagree with Hume on that point, but I don’t know the guy.
Well Hume was right. Reason can’t derive axioms. It can’t create purpose from nothing. It can’t solve the is-ought problem. Passion can. Passion can say “the world should be like this. Why? Because I want it to be”. Reason can’t do that. And thus, reason should exist only to serve passion.
OTOH reason has kept a roof over my head when my passion would have had me do Arduino projects or write D&D campaigns instead of working. Maybe Hume’s gf had a job.
You were probably more passionate about keeping a roof over your head.
No, the word “dispassionate” perfectly describes when I’m forced to work on necessities instead of things I love.
This statement needs to get on a T-shirt
Or motivational poster
Why should you have a roof over your head? If emotions are irrelevant, what’s the difference between that and being homeless?
Survival. The emotions are ultimately just crude tools the brain and body have for promoting the survival of the person.
Their crudeness is probably best illustrated with phobias.
If emotions are irrelevant, why survive? Why not lie down and die? You say it’s not your fear of death or your love of life. Is it some form of worship of the purpose evolution has given you? That sounds emotional to drag.
AKA generic I-am-very-smart libertarian, AKA just another smug Republican. People who think ideologies are like accents - they’re what other people have. Them? Nooo. They’re the default!
If this guy is generic, then maybe they’re not all just Republicans. He correctly identified the NAP violation.
Nope. What he did made him a hero.
Luigi?! What happened?!
Too many Civ VI Bugfixes /s
I’m not sure how intentional it is and it’d probably be veering into conspiracy to suggest that it is, but the more people know about the CEO murderer, the more of them will turn against him and each other and go from class war back to culture war.
It’s done the opposite for me. They’re making him a relatable human, and he’s shown us we have more in common than we thought.
Was killing a murderous CEO a good and inspiring thing to do, and do we need to see more of that kind of direct action? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Is putting anyone, however much you might admire an action/s they took, up on a pedestal, ever a constructive thing to do? No.
Is spouting bigotry ever acceptable? Never.
And the only thing overlooking and brushing off bigotry achieves is more bigotry, and sending the message to the marginalised people around you that you care more about venerating a stranger who causes them harm but made you feel warm and fuzzy for a minute, than you do about ending their oppression.
This is why “no war but the class war” fails every time - intersectionality is essential, and if you don’t use your privilege to prioritise protecting those who are more marginalised than you, even from supposed allies (which a frankly terrifying number of people seem entirely reluctant to do) - then what the fuck are you doing? (enabling and participating in bigotry is what)
If you can’t deal with valid criticism of someone you consider a hero, you’re not a fan, you’re a cult follower, and nothing good has ever come from being part of a cult.
E: Just adding what I’ve seen so far, if your knee jerk reaction is to defend these posts, or brush them off as “error in judgment” or whatever (especially if you would be outraged if, say, some random MAGA had made similar statements, as I’m sure many have), you are saying that their content, and the people it is aimed at, are acceptable collateral damage to you.
I work with people from about 15 different countries and everyone asks everyone where they are from. I’m a white Australian and I have been asked where I am from numerous times. It is a perfectly fucking normal way of making conversation and plenty of people enjoy telling others about where they are from. This is really the woke bullshit tbat gives the left a bad name.
I live in a pretty diverse area and everyone loves talking about where they’re from. It’s like a universal ice breaker that can start an engaging conversation with people you otherwise have nothing in common with. Honestly if someone asks where you’re from there’s a far greater chance they’re trying to get off with you than fine tune their racism.
Maybe we should learn the context of her statement before jumping to conclusions
The context is just her life. That she’s attempting to apply to everyone always. The problem is not the question like she seems to assume. And her solution to ask “Where do you consider home?” is awkward and doesn’t really help.
To note, the problem is the underlying assertion that they have to be from somewhere foreign when other people in the same area won’t have that assumption applied to them. So the context the question is asked in matters a lot and her blanket statement completely takes that context out of it.
This is a xenophobic and bigoted take
Have you ever been part of a truly diverse group of people who like to talk about their different cultures and backgrounds? It’s no place for xenophobes and bigots.
