He worked for a company that redistributed wealth for covering healthcare costs, but kept too much for themselves pushing some people into debt, and that company is still operating exactly the same today as it was before.
He and the rest of the organization’s bigwhigs chose policies that don’t cover the costs of a comparatively small number of people’s medical care. As did the guy who took his place.
Luigi killed him for that and nothing changed. Why are we supposed to cheer for nothing changing?
First it wasn’t a random guy, he went after Brian Thomson specifically.
The message is that people support what Luigi did, or perhaps they don’t condone murder but they support that the industry is fucked and they want change.
I am interested in the trial and whether any meaningful change comes from this act. Either way I think it’s pretty heroic to throw your live, a rather privileged life at that, away for what you believe in. Misguided or not.
Brian Thompson is a random guy who worked as a suit for an unethicaly company. He was immediately replaced by another suit and the company has openly denied doing anything wrong, refusing to change how unethical it still is to this day.
Polls show Luigi’s actions are not condoned by a majority of any demographic. Change in the industry won’t come from this.
Heroic is selflessly doing what is right, not selfishly doing what is emotionally pleasing.
Luigi’s supporters want to make an example out of Thompson so the next suit that fills his role thinks twice before choosing profit over healthcare.
If the legal consequences are minimal, then it encourages future actions by others or at least supports the semi-unspoken threat that it is likely to happen again if the ruling class keeps fucking around.
There are an infinite number of suits to fill that role unless we make changes to the system of laws and create new routes for finances to go towards covering healthcare.
Where there is profit to be made legally, there will always be people willing to do so.
Luigi’s supporters advocate for actions that do nothing for us.
You seem to not understand the deterrent effect of being the target of a murder while somehow fully understanding the deterrent effect of being the target of a murder trial.
I’m having a hard time interpreting that position as anything but a bad faith argument.
I seem to not see the deterrent effect of being the target of a murder because there demonstrably is no measurable effect.
Promoting Luigi as anything other than a guy who killed another guy is a bad faith argument. People should go donate to Bernie Sander’s organization to elect young competent progressives, or give to a children’s hospital instead, do some actual good. Luigi doesn’t need your money, he has his own.
That article shows more people thought the killing was unjustified than those who thought it was justified in every poll.
48% said they view the killing as totally or somewhat justified.
Those findings chime with an Emerson College poll which found that 41% of voters under 30 found the killing “acceptable,” far more than in any other age group.
Noteworthy that the Emerson College Poll actually found 17% total thought it was justified, the 41% being only among young people specifically.
Is it good to rely on a poll of a demographic that’s not generally directly affected by healthcare costs (college students are generally at an age where they are able to stay on their parents’ insurance and may not be the ones footing the bill for treatment, but rather their parents do)?
No, but the young group was the only group that even came close to support of Luigi’s actions, so they get cited a lot by the sort of nutjobs that post this to uplifting news.
Not a random guy still, but the one who brought change that denied claims at double the national average. Of course they won’t admit any wrongdoing the shareholders would crucify them. It’s too soon to tell if anything meaningful will come of his actions.
Polls? Did you check who paid for those polls. I could run a poll where it says 80% of people confirm the sky is pink, but if 80% of the respondents are colour blind can we really be sure the sky is pink. Point being don’t trust polls. Don’t trust me either by the way, I’m one person who is critically online and honestly the people against Luigi’s actions were a vast minority. On here, reddit, YouTube comments (even on Ben Shapiro’s own channel), and news reports with comments. Now full transparency that might not be indicative of all people but it sure seemed that way.
Heroic === brave
Brave = ready to face and endure danger or pain. Seems appropriate to me.
Emerson College students operate Emerson College Polling, sometimes taking donations or using research grant money but they’re low traffic and usually don’t engage in politics. The sample size was 1000 people and saw only 17% found the killing justified.
A hero who kills one random guy, changes nothing, gives 10k to the police, and lives in prison?
Why would we want that?
Oh, he wasn’t a random guy. He was a mass murder. As in present tense at the time he was executed
He worked for a company that redistributed wealth for covering healthcare costs, but kept too much for themselves pushing some people into debt, and that company is still operating exactly the same today as it was before.
He intentionally chose policies that killed people. Boohoo. He got we He deserved.
He and the rest of the organization’s bigwhigs chose policies that don’t cover the costs of a comparatively small number of people’s medical care. As did the guy who took his place.
Luigi killed him for that and nothing changed. Why are we supposed to cheer for nothing changing?
iirc they changed one of their policies shortly after his death. I think it was insulin or something but I can’t remember.
Yes, there were definitely positive changes after their CEO was executed with popular support
Can’t find anything anywhere indicating that. The last time they walked back a policy to my knowledge was in 2023.
It’s about sending a message
Whats the message?
First it wasn’t a random guy, he went after Brian Thomson specifically.
The message is that people support what Luigi did, or perhaps they don’t condone murder but they support that the industry is fucked and they want change.
I am interested in the trial and whether any meaningful change comes from this act. Either way I think it’s pretty heroic to throw your live, a rather privileged life at that, away for what you believe in. Misguided or not.
Brian Thompson is a random guy who worked as a suit for an unethicaly company. He was immediately replaced by another suit and the company has openly denied doing anything wrong, refusing to change how unethical it still is to this day.
Polls show Luigi’s actions are not condoned by a majority of any demographic. Change in the industry won’t come from this.
Heroic is selflessly doing what is right, not selfishly doing what is emotionally pleasing.
Luigi’s supporters want to make an example out of Thompson so the next suit that fills his role thinks twice before choosing profit over healthcare.
If the legal consequences are minimal, then it encourages future actions by others or at least supports the semi-unspoken threat that it is likely to happen again if the ruling class keeps fucking around.
There are an infinite number of suits to fill that role unless we make changes to the system of laws and create new routes for finances to go towards covering healthcare.
Where there is profit to be made legally, there will always be people willing to do so.
Luigi’s supporters advocate for actions that do nothing for us.
You seem to not understand the deterrent effect of being the target of a murder while somehow fully understanding the deterrent effect of being the target of a murder trial.
I’m having a hard time interpreting that position as anything but a bad faith argument.
I seem to not see the deterrent effect of being the target of a murder because there demonstrably is no measurable effect.
Promoting Luigi as anything other than a guy who killed another guy is a bad faith argument. People should go donate to Bernie Sander’s organization to elect young competent progressives, or give to a children’s hospital instead, do some actual good. Luigi doesn’t need your money, he has his own.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/09/luigi-mangione-approval-poll-gen-z
That article shows more people thought the killing was unjustified than those who thought it was justified in every poll.
Noteworthy that the Emerson College Poll actually found 17% total thought it was justified, the 41% being only among young people specifically.
Is it good to rely on a poll of a demographic that’s not generally directly affected by healthcare costs (college students are generally at an age where they are able to stay on their parents’ insurance and may not be the ones footing the bill for treatment, but rather their parents do)?
No, but the young group was the only group that even came close to support of Luigi’s actions, so they get cited a lot by the sort of nutjobs that post this to uplifting news.
Not a random guy still, but the one who brought change that denied claims at double the national average. Of course they won’t admit any wrongdoing the shareholders would crucify them. It’s too soon to tell if anything meaningful will come of his actions.
Polls? Did you check who paid for those polls. I could run a poll where it says 80% of people confirm the sky is pink, but if 80% of the respondents are colour blind can we really be sure the sky is pink. Point being don’t trust polls. Don’t trust me either by the way, I’m one person who is critically online and honestly the people against Luigi’s actions were a vast minority. On here, reddit, YouTube comments (even on Ben Shapiro’s own channel), and news reports with comments. Now full transparency that might not be indicative of all people but it sure seemed that way.
Heroic === brave
Brave = ready to face and endure danger or pain. Seems appropriate to me.
Emerson College students operate Emerson College Polling, sometimes taking donations or using research grant money but they’re low traffic and usually don’t engage in politics. The sample size was 1000 people and saw only 17% found the killing justified.
That’s a very small sample size, not that I’m doubting you here. Just think it would be interesting to look into it more.