[untitled]
11 comments
The motive behind this shouldn't be considered a known fact. It may be what it looks like but it could be much more pedestrian i.e. not political but monetary or personal with the political evidence an attempt at obfuscation.
It is true that it isn't known for sure, but often the simplest answer is the correct answer. As they say: The race may not always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet.
History repeats itself, it's not the first time the bourgeoisie takes a hit, and it certainly won't be the last time. The top 10% of Americans own ~70% of the wealth, right before the French revolution it was about ~80%.
As long as they keep mocking us, accumulating more and more while telling us to work more, for longer, with less opportunities, less services, less dignity, &c. it'll get worse and worse, until it eventually snaps for real. Now that we have instant communication these inequalities are even more of an insult. The motive doesn't matter at that point, the people don't care, inequalities are so bad that being rich is enough of a crime.
Time to revisit: https://ia801906.us.archive.org/25/items/etienne-de-la-boeti...
> Are we really so divided, so used to dehumanizing one another, that people are out here openly celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a hardworking family man?
"we" ? "we" who ? Nobody is divided on this question, from the far left to the far right seemingly everyone either don't care or rejoice, the only people who feel bad are the people in power, and there is no "we" here. A 200k/yr engineer has more in common with a min wage burger flipper than with these ghouls
It's like when a kid is getting mauled after repeatedly slapping a pitbull despite being told over and over again that it'll end badly, sorry not sorry. We keep celebrating revolutions, they shouldn't forget they also happen outside of history books
As long as they keep mocking us, accumulating more and more while telling us to work more, for longer, with less opportunities, less services, less dignity, &c. it'll get worse and worse, until it eventually snaps for real. Now that we have instant communication these inequalities are even more of an insult. The motive doesn't matter at that point, the people don't care, inequalities are so bad that being rich is enough of a crime.
Time to revisit: https://ia801906.us.archive.org/25/items/etienne-de-la-boeti...
> Are we really so divided, so used to dehumanizing one another, that people are out here openly celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a hardworking family man?
"we" ? "we" who ? Nobody is divided on this question, from the far left to the far right seemingly everyone either don't care or rejoice, the only people who feel bad are the people in power, and there is no "we" here. A 200k/yr engineer has more in common with a min wage burger flipper than with these ghouls
It's like when a kid is getting mauled after repeatedly slapping a pitbull despite being told over and over again that it'll end badly, sorry not sorry. We keep celebrating revolutions, they shouldn't forget they also happen outside of history books
Volenti non fit injuria.
If you’re gonna captain the ship that makes life and death decisions for others, don’t be surprised if one of the others claps back .
If you’re gonna captain the ship that makes life and death decisions for others, don’t be surprised if one of the others claps back .
New Yorker piece from 2011, titled "Laughing at the Dead" at https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/laughing-at-the-...
> Can we laugh now at Osama bin Laden? We always could have, and should have; it is harder to be scared or cringing when you are dissolving in laughter. A joke can be a powerful counter-terrorism measure. For Exhibit A, see the collection of post-September 11th cartoons that Bob Mankoff, our cartoon editor, has put together.
Which leads the question of what "in cold blood" means. "In a ruthless and unfeeling manner, particularly as applied to first-degree murder committed without provocation and with malice aforethought." says Wiktionary. For bin Laden the killing was with feeling and was revenge for the 9/11 attacks, so not in cold blood. OTOH, we don't know if there was provocation for the NYC killing.
FWIW, New Yorker also made jokes about JFK's death, quoting https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-humor-in-...
> The brute facts of the killing, filtered through the lasting obsessiveness that they’ve inspired, had become funny unto themselves—as the late New Yorker cartoonist Leo Cullum showed in 1994
> Can we laugh now at Osama bin Laden? We always could have, and should have; it is harder to be scared or cringing when you are dissolving in laughter. A joke can be a powerful counter-terrorism measure. For Exhibit A, see the collection of post-September 11th cartoons that Bob Mankoff, our cartoon editor, has put together.
Which leads the question of what "in cold blood" means. "In a ruthless and unfeeling manner, particularly as applied to first-degree murder committed without provocation and with malice aforethought." says Wiktionary. For bin Laden the killing was with feeling and was revenge for the 9/11 attacks, so not in cold blood. OTOH, we don't know if there was provocation for the NYC killing.
FWIW, New Yorker also made jokes about JFK's death, quoting https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-humor-in-...
> The brute facts of the killing, filtered through the lasting obsessiveness that they’ve inspired, had become funny unto themselves—as the late New Yorker cartoonist Leo Cullum showed in 1994
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think the murder is a repudiation at the lax laws and consumer protections in the healthcare industry. This was a horrible crime, and yet.. I think it shows that the laws are not strong enough to protect people from healthcare industry practices, so much so that the people feel that the deck may be stacked so much against the people that they say to hell with the law, and kill someone.
I feel indifferent and that bothers me, but it also doesn't.