Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On December 08 2024 00:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:54 Magic Powers wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote: Your arguments are not very good, magic powers.
We have the rule of law to avoid people taking Justice into their own hands, and to avoid that everyone who think someone else is terrible just go and kill them. Today it’s an evil CEO, tomorrow it’s a presidential candidate, or a journalist or whoever.
That guy was awful, but if we start cheering on people getting gunned down, we are no longer living in a civilized society, we are living in a war. Liberal democracy is based on the idea that we coexist, argue, fight, and debate within a frame and that we don’t just eliminate each other. There are other ways of addressing corporate greed and healthcare that butchering the bad guy, even if that’s a very American thing to do.
The rule of law has not prevented UnitedHealth from mass murdering people. The rule of law has failed and a correction was made. This also puts UH into the spotlight and millions of people who previously weren't aware of the mass murder are now aware of it, so something might be done to prevent it. There's a reasonable chance now, when before there was no chance.
The idea that these assassinations are gonna spiral out of control if we cheer for one instance is unsubstantiated. If anything, CEOs are nowhere near scared enough.
Ok but then you are saying we are in a civil war, and we give up on pretending we are in a liberal democracy. Everyone takes his gun and go shoot the perceived enemy.
I am not really ready or willing to live a civil war quite yet personally.
Your opinion should not be controversial. The rule of law is one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries. It's essential to build and maintain inclusive institutions as opposed to the extractive institutions of authoritarian countries. That it's even a point of discussion says a lot about the state of the thread.
It isn't though.Trump/Israel are demonstrative of this fact.
On December 08 2024 01:07 KwarK wrote:
On December 08 2024 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:44 KwarK wrote:
On December 07 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 06:51 BlackJack wrote: What if we find out the assassin is actually GH who was spurred on by all of Kwark's badgering that he's a wanna-be revolutionary and he needs to man up and take action
Wouldn't be enough for Kwark to stop anyway. His petulance isn't rational.
It absolutely would be. If you took direct action I would stop accusing you of not taking direct action.+ Show Spoiler +
My issue is that you exist in a nonexistent sweet spot where you’ve given up on elections but you’ve also not committed to actually taking power outside of elections. It’s a spot that does less than anyone but insists that doing nothing is a virtue.
Mmhmm... Are you familiar with any other direct action besides shooting and blowing people up?
Who wins? 1. MLK with a following of millions. 2. A man with a shooty stick.
How is MLK's quest to dismantle economic imperialism and exploitative capitalism going? Well? But at least people still remember that that was at the heart of his message, right?
Is that a no?
No Israel and Trump aren't demonstrative of this fact. The opposite in fact. Their conduct would be much worse without the constrains put on them by our societies. It's not even close to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. + Show Spoiler +
Your criticism rings pretty hollow considering your apologism for Putin and Maduro.
China and Russia would also potentially be worse without the constraints put on them by our societies. That's not a distinguishing feature of liberal democracies.
So yeah, they are demonstrative of the fact that "the rule of law" is NOT one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries
It's not remotely the same. In those countries the judiciary is entirely subservient to the state. Political opponents are thrown out of windows or simply disappear. I can continue for a while but you get the point. There are no or very few institutions that serve as a counter balance to the executive in those countries. Western liberal democracies, even if flawed, do have them. Trump's attempt at insurrection failed after all and Netanyahu is standing trial.
On December 08 2024 00:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:54 Magic Powers wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote: Your arguments are not very good, magic powers.
We have the rule of law to avoid people taking Justice into their own hands, and to avoid that everyone who think someone else is terrible just go and kill them. Today it’s an evil CEO, tomorrow it’s a presidential candidate, or a journalist or whoever.
That guy was awful, but if we start cheering on people getting gunned down, we are no longer living in a civilized society, we are living in a war. Liberal democracy is based on the idea that we coexist, argue, fight, and debate within a frame and that we don’t just eliminate each other. There are other ways of addressing corporate greed and healthcare that butchering the bad guy, even if that’s a very American thing to do.
The rule of law has not prevented UnitedHealth from mass murdering people. The rule of law has failed and a correction was made. This also puts UH into the spotlight and millions of people who previously weren't aware of the mass murder are now aware of it, so something might be done to prevent it. There's a reasonable chance now, when before there was no chance.
The idea that these assassinations are gonna spiral out of control if we cheer for one instance is unsubstantiated. If anything, CEOs are nowhere near scared enough.
Ok but then you are saying we are in a civil war, and we give up on pretending we are in a liberal democracy. Everyone takes his gun and go shoot the perceived enemy.
I am not really ready or willing to live a civil war quite yet personally.
Your opinion should not be controversial. The rule of law is one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries. It's essential to build and maintain inclusive institutions as opposed to the extractive institutions of authoritarian countries. That it's even a point of discussion says a lot about the state of the thread.
It isn't though.Trump/Israel are demonstrative of this fact.
On December 08 2024 01:07 KwarK wrote:
On December 08 2024 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:44 KwarK wrote:
On December 07 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 06:51 BlackJack wrote: What if we find out the assassin is actually GH who was spurred on by all of Kwark's badgering that he's a wanna-be revolutionary and he needs to man up and take action
Wouldn't be enough for Kwark to stop anyway. His petulance isn't rational.
It absolutely would be. If you took direct action I would stop accusing you of not taking direct action.+ Show Spoiler +
My issue is that you exist in a nonexistent sweet spot where you’ve given up on elections but you’ve also not committed to actually taking power outside of elections. It’s a spot that does less than anyone but insists that doing nothing is a virtue.
Mmhmm... Are you familiar with any other direct action besides shooting and blowing people up?
Who wins? 1. MLK with a following of millions. 2. A man with a shooty stick.
How is MLK's quest to dismantle economic imperialism and exploitative capitalism going? Well? But at least people still remember that that was at the heart of his message, right?
Is that a no?
No Israel and Trump aren't demonstrative of this fact. The opposite in fact. Their conduct would be much worse without the constrains put on them by our societies. It's not even close to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. + Show Spoiler +
Your criticism rings pretty hollow considering your apologism for Putin and Maduro.
China and Russia would also potentially be worse without the constraints put on them by our societies. That's not a distinguishing feature of liberal democracies.
So yeah, they are demonstrative of the fact that "the rule of law" is NOT one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries
It's not remotely the same. In those countries the judiciary is entirely subservient to the state. Political opponents are thrown out of windows or simply disappear. I can continue for a while but you get the point. There are no or very few institutions that serve as a counter balance to the executive in those countries. Western liberal democracies, even if flawed, do have them. Trump's attempt at insurrection failed after all and Netanyahu is standing trial.
Yet Trump is president again, and Netanyahu has faced zero consequences.
On December 08 2024 00:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:54 Magic Powers wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote: Your arguments are not very good, magic powers.
We have the rule of law to avoid people taking Justice into their own hands, and to avoid that everyone who think someone else is terrible just go and kill them. Today it’s an evil CEO, tomorrow it’s a presidential candidate, or a journalist or whoever.
That guy was awful, but if we start cheering on people getting gunned down, we are no longer living in a civilized society, we are living in a war. Liberal democracy is based on the idea that we coexist, argue, fight, and debate within a frame and that we don’t just eliminate each other. There are other ways of addressing corporate greed and healthcare that butchering the bad guy, even if that’s a very American thing to do.
The rule of law has not prevented UnitedHealth from mass murdering people. The rule of law has failed and a correction was made. This also puts UH into the spotlight and millions of people who previously weren't aware of the mass murder are now aware of it, so something might be done to prevent it. There's a reasonable chance now, when before there was no chance.
The idea that these assassinations are gonna spiral out of control if we cheer for one instance is unsubstantiated. If anything, CEOs are nowhere near scared enough.
Ok but then you are saying we are in a civil war, and we give up on pretending we are in a liberal democracy. Everyone takes his gun and go shoot the perceived enemy.
I am not really ready or willing to live a civil war quite yet personally.
Your opinion should not be controversial. The rule of law is one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries. It's essential to build and maintain inclusive institutions as opposed to the extractive institutions of authoritarian countries. That it's even a point of discussion says a lot about the state of the thread.
It isn't though.Trump/Israel are demonstrative of this fact.
On December 08 2024 01:07 KwarK wrote:
On December 08 2024 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:44 KwarK wrote:
On December 07 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 06:51 BlackJack wrote: What if we find out the assassin is actually GH who was spurred on by all of Kwark's badgering that he's a wanna-be revolutionary and he needs to man up and take action
Wouldn't be enough for Kwark to stop anyway. His petulance isn't rational.
It absolutely would be. If you took direct action I would stop accusing you of not taking direct action.+ Show Spoiler +
My issue is that you exist in a nonexistent sweet spot where you’ve given up on elections but you’ve also not committed to actually taking power outside of elections. It’s a spot that does less than anyone but insists that doing nothing is a virtue.
Mmhmm... Are you familiar with any other direct action besides shooting and blowing people up?
Who wins? 1. MLK with a following of millions. 2. A man with a shooty stick.
How is MLK's quest to dismantle economic imperialism and exploitative capitalism going? Well? But at least people still remember that that was at the heart of his message, right?
Is that a no?
No Israel and Trump aren't demonstrative of this fact. The opposite in fact. Their conduct would be much worse without the constrains put on them by our societies. It's not even close to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. + Show Spoiler +
Your criticism rings pretty hollow considering your apologism for Putin and Maduro.
China and Russia would also potentially be worse without the constraints put on them by our societies. That's not a distinguishing feature of liberal democracies.
So yeah, they are demonstrative of the fact that "the rule of law" is NOT one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries
It's not remotely the same. In those countries the judiciary is entirely subservient to the state. Political opponents are thrown out of windows or simply disappear. I can continue for a while but you get the point. There are no or very few institutions that serve as a counter balance to the executive in those countries. Western liberal democracies, even if flawed, do have them. Trump's attempt at insurrection failed after all and Netanyahu is standing trial.
The US's next president engaged in an insurrection against the US and you're unironically using that as an example that the US is beholden to "the rule of law".
Eh, the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi, and I wouldn't bat an eye if one got punched in the face or got gunned down in the street in broad daylight. In fact, I'd give the shooter a thumbs up and tell him he's made the world a better place by taking out the trash.
As for the UnitedHealthcare ceo I got only two words: + Show Spoiler +
On December 08 2024 00:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:54 Magic Powers wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote: Your arguments are not very good, magic powers.
We have the rule of law to avoid people taking Justice into their own hands, and to avoid that everyone who think someone else is terrible just go and kill them. Today it’s an evil CEO, tomorrow it’s a presidential candidate, or a journalist or whoever.
That guy was awful, but if we start cheering on people getting gunned down, we are no longer living in a civilized society, we are living in a war. Liberal democracy is based on the idea that we coexist, argue, fight, and debate within a frame and that we don’t just eliminate each other. There are other ways of addressing corporate greed and healthcare that butchering the bad guy, even if that’s a very American thing to do.
The rule of law has not prevented UnitedHealth from mass murdering people. The rule of law has failed and a correction was made. This also puts UH into the spotlight and millions of people who previously weren't aware of the mass murder are now aware of it, so something might be done to prevent it. There's a reasonable chance now, when before there was no chance.
The idea that these assassinations are gonna spiral out of control if we cheer for one instance is unsubstantiated. If anything, CEOs are nowhere near scared enough.
Ok but then you are saying we are in a civil war, and we give up on pretending we are in a liberal democracy. Everyone takes his gun and go shoot the perceived enemy.
I am not really ready or willing to live a civil war quite yet personally.
Your opinion should not be controversial. The rule of law is one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries. It's essential to build and maintain inclusive institutions as opposed to the extractive institutions of authoritarian countries. That it's even a point of discussion says a lot about the state of the thread.
It isn't though.Trump/Israel are demonstrative of this fact.
On December 08 2024 01:07 KwarK wrote:
On December 08 2024 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:44 KwarK wrote:
On December 07 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 06:51 BlackJack wrote: What if we find out the assassin is actually GH who was spurred on by all of Kwark's badgering that he's a wanna-be revolutionary and he needs to man up and take action
Wouldn't be enough for Kwark to stop anyway. His petulance isn't rational.
It absolutely would be. If you took direct action I would stop accusing you of not taking direct action.+ Show Spoiler +
My issue is that you exist in a nonexistent sweet spot where you’ve given up on elections but you’ve also not committed to actually taking power outside of elections. It’s a spot that does less than anyone but insists that doing nothing is a virtue.
Mmhmm... Are you familiar with any other direct action besides shooting and blowing people up?
Who wins? 1. MLK with a following of millions. 2. A man with a shooty stick.
How is MLK's quest to dismantle economic imperialism and exploitative capitalism going? Well? But at least people still remember that that was at the heart of his message, right?
Is that a no?
No Israel and Trump aren't demonstrative of this fact. The opposite in fact. Their conduct would be much worse without the constrains put on them by our societies. It's not even close to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. + Show Spoiler +
Your criticism rings pretty hollow considering your apologism for Putin and Maduro.
China and Russia would also potentially be worse without the constraints put on them by our societies. That's not a distinguishing feature of liberal democracies.
So yeah, they are demonstrative of the fact that "the rule of law" is NOT one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries
It's not remotely the same. In those countries the judiciary is entirely subservient to the state. Political opponents are thrown out of windows or simply disappear. I can continue for a while but you get the point. There are no or very few institutions that serve as a counter balance to the executive in those countries. Western liberal democracies, even if flawed, do have them. Trump's attempt at insurrection failed after all and Netanyahu is standing trial.
Yet Trump is president again, and Netanyahu has faced zero consequences.
Netanyahu's trial in Israel just started. High ranking politicians being convicted and even serving prison time in Israel is not unprecedented. Trump is a disgrace who rides roughhod over any norms. Nonetheless even he faces significant constraints.
On December 08 2024 00:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:54 Magic Powers wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote: Your arguments are not very good, magic powers.
We have the rule of law to avoid people taking Justice into their own hands, and to avoid that everyone who think someone else is terrible just go and kill them. Today it’s an evil CEO, tomorrow it’s a presidential candidate, or a journalist or whoever.
That guy was awful, but if we start cheering on people getting gunned down, we are no longer living in a civilized society, we are living in a war. Liberal democracy is based on the idea that we coexist, argue, fight, and debate within a frame and that we don’t just eliminate each other. There are other ways of addressing corporate greed and healthcare that butchering the bad guy, even if that’s a very American thing to do.
The rule of law has not prevented UnitedHealth from mass murdering people. The rule of law has failed and a correction was made. This also puts UH into the spotlight and millions of people who previously weren't aware of the mass murder are now aware of it, so something might be done to prevent it. There's a reasonable chance now, when before there was no chance.
The idea that these assassinations are gonna spiral out of control if we cheer for one instance is unsubstantiated. If anything, CEOs are nowhere near scared enough.
Ok but then you are saying we are in a civil war, and we give up on pretending we are in a liberal democracy. Everyone takes his gun and go shoot the perceived enemy.
I am not really ready or willing to live a civil war quite yet personally.
Your opinion should not be controversial. The rule of law is one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries. It's essential to build and maintain inclusive institutions as opposed to the extractive institutions of authoritarian countries. That it's even a point of discussion says a lot about the state of the thread.
It isn't though.Trump/Israel are demonstrative of this fact.
On December 08 2024 01:07 KwarK wrote:
On December 08 2024 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:44 KwarK wrote:
On December 07 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 06:51 BlackJack wrote: What if we find out the assassin is actually GH who was spurred on by all of Kwark's badgering that he's a wanna-be revolutionary and he needs to man up and take action
Wouldn't be enough for Kwark to stop anyway. His petulance isn't rational.
It absolutely would be. If you took direct action I would stop accusing you of not taking direct action.+ Show Spoiler +
My issue is that you exist in a nonexistent sweet spot where you’ve given up on elections but you’ve also not committed to actually taking power outside of elections. It’s a spot that does less than anyone but insists that doing nothing is a virtue.
Mmhmm... Are you familiar with any other direct action besides shooting and blowing people up?
Who wins? 1. MLK with a following of millions. 2. A man with a shooty stick.
How is MLK's quest to dismantle economic imperialism and exploitative capitalism going? Well? But at least people still remember that that was at the heart of his message, right?
Is that a no?
No Israel and Trump aren't demonstrative of this fact. The opposite in fact. Their conduct would be much worse without the constrains put on them by our societies. It's not even close to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. + Show Spoiler +
Your criticism rings pretty hollow considering your apologism for Putin and Maduro.
China and Russia would also potentially be worse without the constraints put on them by our societies. That's not a distinguishing feature of liberal democracies.
So yeah, they are demonstrative of the fact that "the rule of law" is NOT one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries
It's not remotely the same. In those countries the judiciary is entirely subservient to the state. Political opponents are thrown out of windows or simply disappear. I can continue for a while but you get the point. There are no or very few institutions that serve as a counter balance to the executive in those countries. Western liberal democracies, even if flawed, do have them. Trump's attempt at insurrection failed after all and Netanyahu is standing trial.
The US's next president engaged in an insurrection against the US and you're unironically using that as an example that the US is beholden to "the rule of law".
Okay buddy, I think we're done here.
Cherry picking an example and taking it out of context to dodge the argument is convenient.
On December 08 2024 00:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:54 Magic Powers wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote: Your arguments are not very good, magic powers.
We have the rule of law to avoid people taking Justice into their own hands, and to avoid that everyone who think someone else is terrible just go and kill them. Today it’s an evil CEO, tomorrow it’s a presidential candidate, or a journalist or whoever.
That guy was awful, but if we start cheering on people getting gunned down, we are no longer living in a civilized society, we are living in a war. Liberal democracy is based on the idea that we coexist, argue, fight, and debate within a frame and that we don’t just eliminate each other. There are other ways of addressing corporate greed and healthcare that butchering the bad guy, even if that’s a very American thing to do.
The rule of law has not prevented UnitedHealth from mass murdering people. The rule of law has failed and a correction was made. This also puts UH into the spotlight and millions of people who previously weren't aware of the mass murder are now aware of it, so something might be done to prevent it. There's a reasonable chance now, when before there was no chance.
The idea that these assassinations are gonna spiral out of control if we cheer for one instance is unsubstantiated. If anything, CEOs are nowhere near scared enough.
Ok but then you are saying we are in a civil war, and we give up on pretending we are in a liberal democracy. Everyone takes his gun and go shoot the perceived enemy.
I am not really ready or willing to live a civil war quite yet personally.
Your opinion should not be controversial. The rule of law is one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries. It's essential to build and maintain inclusive institutions as opposed to the extractive institutions of authoritarian countries. That it's even a point of discussion says a lot about the state of the thread.
It isn't though.Trump/Israel are demonstrative of this fact.
On December 08 2024 01:07 KwarK wrote:
On December 08 2024 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:44 KwarK wrote:
On December 07 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 07 2024 06:51 BlackJack wrote: What if we find out the assassin is actually GH who was spurred on by all of Kwark's badgering that he's a wanna-be revolutionary and he needs to man up and take action
Wouldn't be enough for Kwark to stop anyway. His petulance isn't rational.
It absolutely would be. If you took direct action I would stop accusing you of not taking direct action.+ Show Spoiler +
My issue is that you exist in a nonexistent sweet spot where you’ve given up on elections but you’ve also not committed to actually taking power outside of elections. It’s a spot that does less than anyone but insists that doing nothing is a virtue.
Mmhmm... Are you familiar with any other direct action besides shooting and blowing people up?
Who wins? 1. MLK with a following of millions. 2. A man with a shooty stick.
How is MLK's quest to dismantle economic imperialism and exploitative capitalism going? Well? But at least people still remember that that was at the heart of his message, right?
Is that a no?
No Israel and Trump aren't demonstrative of this fact. The opposite in fact. Their conduct would be much worse without the constrains put on them by our societies. It's not even close to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. + Show Spoiler +
Your criticism rings pretty hollow considering your apologism for Putin and Maduro.
China and Russia would also potentially be worse without the constraints put on them by our societies. That's not a distinguishing feature of liberal democracies.
So yeah, they are demonstrative of the fact that "the rule of law" is NOT one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries
It's not remotely the same. In those countries the judiciary is entirely subservient to the state. Political opponents are thrown out of windows or simply disappear. I can continue for a while but you get the point. There are no or very few institutions that serve as a counter balance to the executive in those countries. Western liberal democracies, even if flawed, do have them. Trump's attempt at insurrection failed after all and Netanyahu is standing trial.
Yet Trump is president again, and Netanyahu has faced zero consequences.
Netanyahu's trial in Israel just started. High ranking politicians being convicted and even serving prison time in Israel is not unprecedented. Trump is a disgrace who rides roughhod over any norms. Nonetheless even he faces significant constraints.
On December 08 2024 00:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:54 Magic Powers wrote:
On December 07 2024 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote: Your arguments are not very good, magic powers.
We have the rule of law to avoid people taking Justice into their own hands, and to avoid that everyone who think someone else is terrible just go and kill them. Today it’s an evil CEO, tomorrow it’s a presidential candidate, or a journalist or whoever.
That guy was awful, but if we start cheering on people getting gunned down, we are no longer living in a civilized society, we are living in a war. Liberal democracy is based on the idea that we coexist, argue, fight, and debate within a frame and that we don’t just eliminate each other. There are other ways of addressing corporate greed and healthcare that butchering the bad guy, even if that’s a very American thing to do.
The rule of law has not prevented UnitedHealth from mass murdering people. The rule of law has failed and a correction was made. This also puts UH into the spotlight and millions of people who previously weren't aware of the mass murder are now aware of it, so something might be done to prevent it. There's a reasonable chance now, when before there was no chance.
The idea that these assassinations are gonna spiral out of control if we cheer for one instance is unsubstantiated. If anything, CEOs are nowhere near scared enough.
Ok but then you are saying we are in a civil war, and we give up on pretending we are in a liberal democracy. Everyone takes his gun and go shoot the perceived enemy.
I am not really ready or willing to live a civil war quite yet personally.
Your opinion should not be controversial. The rule of law is one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries. It's essential to build and maintain inclusive institutions as opposed to the extractive institutions of authoritarian countries. That it's even a point of discussion says a lot about the state of the thread.
It isn't though.Trump/Israel are demonstrative of this fact.
On December 07 2024 06:51 BlackJack wrote: What if we find out the assassin is actually GH who was spurred on by all of Kwark's badgering that he's a wanna-be revolutionary and he needs to man up and take action Wouldn't be enough for Kwark to stop anyway. His petulance isn't rational. It absolutely would be. If you took direct action I would stop accusing you of not taking direct action.+ Show Spoiler +
My issue is that you exist in a nonexistent sweet spot where you’ve given up on elections but you’ve also not committed to actually taking power outside of elections. It’s a spot that does less than anyone but insists that doing nothing is a virtue.
Mmhmm... Are you familiar with any other direct action besides shooting and blowing people up? Who wins? 1. MLK with a following of millions. 2. A man with a shooty stick.
How is MLK's quest to dismantle economic imperialism and exploitative capitalism going? Well? But at least people still remember that that was at the heart of his message, right?
Is that a no?
No Israel and Trump aren't demonstrative of this fact. The opposite in fact. Their conduct would be much worse without the constrains put on them by our societies. It's not even close to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. + Show Spoiler +
Your criticism rings pretty hollow considering your apologism for Putin and Maduro.
China and Russia would also potentially be worse without the constraints put on them by our societies. That's not a distinguishing feature of liberal democracies.
So yeah, they are demonstrative of the fact that "the rule of law" is NOT one of the primary things that separates Western liberal democracies from authoritarian countries
It's not remotely the same. In those countries the judiciary is entirely subservient to the state. Political opponents are thrown out of windows or simply disappear. I can continue for a while but you get the point. There are no or very few institutions that serve as a counter balance to the executive in those countries. Western liberal democracies, even if flawed, do have them. Trump's attempt at insurrection failed after all and Netanyahu is standing trial.
The US's next president engaged in an insurrection against the US and you're unironically using that as an example that the US is beholden to "the rule of law".
Okay buddy, I think we're done here.
Cherry picking an example and taking it out of context to dodge the argument is convenient.
It's just so obviously absurd to point at an insurrectionist being president as evidence that the US is beholden to "the rule of law" as to make your position laughably dismissible as nonsense.
Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are:
Publicly promulgated Equally enforced Independently adjudicated And consistent with international human rights principles.
Cat's out of the bag, the US objectively isn't beholden to the "rule of law".
For years, patients in the U.S. health care system have grown frustrated with a bureaucracy they don’t understand.
Doctors are included in an insurer’s network one year but not the next. Getting someone on the phone to help can be next to impossible. Coverage of care and prescriptions is often unceremoniously denied.
WATCH: How algorithms are being used to deny health insurance claims in bulk
This week’s fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has unleashed a wave of public feeling — exasperation, anger, resentment, helplessness — from Americans sharing personal stories of interactions with insurance companies, often seen as faceless corporate giants.
In particular, the words written on ammunition found at the shooting scene — “delay,” “deny” and “depose,” echoing a phrase used to describe how insurers dodge claim payouts — amplified voices that have long been critical of the industry.
“All of a sudden, I am fired up again,” said Tim Anderson, describing how his wife, Mary, had to deal with UnitedHealthcare coverage denials before she died from Lou Gehrig’s disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2022.
Anderson said they couldn’t get coverage for machines to help his wife breathe or talk — toward the end, she communicated by blinking when he showed her pictures. The family had to rely on donations from a local ALS group, he said.
“The business model for insurance is don’t pay,” said Anderson, 67, of Centerville, Ohio.
“When Mary could still talk, she said to me to keep fighting this,” he added. “It needs to be exposed.”
For Anderson and others, Thompson’s death and the message left at the scene have created an opportunity to vent their frustrations. Conversations at dinner tables, office water coolers, social gatherings and on social media have pivoted to the topic, as police efforts to find the gunman keep the case in the news.
Hans Maristela said he understands why the chatter is bubbling up. The 54-year-old caregiver in California was moved to comment on Facebook about UnitedHealthcare’s reputation of denying coverage. As a Catholic, he said, he grieves Thompson’s death and feels for his family, especially with the holidays around the corner.
But he sees frustration with insurers even among his clients, most of them wealthy older people who’ve not been shielded from high out-of-pocket costs.
“And then you know the CEO of this company you pay a lot of money to gets $10 million dollars a year, you won’t have a lot of sympathy for the guy,” Maristela said, citing Thompson’s compensation package that included base pay and stock options. “Health care is a business, I understand, but the obsession with share price, with profit, has to be reevaluated.”
University of Pennsylvania researcher Michael Anne Kyle said she’s not surprised by the growth of conversation around insurers.
“People are often struggling with this by themselves, and when you see someone else talk about it, that may prompt you to join the conversation,” she said.
Kyle studies how patients access care and said she’s seen frustration with the system build for years. Costs are rising, and insurers are using more controls such as prior authorizations and doctor networks to manage them. Patients are often stuck in the middle of disputes between doctors and insurers.
“Patients are already spending a lot of money on health care, and then they’re still facing problems with the service,” she said.
Insurers often note that most of the money they bring in goes back out the door to pay claims, and that they try to corral soaring costs and the overuse of some care.
In Ohio, Anderson said his initial reaction to the CEO shooting was to question whether it was connected to a coverage denial, like the ones he’d experienced with his wife.
“I definitely do not condone killing people,” he said. “But I read it and said, ‘I wonder if somebody had a spouse whose coverage was denied.’”
It’s something Will Flanary, a Portland-based ophthalmologist and comedian with a large social media following, saw online a lot in the shooting’s immediate aftermath and found very telling.
“It’s zero sympathy,” he said. “And the lesson to take away from that is not, ‘Let’s shame people for celebrating a murder.’ No, it’s: ‘Look at the amount of anger that people have toward this system that’s taken advantage of people and do something to try to fix that.’”
Flanary’s content, published under the name Dr. Glaucomflecken, started out as niche eye doctor jokes and a way to cope with his own experiences with two cancer diagnoses and a sudden cardiac arrest. But it has evolved, featuring character skits that call attention to and satirize the decisions of large health insurers, including UnitedHealthcare.
He said he’s never seen conversations around health insurance policy take off the way they did this week — and he hopes these new voices can help bring about change.
“I’m always talking about how powerful social media can be with advocacy,” he said, “because it really is the only way to put a significant amount of pressure on these corporations who are doing bad things for patients.”
On December 07 2024 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: For the people supporting this, feel like compiling a list of jobs/positions in companies that are bad enough to justify being shot for doing?
*note that i recognize that being indifferent (this was just one guy being murdered and 170k people die every day and many of those deaths are certainly more tragic than this one) is an entirely different beast from being supportive.
I think you already have some idea of the answer to this question. It's probably quite an extensive list. I mean maybe they are not going to come out and say it. Just like if you asked a few weeks ago your average Joe would not come out and say we should start murdering healthcare execs. But now that they've looked around the room and asked themselves "are we cool with this?" you can see how many are willing to go along with it.
The list includes far beyond "jobs/positions." I imagine it extends to anyone that opposes "healthcare for women" aka abortion because you're making birthing people die from ectopic pregnancy. Anyone that opposes trans anything because you're causing trans suicides. Anyone that's in the 1% because eat the rich, obviously. At one point probably anyone that refused the COVID vaccine. It's no coincidence that the initiator of this conversation (Mohdoo) famously wanted to round up all the unvaccinated and banish them from society. Basically there is no limit here. It's very much "first they came for..." vibes. Perhaps TDS is just a manifestation of a restrained envy that they don't have their own strongman that will build the concentration camps and punish their enemies.
I've been ranting for years now about people's attempts to "other-ize" their fellow man. Racists, fascists, transphobes, misogynists, etc. If they can convince themselves their targets are evil then it helps them rationalize their own evil. Case in point:
On December 08 2024 03:16 riotjune wrote: Eh, the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi, and I wouldn't bat an eye if one got punched in the face or got gunned down in the street in broad daylight. In fact, I'd give the shooter a thumbs up and tell him he's made the world a better place by taking out the trash.
Is there a legitimate reason to connect this to Nazism or is that just what you call people when you want to justify their murder?
Ye first they came for the CEOs and then they came for the shareholders and then I was like oh fuck I'm Norwegian
Anyway I'm rarely a big fan of invoking slippery slope but wanton assassinations feel like a very steep and icy mountain to descend from. I'm not asking people to mourn the guy as I'm sure he was a piece of shit, twice the industry average of denied claims or whatever certainly isn't a good look when the industry average is already pretty questionable, but we really can't be like 'yeah this seems like a good way to solve our problems'. I'm honestly a fairly imaginative guy but I don't feel like I have to be to picture a future Introvert (not meant as an attack on you buddy) whataboutisming about this following some abortion doctor being murdered with some 'you guys complaining about this is rich after celebrating the murder of CEO's you're opposed to'-line (even if abortion doctors have a long history of being targeted long predating this).
I can even be like, somewhat sympathetic to the killer if it turns out he had to watch his wife and mother of his two children wither away to a treatable form of cancer that they refused to cover. As far as revenge murder motifs go, that's a pretty decent one.
But I sure as hell don't want this to become some type of precedent. I get that the rule of law might have a justifiably pretty shitty reputation in the US right now, but vigilanteism or lawless killings as a method for improving society has a shittier reputation everywhere all the time.* And yeah, when I asked that question, I basically do have a list. I mean personally I'm genuinely worried about climate change as somewhat of an existential threat, if not to me then certainly to my son and people in other regions of the world. Off we go with every CEO for a fossil fuel company everyone with private jets everyone opposed to the cause all cattle farmers oh sorry mr Guga you have to go even though I enjoy your videos cause surely you inspire beef consumption. Shit, still not there, well how about we calculate the biological footprint of everyone and set the cutoff at 4.5? That might actually do it and hey honestly a fair chance the world 200 years from now will thank us for it. The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of people are making the world a worse place to be. In a way, particularly because of how we affect the environment, it takes considerable effort to live in a western country and not do that.
'Murder is wrong' is actually an axiom that I think we're well off trying to maintain and also one where I think we're well off keeping as a sort of, binary option, rather than go like 'buut I mean this guy' and try to do some type of calculus to defend it.
On December 08 2024 07:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: 'Murder is wrong' is actually an axiom that I think we're well off trying to maintain and also one where I think we're well off keeping as a sort of, binary option, rather than go like 'buut I mean this guy' and try to do some type of calculus to defend it.
Again I'm not saying you have to mourn the guy.
Doing a calculus on "this guy" who routinely calculated more death equals +1 porsche in his collection. Lets not forget who we're doing a calculus on here, it kinda does change the equation.
but we really can't be like 'yeah this seems like a good way to solve our problems'.
The problem is that this seems to be the only way to solve our problems, the government certainly isnt going to, the healthcare industry certainly isnt going to, when people are denied systematic change then they're going to start looking for solutions outside that system.
This almost definitely wouldnt have happened if the US just had universal healthcare, we very well could have when Obama had his super majority, but we didn't, and I feel pretty strongly that Id be right to say that thats because the US Healthcare lobbied very hard to prevent it.
So uh, I dunno, Im kind of at a "they've brought this on themselves" point with it. We've had opportunities to do things within the system, those opportunities have never manifested real solutions, so what are people left with?
but we really can't be like 'yeah this seems like a good way to solve our problems'.
The problem is that this seems to be the only way to solve our problems, the government certainly isnt going to, the healthcare industry certainly isnt going to, when people are denied systematic change then they're going to start looking for solutions outside that system.
That's exactly it.
When people really want reform on something and the government closes off all avenues of legitimate means to do it peacefully people will start to resort to other means. If the established status quo doesn't want that to happen then they need to fucking listen to us when we say we need fucking healthcare reform.
We've wanted it for decades. We've NEEDED it for decades. The problem is getting worse, not better, and both parties have made it clear that actually solving the problem is a pipe dream at the legislative level. All of the candidates that seriously want to reform the system are laughed at as extremists when it's one of the few issues that the ENTIRE American electorate agree is a huge problem that needs to be fixed.
The shock to the system that this assassination has had is already more movement on this topic than we've had in years and all it took was one untouchable member of the 1% being killed to cause it. If Congress still wants to drag their feet on it and the lobbyists want to keep blocking any efforts to reform the system it's only going to get uglier from here.
This isn't some matter of saving a couple of dollars at the gas pump, this is very people's lives at stake here. Medical Debt causes 40% of family bankruptcies in the United States. The system NEEDS to change.
On December 07 2024 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: For the people supporting this, feel like compiling a list of jobs/positions in companies that are bad enough to justify being shot for doing?
*note that i recognize that being indifferent (this was just one guy being murdered and 170k people die every day and many of those deaths are certainly more tragic than this one) is an entirely different beast from being supportive.
I think you already have some idea of the answer to this question. It's probably quite an extensive list. I mean maybe they are not going to come out and say it. Just like if you asked a few weeks ago your average Joe would not come out and say we should start murdering healthcare execs. But now that they've looked around the room and asked themselves "are we cool with this?" you can see how many are willing to go along with it.
The list includes far beyond "jobs/positions." I imagine it extends to anyone that opposes "healthcare for women" aka abortion because you're making birthing people die from ectopic pregnancy. Anyone that opposes trans anything because you're causing trans suicides. Anyone that's in the 1% because eat the rich, obviously. At one point probably anyone that refused the COVID vaccine. It's no coincidence that the initiator of this conversation (Mohdoo) famously wanted to round up all the unvaccinated and banish them from society. Basically there is no limit here. It's very much "first they came for..." vibes. Perhaps TDS is just a manifestation of a restrained envy that they don't have their own strongman that will build the concentration camps and punish their enemies.
I've been ranting for years now about people's attempts to "other-ize" their fellow man. Racists, fascists, transphobes, misogynists, etc. If they can convince themselves their targets are evil then it helps them rationalize their own evil. Case in point:
On December 08 2024 03:16 riotjune wrote: Eh, the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi, and I wouldn't bat an eye if one got punched in the face or got gunned down in the street in broad daylight. In fact, I'd give the shooter a thumbs up and tell him he's made the world a better place by taking out the trash.
Is there a legitimate reason to connect this to Nazism or is that just what you call people when you want to justify their murder?
Do you not see any incongruity in bemoaning othering while making out that those of differing political views are just itching to go around shooting a veritable laundry list of folks?
Whatever one’s opinion on so-called ‘cancel culture’, it clearly shows that folks would rather not punish perceived transgressions with violence.
But well you can’t cancel the US insurance industry. It also lives in a spot of very direct conflict between profit incentive and life or death for people. Others there’s more degrees of separation, or no such stakes whatsoever. Which I think is why there’s been such a visceral ‘Good, I don’t give a fuck’ reaction which has even somewhat straddled the left-right divide. Some ‘eat the rich’ types will do their thing, but more broadly I don’t think there’s a huge amount of appetite for the 1% to be executed en masse. I don’t think billionaires should exist personally, but that’s the status, not that the person should cease to dwell on this mortal coil. I may have issues with them in domains but like, Zuckerberg, Musk or Bill Gates didn’t earn their money in such a profoundly grotesque way.
Incidentally ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ may exist but is misdiagnosed rather frequently in lieu of its cousin ‘Accurately Observing Donald Trump’.
but we really can't be like 'yeah this seems like a good way to solve our problems'.
The problem is that this seems to be the only way to solve our problems, the government certainly isnt going to, the healthcare industry certainly isnt going to, when people are denied systematic change then they're going to start looking for solutions outside that system.
This almost definitely wouldnt have happened if the US just had universal healthcare, we very well could have when Obama had his super majority, but we didn't, and I feel pretty strongly that Id be right to say that thats because the US Healthcare lobbied very hard to prevent it.
So uh, I dunno, Im kind of at a "they've brought this on themselves" point with it. We've had opportunities to do things within the system, those opportunities have never manifested real solutions, so what are people left with?
I don't get what problems it solves.
Unless of course, we shoot every bad person on Earth.
We all live in a system that incentivizes greed over everything, you can't shoot your way out of it.
Its just a case of 'next guy up' for this insurance company.
but we really can't be like 'yeah this seems like a good way to solve our problems'.
The problem is that this seems to be the only way to solve our problems, the government certainly isnt going to, the healthcare industry certainly isnt going to, when people are denied systematic change then they're going to start looking for solutions outside that system.
This almost definitely wouldnt have happened if the US just had universal healthcare, we very well could have when Obama had his super majority, but we didn't, and I feel pretty strongly that Id be right to say that thats because the US Healthcare lobbied very hard to prevent it.
So uh, I dunno, Im kind of at a "they've brought this on themselves" point with it. We've had opportunities to do things within the system, those opportunities have never manifested real solutions, so what are people left with?
I don't get what problems it solves.
Unless of course, we shoot every bad person on Earth.
We all live in a system that incentivizes greed over everything, you can't shoot your way out of it.
Its just a case of 'next guy up' for this insurance company.
I find it interesting that, in this particular CEO-meets-cement instance, plenty of people who are generally in support of the "punishment serves as a deterrent" talking point suddenly selectively choose to abandon it. Not saying you're one of those people, but I'm observing a clear trend among the apologists. Very interesting for sure.
but we really can't be like 'yeah this seems like a good way to solve our problems'.
The problem is that this seems to be the only way to solve our problems, the government certainly isnt going to, the healthcare industry certainly isnt going to, when people are denied systematic change then they're going to start looking for solutions outside that system.
This almost definitely wouldnt have happened if the US just had universal healthcare, we very well could have when Obama had his super majority, but we didn't, and I feel pretty strongly that Id be right to say that thats because the US Healthcare lobbied very hard to prevent it.
So uh, I dunno, Im kind of at a "they've brought this on themselves" point with it. We've had opportunities to do things within the system, those opportunities have never manifested real solutions, so what are people left with?
I don't get what problems it solves.
Unless of course, we shoot every bad person on Earth.
We all live in a system that incentivizes greed over everything, you can't shoot your way out of it.
Its just a case of 'next guy up' for this insurance company.
This one guy's death doesnt solve anything (I mean, I guess it might if this somehow caused healthcare reform, but odds arent good on that) but what DOES solve this? Killing important decision makers looks a lot more effective than praying Congress or Healthcare C-suite ghouls get Scrooge'd and have a moral epiphany.
Surely some amount of executive fertilizer scares the callous fucks into doing something? Who knows how much, who knows if this will ever happen again, there are no clean solutions to the perverse incentives capitalism has ingrained into society.
We may not want it to be true, but it looks like the whole tree of liberty refreshed with blood thing may be where we're at.
EPT
