I agree with you, but I am very worried that any possible copycats might be less discerning. Especially if CEOs start hiring security forces and there are either gun battles or bombings where people get caught in the crossfire.
Not every person with the same agenda as Luigi Mangione’s will be as careful to only hit their target.
I see having a reasonable take on this is also giving you downvotes. I think the pro Luigi group has a problematic subgroup that wants to murder anyone.
If it were up to me, I’d start figuring out a way to separate that subgroup out. Otherwise you’re going to end up with someone randomly murdering and painting the whole thing as just murderers with no ideological point. That will kill whatever good work this is done.
And yet some people are already trying to paint this act of self defence as a murder, and citing as evidence collateral damage that hasn’t even happened yet and may never happen. It’s a slippery slope fallacy. We have laws. Luigi is innocent and we can’t punish Luigi just because somebody might copy what he allegedly did badly and cause collateral.
I’m not saying anyone needs to be truly violent. Even perceived attempts would have momentum. Milkshakes might be enough now that they know it can escalate.
I agree with you, but I am very worried that any possible copycats might be less discerning. Especially if CEOs start hiring security forces and there are either gun battles or bombings where people get caught in the crossfire.
Not every person with the same agenda as Luigi Mangione’s will be as careful to only hit their target.
I see having a reasonable take on this is also giving you downvotes. I think the pro Luigi group has a problematic subgroup that wants to murder anyone.
If it were up to me, I’d start figuring out a way to separate that subgroup out. Otherwise you’re going to end up with someone randomly murdering and painting the whole thing as just murderers with no ideological point. That will kill whatever good work this is done.
And yet some people are already trying to paint this act of self defence as a murder, and citing as evidence collateral damage that hasn’t even happened yet and may never happen. It’s a slippery slope fallacy. We have laws. Luigi is innocent and we can’t punish Luigi just because somebody might copy what he allegedly did badly and cause collateral.
Self defense? Are you implying the CEO was going harm Luigi directly? Or eventually though healthcare denial?
And that the murder he (allegedly) committed did in some way save him.
On the upside, president has been set, even perceived attempts might sway for better decisions.
I do not think innocent people being killed because of their proximity to a CEO has an upside.
I’m not saying anyone needs to be truly violent. Even perceived attempts would have momentum. Milkshakes might be enough now that they know it can escalate.