A true American hero
When the government fails to protect us, and corporations won’t protect us, we must take it upon ourselves to engage in self defense. Luigi did nothing wrong.
Luigi’s Mansion 2
The real uplifting news is bootlickers getting kicked in their metaphorical shins in the comment section.
I’d lick a boot if they payed enough, but they’re not. I get that other people are worse off than me, but seriously, what the fuck? The current regime isn’t paying. period. I’m angry and I don’t know what to do with it.
What makes a bootlicker is that they continue to lick the boot even when it isn’t paying off in the slightest.
But you are right, there is no longer any reward for participating in society. The wealthy have forgotten fear.
Life under Capitalism was better while there was a sizable Communist bloc on the other side of the world. The fear that the commoners might wake up and make their voices heard by force of violence resulted in all manner of concessions. Unions were stronger, public services were estabilished, workers’ rights were signed into law. Then the Soviets showed weakness in the eighties, and the Capitalist class was quick to invent Neoliberalism and begin the slow but assured gutting of all those concessions. While manufacturing consent through the media and convincing people that this was what they actually wanted.
Now we see the end result.
As for what to do about it, I don’t fucking know either. Because the only thing that is known to work would require a mass movement of a size that I don’t think even can be achieved nowadays. Society is too fragmented. People are too propagandised.
I have basically embraced doomer hedonism. Life will not get better, so I make a point to just enjoy myself as much as possible, I have no intention of breeding more slaves for their flesh-mill, and I personally hope to die young. (to a definition of young anyway, I’m this close to being legally considered ‘middle aged’)
If the courts had intervened to stop Brian Thompson before his healthcare murder spree then maybe Luigi wouldn’t be being prosecuted right now. This trial isnt about luigi, its about covering up the chain of political failures that led us here.
A single death is a tragedy; A million deaths is a statistic.
Luigi killed a dad, husband, ceo, etc, etc etc.
Brian just inflated some numbers…
I hate how the world works.
It’s not a war crime if it makes you money, I’m told.
A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is record profits for a health insurance company
The amount of people who died as a result of Brian Thompson’s leadership of united healthcare should be investigated instead
Western democracy is at risk until this is done. We literally don’t deserve to exist if we can’t figure this basic stuff out - i.e. when our own people are dying, maybe the empty private hospital beds and ample staff resources should be used to save those lives. Because people are… gonna die otherwise. The fact that anything else needs to be said is the problem.
I might be being a bit daft here, but why western democracy, not just American democracy? I ask cause on USA has privatised healthcare.
I’m in Australia, which is supposed to have universal health care, that system has been eroded into dysfunction by decades of neglect and downsizing by subsequent conservative governments. Right wingers slash and burn budgets, and then “left leaning” centrist governments come in with the weakest possible reform agenda, never returning things to where they were but preventing others from fixing it either.
I’m not sure where Canada, NZ and other English speaking nations are at, but I assumed that their health systems are negatively affected by neo liberalism and similarly face problems that didn’t exist 10-25 years ago. Even if they have universal healthcare on paper, shenanigans by lobbyists, slashing of budgets and other institutional neglect has led to a breakdown in the care people can access.
The UK has an even worse issue with the NHS. It was already as bad as Australia before Brexit, now it’s been a prolonged period of people on public waiting lists where patients wait for over 2 years, unable to see specialists or book in surgeries. Untold amount of misery, and even death, that was preventable.
Countries like Sweden, Norway and Finland seem to have done a better job protecting the interests of the public from greed. But then there’s western countries that have huge social issues like Spain, France, etc.
My perception is that western democracies are not good at protecting their citizens because law makers, the media and other mechanisms in a western democracy allow for abuse by greed and self interest. It seems like despite strong laws and traditions existing, ongoing campaigning by those with money and allowing those people to earn a profit from essential services results in those services being eroded.
Thank you for this, it’s really well written.
Yeah, I get you. I was being dense.
‘Western style democracy’ has never been truly democratic because of how money influences elections and politicians. True democracy isn’t possible as long as there exists a capital class in society. The capital class will not give up its wealth without a class war.
Hence the need to remove
- money as Free Speach
- corporations are people
- lobbying is legal
But changes to these policies won’t occur because these policies already exist.
And they are self sustaining, as long as money can buy politicians, no politician would ever be able to stop it on their own.
I asked chatgpt for a solution. It’s not promising:-
Even though U.S. policies like equating money with free speech, treating corporations as people, and legalizing lobbying are deeply entrenched, history shows that even long-established systems can change through persistent, multifaceted efforts. Here’s how such changes might occur:
- Constitutional and Judicial Pathways
Constitutional Amendments: The most sweeping change would come from amending the Constitution. For example, an amendment could clarify that money is not a form of free speech or that constitutional protections apply only to human beings, not corporations. Although amending the Constitution is difficult and requires broad political consensus, it would directly override existing legal interpretations.
Judicial Reinterpretation: Change can also occur gradually by influencing judicial interpretations. By electing or appointing judges who are open to rethinking established precedents—such as those set by decisions like Citizens United—legal opinions on campaign finance and corporate rights can slowly evolve.
- Legislative and Regulatory Reforms
Reforming Campaign Finance Laws: Even without a constitutional amendment, Congress and state legislatures can pass new laws to restrict political spending. Measures might include public financing of campaigns, strict spending caps, and full disclosure of contributions to reduce the outsized influence of large donors.
Regulating Corporate Political Activity: Statutory reforms can be introduced to redefine the role of corporations in politics. For instance, laws could ban corporate contributions to political campaigns or limit their lobbying activities, effectively reducing the political clout that comes with corporate personhood.
Tightening Lobbying Regulations: Legislatures can also impose stricter rules on lobbying—such as enhanced disclosure requirements, limits on the “revolving door” between government and private industry, or even temporary bans on certain types of lobbying. These measures would curb the direct influence that special interest groups can wield over lawmakers.
- Grassroots and Electoral Strategies
Building Public Pressure: Change often starts from the bottom up. Grassroots movements, advocacy groups, and citizen coalitions can mobilize public opinion, use social media to raise awareness, and pressure elected officials to prioritize campaign finance and corporate reform.
Electoral Reforms and Voting Engagement: Changes like anti-gerrymandering efforts, ranked-choice voting, and other electoral reforms can help shift political power towards a broader base of citizens. Increased voter participation and support for reform-minded candidates can gradually reshape the political landscape.
State-Level Innovations: States can act as testing grounds for reform. Successful state-level initiatives—such as stricter campaign finance laws or innovative transparency measures—can provide models that encourage national adoption of similar policies.
Summary
Though deeply entrenched, policies like “money as free speech,” corporate personhood, and legal lobbying can change. Through constitutional amendments, new laws to reform campaign finance and corporate influence, and powerful grassroots mobilization, we can reshape our political system to be more democratic and representative.
These avenues illustrate that while the current biases are strong, a combination of legal, legislative, and grassroots actions can pave the way for meaningful political reform.
And on that score, I often muse if we should be grateful that MAGA and Trump are accelerating the timetable as they have… Capitalism, world economics and geopolitical problems as they were 20 years ago could have been sustained well into the 22nd century. We are so good at avoiding change at all costs!
Now we are headed for a societal collapse, once the ruffians who instigated it are out of the way I think the future for humanity looks quite bright indeed. We may even beat climate change, so long as we… beat all the nasty billionaires, nazis, dictators and oligarchy first… holds head in hands
And on that score, I often muse if we should be grateful that MAGA and Trump are accelerating the timetable as they have…
That’s an interesting thought. In the slow system we might’ve been boiled like a frog, but now that things are changing much faster, we may be able to jump out of the water before we die.
And land in the flames instead.
Capitalism is an inherently unstable system due to the contradictions that define it. Scapegoats are necessary to prevent working class from rising up, and economic conditions in the US have gotten so bad that most people no longer care about sustaining the status quo. So I don’t think the current rise of fascism could have been prevented without a socialist alternative.
Also Biden had already changed the geopolitical landscape when he openly funded an (even domestically) deeply unpopular genocide.
That’s part of the problem, we don’t have ample hospital beds nor staff resources.
I don’t know if and am not saying there are enough to cover the gap… But there are certainly plenty of unused resources in the private hospital system. Doctors, nurses, beds, medicines that could be put to use saving lives, preventing trauma and improving the livelihoods of people in the public system.
The private medical system has siphoned too much from the public for too long. It should always have been a premium tier for the wealthy to enjoy caviar and have cable TV in a private room after surgery. Instead, people who go to a public hospital for urgent emergency care are being sent home to die in error, instead of the ICU, because public emergency rooms are catastrophically overloaded.
In Australia we’ve taken the disadvantage of the poor a step further, like we often do, and have propped up the private system advantaging it even further, e.g. by forcing people to pay a tax for not having private insurance, labyrinthian bureaucracy of referrals that rack up consultation fees and achieve nothing for patients, etc.
In the US, the system is overwhelmed in large part thanks to the financial side pushing for ever increasing patient loads and reduced staff. So nurses are saddled with more patients than they can safely take care of because an empty bed is lost profit. This has a cascade effect because staff are leaving the industry as a whole because of the understaffing, stress, and poor pay/life balance.
I don’t know if the ACA has the same tax as your system does, but I know my state also has a tax penalty if you’re not covered by insurance. The upside to this, though, is that the state offers insurance. It’s not a great system (before you even get into the plague of issues with the finer points of the system), but it’s better than just leaving people to fend for themselves.
Gonna wanna see the source code on that “Pray” button. I don’t think it actually does anything.
on desktop the button has a counter for how many people have pressed it, so it does something :)
Holy crap! Do we now have the technology to quantify thoughts and prayers?
we have the technology!
don’t go too far into that one and yeah, we’re making progress
slow clap
dude is there a Pray Button on the various controllers. someone is about to try and convince you.
Love to see it
Thats hot
Taking out the leader of an evil (corpo) empire is heroism, not subject to murder charges.
I don’t want to dampen the good mood, but even if this is sent anonymously, is there any risk of the information of who is the donor being hacked, especially by corporate overlords who have every incentive to see Luigi and his supporters get punished?
It’s anonymous to us, not the website. Payments are the most trackable thing in the world
Proxy account or donor is outside US, in a suitable country
Edit: There is legal protection, so if that donor doesn’t have any potentially problematic business it’s safe ig.
such a silly bunch a shit. YOU CAN’T DO THAT. unless you have the intelligence of a human.
What does this mean, exactly? More resources to hire more lawyers or something?
Not really, Luigi already had tons of money.
What it means is a legislator who might have actually had a positive impact on changing US Healthcare did NOT receive a 30k donation.
We can’t outspend the health insurance industry, especially not in the long run. Legislators will always side with those who can continually give large donations and pay full-time lobbyists. It is incredibly naive - bordering on delusional - to think we can take on even just one sector of the oligarchy by working within their captured system.
Now is the time to apply pressure from the outside, organize and build our own mechanisms for affecting change. This will require solidarity, and for people to make collective and coordinated use of their agency with regards to their labor and spending.
The DNC literally passed laws against large campaign contributions decades ago, it was overturned by the SCOTUS citizens united decision years later, and has been a core DNC platform policy ever since to reverse citizens united.
So yes, you can, but people aren’t, because people are idiots.
it was overturned by the SCOTUS citizens united decision years later
So it was overturned decades ago, was never reinstated, and you think that’s an example of a win?
-
No, it was overturned in 2010, not decades ago. The law the decision overturned was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which was over 2 decades ago. The DNC had been trying to pass it since 1995.
-
You people always complain about a party not changing things when we NEVER give them the power to do so.
President Barack Obama and Senator John Kerry called for an amendment to overrule the decision but it went ignored. In 2011, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed the Saving American Democracy Amendment, which would reverse the court’s ruling, LINK HERE. Bernie Sanders and others have repeatedly introduced bills to reverse it ever since.
The reason things are the way they are is because people vote Republican. Full Stop.
when we NEVER give them the power to do so
“We” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I’m not voting Republican, you’re not voting Republican, and Luigi isn’t voting Republican.
“do nothing about it until the midterms at which point we will suddenly convince 200 million people to vote Democrat” isn’t going to cut it.
-
I’m not really even arguing that people should give up working within the system, just that it very clearly isn’t enough. If you haven’t noticed, we’re losing big. Even when the Democrats win, can’t you see how little they are able to accomplish? When you play a game that’s rigged against you, you have to get creative and look for solutions that are outside the bounds of the rules that have been set before us.
Your misplaced faith in the Democratic party is blinding you to the reality of our situation. Even within the party we have lost ground to the oligarchs, meaning our access to political power has been compromised. To take it back will require us to fight on two fronts, both within and outside the system.
So yes, you can, but people aren’t, because people are idiots.
Stop this. You have become jaded and cynical, which is understandable, but it’s causing you to accept a very dangerous premise. We didn’t get here because people are just idiots, the ruling class out-organized us. To believe that people are simply too stupid to fight back is to accept defeat.
“Clearly isn’t enough” there is no other course. You’re just trying to steer the ship into rocks as a shortcut.
Let’s stop talking around the issue. I’m referring to union organizing, general strikes, boycotts, mutual aid, direct action, etc. Would you consider those things “steering the ship into rocks?” Do you really think our only viable course of action is to do nothing except show up to vote on election days? We have to organize, and the Democratic leadership is uninterested in helping. Grassroots liberal progressive groups like MoveOn and Indivisible have been doing that work for them, and the Democratic leadership has been actively hostile towards them.
No you aren’t, you’re in a comment section where people are being pushed to worship murder and you’re defending the murder worship. Nice try.
Lol, it’s the Schrödinger’s guilt. The news is supposed to be uplifting both because the guy is praised as a hero for killing someone and because he is presumed not guilty.
Personally, i don’t have any sympathy for him, regardless he’s guilty or not, some things he said are really disgusting.
Martin Luther thing said some disgusting things, if you lived back then, would you have no sympathy either?
Nobody deserves to be put in prison for allegedly killing CEOs, whether they did it or not.
“You stand accused of saving the lives of sick puppies with cancer. The penalty is death. How do you plead?”
I don’t know anything about what he said, but I can’t condone murder - especially if it was for nothing.
It’s Schrödinger’s vigilantism.
Part of me wants there to be a vigilante hunting down those who prey on the weak by breaking the social contract.
But another part of me doesn’t think the people who would be willing to do said hunting should even be free in society to begin with.
Clearly something(s) has to change, but what?
Send him to 1789 France
Pathetic.
you don’t have to be into the whole killing part. me too. what’s up?
I just think that sending your own hard owned money to a murderer is pathetic, and everyone else upvoting this and encouraging this disgusting behaviour are also pathetic. This complete loss of all morals and integrity just because a victim was in a situation you politivally disagree with is completely embarassing.
That a health insurance company’s CEO getting killed receives so much support from so many people cannot be explained away by “political disagreement”. It is clear that the world is in a psychological crisis which affects everyone and billionaires who treat the world as a computer game are generally to blame. This guy is just a cog in the machine maybe an aspiring billionaire at best but not likely the one pulling the strings (such as share holders). Disregarding this reaction as the deviant behaviour of few politically charged individuals would be very far from the truth and is also likely the mistake that will be made by billionaires.
it ain’t no victim. it’s literally all of us.
edit; also, morals and integrity? seriously?
But making donations to a convicted felon who claims to be super rich and is nothing more than a con man and sexual abuser is ok? I choosing to stand with Luigi.
I, too, stand with Luigi, but that isn’t an argument; that’s whataboutism.
Classic whataboutism. I never said donating to Trump was ok.
Slow clap we need more support
That one will be last against the wall
What are you saying here…?
