No specific demands, but this was absolutely not only about the man Brian Thompson, and very much about larger political and economic issues in the country.
…If the manifesto is to be believed, anyway. I understand not everyone trusts the veracity/provenance of it, and that’s a reasonable doubt to have.
I saw the Manifesto and I didn’t see any socioeconomic political theories, just an apology to the police but “it had to be done.”
If it said “The system of privatized health insurance is evil as a result of failure of legislation to restrain the actions of an industry” THEN that would be political, but it didn’t say that at all.
My understanding is that Luigi did not publish the manifesto, and that it was discovered by others later. If that’s true, then the manifesto itself is not particularly relevant to anything criminal. The message on the bullets could be considered relevant, but I don’t see how that alone would be proof of intent to terrorize.
Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.
He explicitly states that he does not have the “space” nor the qualification to lay out what you want him to lay out, but he pretty much says what you said he should’ve said for it to be political: “Privatized health insurance is corrupt and greedy, we’ve known it for a long time and nothing has been done to prevent or stop it, thus I took a more violent approach to do something about the corruption and greed.”
But the reason why they think it had to be done still matters. “This CEO wronged me personally” and “the systemic oppression made me do it” contextualize the act in a very different way. The reason he did this is why it’s political. If he had done it because he had a personal vendetta against the CEO or he had some religious beliefs that made him do it or if he was just insane, then it wouldn’t be a political reason. But he did it because (paraphrasing his statement) he saw an unopposed corrupt system that needed to be opposed. That is a political reason.
the one I heard that I think is the most useful is, On the broadest level, Politics is how societies decide how and where resources are distributed
by that definition, healthcare can only be a political question, cus no matter how you set it up, you’ve made a decision about how it’s staffed and funded, who it caters to and what its goals are
I don’t consider him a terrorist because I don’t consider what he did as a political action.
I agree and also see lots of other acts that are political not get tagged as terrorism.
How’s that? It seems very political to me
Unless we’re doing a “I didn’t see nothin” bit, that’s cool too
Luigi didn’t make any political demands. He just said this CEO was a bad man and so he killed them.
No specific demands, but this was absolutely not only about the man Brian Thompson, and very much about larger political and economic issues in the country.
…If the manifesto is to be believed, anyway. I understand not everyone trusts the veracity/provenance of it, and that’s a reasonable doubt to have.
I saw the Manifesto and I didn’t see any socioeconomic political theories, just an apology to the police but “it had to be done.”
If it said “The system of privatized health insurance is evil as a result of failure of legislation to restrain the actions of an industry” THEN that would be political, but it didn’t say that at all.
My understanding is that Luigi did not publish the manifesto, and that it was discovered by others later. If that’s true, then the manifesto itself is not particularly relevant to anything criminal. The message on the bullets could be considered relevant, but I don’t see how that alone would be proof of intent to terrorize.
The reason for “it had to be done” is political.
He explicitly states that he does not have the “space” nor the qualification to lay out what you want him to lay out, but he pretty much says what you said he should’ve said for it to be political: “Privatized health insurance is corrupt and greedy, we’ve known it for a long time and nothing has been done to prevent or stop it, thus I took a more violent approach to do something about the corruption and greed.”
There are a lot of murders and I’m sure every single non-negligience murderer thinks theirs had to be done, mate.
But the reason why they think it had to be done still matters. “This CEO wronged me personally” and “the systemic oppression made me do it” contextualize the act in a very different way. The reason he did this is why it’s political. If he had done it because he had a personal vendetta against the CEO or he had some religious beliefs that made him do it or if he was just insane, then it wouldn’t be a political reason. But he did it because (paraphrasing his statement) he saw an unopposed corrupt system that needed to be opposed. That is a political reason.
No, its not. Brian Thompson wasn’t a legislator. He was a civillian who made money off of others hardships.
it’s not political because politics shouldn’t have anything to do with healthcare.
kinda depends on your definition of politics
the one I heard that I think is the most useful is, On the broadest level, Politics is how societies decide how and where resources are distributed
by that definition, healthcare can only be a political question, cus no matter how you set it up, you’ve made a decision about how it’s staffed and funded, who it caters to and what its goals are
You say “shouldn’t”, but until that’s true, it does