UnitedHealthcare Posted A Tribute To Slain CEO On Facebook — And 90,000 People Reacted With The Same Emoji

Cause lemmy.world has been banning people for expressing that sentiment lol

Some people need the extra drama in their lives

Because I already was!

“Seems like justice was served” was all I commented to be banned

This is my last comment from the instance in done w it. I encourage all to change instances. Fuck .world

Posting about it is one thing.

Specifically calling for violence is against LW's TOS, and they seem to be ban happy when the violence is directed at the owning class.

As for people calling for violence being posted, I've seen very few comments more than 30 minutes old on LW doing that, but plenty on other servers. I'm not sure how LW is handling other instance comments though.

Because extremist rhetoric is banned in any decent space.

I agree that’s a more proper response. I was super drunk last night but there is no longer a court in America that isn’t corrupted because the Supreme Court is corrupted and they overrule

Fun fact; I caught a 30 day ban once off /r/politics for a comment that was explicitly that quote by JFK, attributed to him. "Promoting violence."

Echos of an Arab spring perhaps?

I will preface this comment by saying that due to my ethnic background and atheism, I would probably be one of the first in line for a theocratic equivalent of the gulag. I will also add I am not American, but I have lived and traveled in North America, Europe and Asia for many years.

The functional outcomes derived from the actions of US oligarchs and Osama Bin Laden are largely identical. Mass suffering, mass death, condemning many millions of people to a life of misery. If anything US oligarchs have an edge on Bin Laden due to the scale inherent to operating in the US and protection provided by the local judicial system and social attitudes.

Consider Zuckerberg's involvement in the Rohingya genocide.

Now I don't think Zuckerberg had any direct malicious intent here (unlike say Osama Bin Laden, in a different context of course), but what does it matter? His actions, callousness and supremacist attitude led to a large number of people getting killed and many more getting their lives ruined. But because of the compromised nature of the local judicial system, not only did he not have to take responsibility for this actions, but he even had the gal to claim that this was an example of how effective FB was. Do you think we would see a similar reaction if FB was used in hypothetical ethno-religious mass killings (e.g. US Catholics vs Protestants) in the continental US? I think not.

Zuckerberg knowingly enabling the Rohingya genocide could be seen as a controversial argument. I do not. I think any real judicial authority should have seized all his assets (every last cent) and sent him for mandatory community service work for two decades as a junior latrine janitor on the island of Bhasan Char. What about a less "controversial" case?

My favourite oligarch gang in the US are the Sacklers. These thugs set up what is essentially a massive drug cartel peddling one of the most deadly drug substance (we are not talking about LSD or MDMA). And yet all they got was a somewhat larger fine than usual that still allowed them to keep billions. Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is got be pissed. 😆

Now where does Bin Laden play into this? Both Bin Laden and US oligarchs do horrible things. But unlike US oligarchs, Bin Laden was quiet open about his intentions and did not try to hide behind PR or state that some court in Texas leveraged the 69th amendment of the US constitution to prove that his actions were legal and were about "fighting for freedom". On the contrary, he could have just been doing blow, driving fast cars, chilling on yachts, like all the other elite princes in Saudi Arabia, but instead he gave up that life to fight for something he believed in.

It was wrong, he was a bad person. I am not arguing against that. But how many US oligarchs have the guts to do something like that?

And if the outcomes of the actions of US oligarchs are actually worse than Bin Laden, is it a stretch to say they are worse than Bin Laden?

say what you will about national socialism, but at least it's an ethos

Yeah, I guess. Does it pertain to first degree murder? And could it just devolve into a juridical fight? 'cause then I think it turns into whoever has more money to spend wins, so... What I'm suggesting is that we, the people, agree all-together to not rat the gunman (or -woman) out to the pigs.

Yeah, MAGA doesn't have principles or anything even resembling a coherent world view.

I've had more than a few conversations with MAGA types who agree massive corporations are running rampant and are a major problem, but then go on to advocate for deregulation.

They only like things that may possibly be an advantage to them. Unless they are currently in a health care dispute with UHC, They honestly don't give a rat's ass what happens to anyone at that company.

The MAGA public doesn’t like billionaires in general

Yep. Their list of billionaires they hate has different ones at the top of the list but they hate billionaires, too. I had folks in MAGA hats tell me they liked Bernie for that reason alone.

I honestly don't think so. Many Americans have had personal experiences with bad insurance, but hopefully not Blackwater