That statement reflects a basic misunderstanding of small arms. If you shoot at someone, regardless of whether you're using less-than-lethal ammunition, death or serious injury is always possible. This was absolutely intentional by the soldiers and those who gave the orders. Don't try to claim it was some kind of accident, regardless of training or lack thereof.

I really love the rising justification as of late of "they didn't know" for reckless manslaughter.

They're called "less lethal" for a reason. It's not a paintball that splatters on impact (and even then, those can also harm). Even a properly shot rubber bullet carries injury risk if you're too close. What's all that police training for?

if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, then they die from injuries caused by the shot you fired, you killed them. what goes on in your little secret heart between you and jesus might matter to you, but to the real world everyone else lives in you killed them. whether you meant to shoot them in a non-killing way is irrelevant, doubly so if you never learned how to but decided you were qualified to do it anyway.

No difference. Not knowing does not excuse responsibility. Should have figured it out after first death.

I agree that it's quite hard to draw a line and it's a slippery slope, but what UH was doing certainly isn't comparable to cutting state budget for political or financial reasons.

>And that still does not justify the death of any of them.

Surely everyone is the physical cause of everything that results his action or inaction? We differentiate the world through all the interactions and then we get some langrange multipliers and whatnot, or we do it more carefully taking non-linear effects into account to still get some notion of responsibility.

Surely these people you mention are in fact responsible, and surely that should make them targets in case they increase deaths, destroy people's potential etc?

Going from institutionalized forms of slavery common around the globe for thousands of years to the almost complete absence of it in today's world is still a major accomplishment. Three hundred years ago, slavery was seen as natural by many, today that would be an absolute fringe position almost no one would feel comfortable stating out loud. That is progress, even if it is not yet enough.

Prison labor = Slavery.

Many slaving countries were democratic as it was understood at the time. All modern democracies disenfranchise some people e.g. the young, people with criminal convictions in some countries.

Could you please clarify your statement?

This sounds like airlines saying they have a right to bump people who paid for a ticket because the airlines couldn't figure out a business model that earned them an acceptable amounts of money without doing it. UHC does that, except instead of denying you the seat you paid for, they deny you care you paid for, and you suffer and die.

The problem is the conclusion that we must allow this so that their business economics can be sound, so that they can continue to exist. We should instead conclude that being horrible to people is bad, and any business model that requires it should not exist.

Brian saw a company that he knew ahead of time was horrible to people, that he knew ahead of time decided that many of their customers must die, and indeed this was critical to the company's economics and business model, and thought, 'You know what? I want to be a part of that. I like that so much that I want to be the one in charge of it.'

Why that job, instead of the millions of others? Well, we can take a gue$$. He had to make his nut, no matter who he hurt along the way, right?

Meanwhile, as an arguably less-horrible person, I see a job posting for startups that use AI to scan terminal cancer patient records for timely funeral business leads in exchange for offering crypto credits that can be applied towards a coupon for palliative care AI chat or whatever, or makes drones and AI systems for tracking and identifying government critics for later persecution, and I have to click 'next' because my soul is worth more than the salary. What a fuckin' chump I am.

1/ There is no "distribute a limited amount of funds". There is even less a "distribute a limited amount of funds after shareholder profit and massive executive paychecks". Customers have bought coverage; if the company overissued policies, they make a loss, or they go bankrupt and their own insurers cover the existing claims. Anything else is privatised profit and socialised losses, which even a callous teenager just blown away by their first glimpse at Ayn Rand should find objectionable.

2/ I carefully said "entitled to" to avoid a debate about personal responsibility and limit the conversation to "paid for a life-saving service they did not receive", which everyone will agree is wrong.

3/ If you think the CEO did not issue orders to make it as difficult to claim as possible, and drag the process as much as possible, you are a fool.

Denying help to a human is one thing. Denying them help after they paid for the help so you can buy a yacht another thing entirely.

This is nonsense; assaulting and killing people is illegal except in self defense. In no way whatsoever does the second amendment legitimize violence.

Thanks, but I live here.

Michigan has been trying to ban 3D printed guns for years before UnitedHealth CEO was murdered. That was just during the session and a coincidence, not cause.

I know, but there would've been opposition to a state funeral regardless. The Japanese public perceived the state funeral and the decision-making process behind it as corrupt.

Here's a Japanese article from when the decision was made. Note that the scandal leading to his assassination, which was a significant issue in its own right, isn't even mentioned. That's because the decision to hold a state funeral was itself very scandalous.

https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html

Very good points.

For the most part, the bottom 10% in most liberal democracies are much better off than most people in most autocratic states.

Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. Yet I saw a poster the other day titled "class warfare" with a picture of graveyard saying that's where the "rich" will be buried. People don't understand at all how counties and economies work and how this system we live in works vs. the alternatives (I'm in Canada btw).

I am not in these spaces so it's nice to get your summary. I agree that is tragic.

I've wondered about this kind of shift being an inevitable response to the growing online trope of autism being the boogeyman used to shill everything from not getting vaccinated to making your kids drink your urine.

The head of us health regularly talks about autistic people as a terrible tragedy inflicted on their parents and a net negative to society. I expect that kind of rhetoric would fuel hostility across any group.

Yes that's correct. In particular, not just run of the mill division, but impersonating right and left wing militants both calling for violence.

For example, just one that turned up at the top of a quick Google search

> And the analysis shows that everyone from the former president, Dmitry Medvedev, as well as military bloggers, lifestyle influencers and bots, as you mentioned, are all pushing this narrative that the U.S. is on the brink of civil war and thus Texas should secede from the United States, and that Russia will be there to support this.

https://www.kut.org/texasstandard/2024-02-14/russian-propaga...

Emission offsetting currently only costs ~$50/human/yr:

https://founderspledge.com/research/climate-and-lifestyle-re...

No, I suggest removing them through voting them out and voting for people who don't lack long-term thinking. I think this is the best way. But looks like it doesn't work. What do you suggest to do instead?

> Gerrymandering is hardly a new problem (...)

Gerrymandering is not new, but the overt and direct and very public claims that gerrymandering is being used to push an authoritarian regime against the people's wishes is something recent and very present.

Being intentionally obtuse to try and inject a political opinion is lame as hell, friend.

A mega prison in El Salvado frequently described as hell on earth - "home".

Ya it's just clean fun border talk and the people black bagged by masked men are surely enjoying their complementary airline pretzels.

> wanted a border and were buying people flights home

This is a really really disingenuous way to describe what is happening, which I expect you fully understand.

The bit I don't get is _why_ does this smirking, bad faith, intentional misrepresentation happen? What good actually comes from pretending and trying to mislead? I find this kind of thing extremely discouraging. Maybe that's the answer to my question?

>some damage to societal perceptions of transgender people

Weird, how do we call people who do "some damage to societal perceptions" of black people? Of Jewish people?

Why are you reaching for such a tortured expression, "some damage to societal perceptions of [some] people"? Isn't there already some other word for that?

>you invented a significantly stronger, more inciteful quote (something Charlie didn't say)

https://youtu.be/KivCRqfFcqY?si=hLN0akbswSlPm8pE

But if we take 5 minutes to search, we can see Charlie Kirk has said publicly (and I quote):

"There's a direct connection to inflation and the trans issue. You say, Charlie, come on. They couldn't be further apart. No, they're exactly the same. They're the same in this aspect—when you believe that men can become women, why wouldn't you also believe that you could print wealth?"

(You are poor? Blame the trans)

"The transgender movement actually matters even more than biomedical fascism"

"the transgender movement is an introductory phase to get you to strip yourself of your humanity to mesh with machines"

"if you stop being a man, then maybe you can stop being a human being"

(Transhumanist scare you? Blame the trans - those non-human beings)

Maybe you think I exaggerate? Luckily, he has made his personal opinion clear:

"I blame the decline of American men. This never should've been -- someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s"

Tell me, how did things were taken "care of" in the 50s and 60s? What could that be a reference to? (Wink wink)

Not convincing enough? Last direct quote from him:

“The one issue that I think is so against our senses, so against the natural law, and dare I say, a throbbing middle finger to god, is the transgender thing happening in America right now”

Really, who could think that when he said there are too many (how many? Doesn't matter, just believe it) mass shootings caused by trans people, he is inviting fear and hatred against them? Really, it would be dishonest to suggest such a thing, right?

He was also openly racist and homophobic, but hey, how could I or anyone suggest he was stroking violence and stirring hate?