Not if it's detrimental to their cause. E.g. the just-stop-oil people have only garnered haters. A successful case might be Luigi Mangione.

▲

joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>A successful case might be Luigi Mangione.

Sorry, but how was that murder successful?

Did it achieve the effect that everyone is getting cheaper healthcare now?

OR, on the contrary, it only achieved that CEOs are now getting more anonymity and private security, while the plebs are getting more invasive law enforcement tracking like Palantir and Flock shoved up their ass to prevent them from doing something like that again?

▲

ngruhn 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Sorry, but how was that murder successful?

Successful in winning over the public.

▲

justinclift an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> how was that murder successful?

One less psychopath in charge of a US health care provider being around?

It seemed for a brief moment like some of the other psychopaths CEOs might start changing things for the better.

But you're right, when there wasn't a wave of "finding out" for other health care CEOs they seemed to go right back to it.

▲

joe_mamba an hour ago | parent [-]

>One less psychopath in charge of a US health care provider being around?

What kind of broken logic is this? What good did this do for you if the end result for you is the same or worse now? Other than feel good for vigilante vengeance than then backfires on you in the end.

You're not in a comic book movie where if you kill the main "bad guy" then society magically fixes itself at the end, because there is no main villain here, society is broken not because of the decisions of one CEO, but because of a combination of decisions of thousands of people, factors and incentives accumulated over decades that lead to healthcare and other things sucking, and you don't fix it overnight by killing one guy, you instead just make it worse for everyone else who isn't a murderer.

You fix it by talking, campaigning, gathering people and voting, knowing that it will also take decades to undo, the same way as it took decades to get to this stage. That's the only way you enact change that will will guarantee bi-partisan buy-in and actually stick around for the long term. Policy changes implemented by populist movements under threat of violence rarely produce good outcomes that last.

▲

justinclift an hour ago | parent [-]

> What kind of broken logic is this?

It's not even slightly broken.

It's about the people responsible for destroying the lives of those they're supposed to be helping, instead abusing those people for personal gain.

Is that really something you think should keep heading in the same abusive direction it's been going for many years? :(

	▲	joe_mamba an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>It's about the people responsible for destroying the lives of those they're supposed to be helping... instead abusing them for personal gain. That's what the justice system is for. If you don't like the way it works, then vote to change it. Look how Luis Rossman is doing it for a good example. But shooting people you don't like as vengeance for what you perceive is wrong, is some third world banana republic shit, and no such country where this is normalized is remotely safe or functional, look at Africa and parts of Latam. You think you want that but you don't actually. IF you do sincerely want that, then I sincerely hope you get what you want, but both ways for you and only you, while the rest of us stay isolated as spectators.