Current Events > did people here actually defend luigi mangione?

(+) Yeah! (+)

AceMos posted...

got a link

No because we can't post links but it's in the usual place titled "what is your impression of stalin?"

andel posted...

real change in this country has to come through elections and legislation and judicial oversight. there will always be injustice in any society, but murdering people wont do anything but undermine the purported cause of the murderer and end up with their life being forfeit.

I believe I asked this before but...

Are you aware of American history? Yes or no?

HashtagSEP posted...

Where did I do that?

HashtagSEP posted...

TC told us so.

And if you believe in trials or innocent until proven guilty you're a Russian bot or murder loving anarchist or something.

You're not good at playing coy. It's not cute and it's not clever.

this reminds me that LightSnake defended Blue Cross Blue Shield and said that program they had to rollback was good

pathetic

LightSnake posted...

You're not good at playing coy. It's not cute and it's not clever.

Literally all I implied there is that I believe in trials and the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

Why are you so upset by that? Please explain. Please explain why you hate those rights?

Toonstrack posted...

You first.

What is there to answer? I don't care whether or not that guy Kyle shot was a sex pest or not and here's why.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Kyle shot a guy when he shouldn't have been there in the first place, and absolutely shouldn't have had a gun on him at all. Regardless of who the people Kyle shot at were, he was in the wrong, because their past criminal records had nothing to do with the fact that some stupid kid was waving a gun around.

What I asked and still haven't gotten an answer to is

"was Brian Thompson in the middle of enriching himself off the deaths of thousands of others at the time he was killed"

Toonstrack posted...

No, the victim was not the subject of my point. The killer was.

Let's check that.

Your words, not mine (I'm out of quote blocks).

"Kyle Rittenhouse killed a convicted sex offender. Does it also not matter who he was?"
only makes sense in response to what you quoted if you were talking about the guy Kyle killed.

"He was in the middle of committing violent ones. Not sex ones, but... yeah."
only makes sense in response to what you quoted if you were talking about the guy Kyle killed.

"You have to actively be committing a crime to be a bad person?"
only makes sense in response to what you quoted if you were talking about the guy Kyle killed.

It was 100% you trying to muddy the waters by bringing up that Kyle's victim wasn't a good guy, because it makes no fucking sense for you to have been talking about Kyle there and comparing him to Luigi when earlier you were saying

"Is being an anti woke fan of Peter thiel and Elon musk a bad look for mangione? Maybe he isn't someone to aspire to?"

You're trying to do purity tests and your entire point there from the jump was "Well, they've got a history" (whether that history is being a sex pest or having shitty idols) as if that history is relevant in these cases.

Toonstrack posted...

Yes I do. Because Brian was just running the machine. He wasn't "actively" killing anyone. The machine he was running was, but even THAT is a nuanced conversation most here aren't willing to have. And that machine still runs.

Alright then Toon, you say you know the answer, so answer this too. How many lives weren't saved by Brain Thompson's death?

Toonstrack posted...

Stop with the bad faith BS. I never said I could solve healthcare. I said murdering people on the street isn't the way to do it.

So, again, yousay you know the better methods, so for the third time...

KajeI posted...

Go on then, walk us through them. It's been a while, I'm sure you've had the time to come up with something that won't just result in you embarrassing yourself again.

because

If you want to make the claim that there were peaceful solutions that could've worked out for everyone, you've gotta put in the work to make that seem like they are/were reasonably achievable and not an incredibly idealistic, ignorant, and shortsighted delusion that you wish was true.

-

I'm so fucking tired of sanctimonious idealists playing useful idiot while never bringing any viable alternatives to the table. It's always pure fucking delusion that flies in the face of history and reality, falls apart as soon as you start asking obvious questions, and the result is consistently doing nothing but getting the people they claim to care about caught in the blast when they shoot themselves in the foot.

WingsOfGood posted...

this reminds me that LightSnake defended Blue Cross Blue Shield and said that program they had to rollback was good

pathetic

LightSnake has never met a healthcare CEO that he didn't cheer for in their killing of those dastardly poors.

HashtagSEP posted...

Literally all I implied there is that I believe in trials and the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

Why are you so upset by that? Please explain. Please explain why you those rights?

he really really really wants everyone to think Luigi must be guilty

suspicious

Rika_Furude posted...

Do you people think it is more likely Luigi shot the CEO, or more likely he didnt shoot the CEO? You people need to sober up, youre on some real trash

It's certainly possible that he did. Which is why he should have a fair trail to put to rest if he did or didn't.

Which is why it's super werird that HBO has a documentary about him regarding a crime he has yet to be trailed for.

WingsOfGood posted...

this reminds me that LightSnake defended Blue Cross Blue Shield and said that program they had to rollback was good

pathetic

HashtagSEP posted...

LightSnake has never met a healthcare CEO that he didn't cheer for in their killing of those dastardly poors.

Lightsnake is a big defender of the status quo. He defends establishment democrats a lot to. There are a lot of people who have too much faith in the system and they will defend it to death.

Umbreon posted...

It's certainly possible that he did. Which is why he should have a fair trail to put to rest if he did or didn't.

Which is why it's super werird that HBO has a documentary about him regarding a crime he has yet to be trailed for.

Yeah its weird. But just cause its weird doesnt mean hes innocent

and you didnt answer my question

Rika_Furude posted...

Yeah its weird. But just cause its weird doesnt mean hes innocent

I don't think anybody here said he is innocent, just that he deserves a trial like anybody else, and we can't definitely say he's guilty because said trial hasn't happened yet.

Personally, I think it's very likely he did it. Do I know for a fact, though? Of course not. That's what the trial is for.

For some reason, certain users like TC and LightSnake really don't like that idea, though.

Yes.

(I did not give )him the gun though).

correct

presumption of innocence doesn't mean they are innocent

it simply means the evidence must be reviewed in a court of law before guilty declarations

and no, the cops claiming he done it to the media isn't proof he did it like HOLYMOLY

HashtagSEP posted...

I don't think anybody here said he is innocent, just that he deserves a trial like anybody else, and we can't definitely say he's guilty because said trial hasn't happened yet.

Personally, I think it's very likely he did it. Do I know for a fact, though? Of course not. That's what the trial is for.

For some reason, certain users like TC and LightSnake really don't like that idea, though.

He obviously deserves a trial, but some people here take innocent until proven guilty to mean Schrdingers murder. There is no evidence of murder until after the judge delivers the verdict. What murder?

RobertMuldoon posted...

Lightsnake is a big defender of the status quo. He defends establishment democrats a lot to. There are a lot of people who have too much faith in the system and they will defend it to death.

LS trying to stick everything he could to get people to turn on Luigi in the first few days was really funny tbh. To paraphrase.

"We don't know anything about the shooter, he needs to be taken into custody, he might start hurting random people!!!" (Meanwhile the Defend, Deny, Depose bullets had already been reported.)

"Did you guyz know Luigi was, gasp, rich???"

"Actshully Luigi's a rightwinger, you guys wouldn't want to agree with one of them, right?"

(2 and 3 might be in the wrong order.)

-

And I'll make it clear here. I think Luigi shot him, and I don't care if Luigi goes to jail for it or not. I think it's very convenient that he was found with a manifesto and the murder weapon on him in a mcdonalds when he easily could've ditched them long beforehand and probably gotten away with a "perfect" crime, and there was 0 chance he was ever going to get a fair trial for a billion reasons that were blatantly evident from everyone's reactions to a shitbag healthcare CEO getting shot VS the god knows many school shootings we get (and don't forget that other death in the news that day in that city that I think is still unsolved. What was it, an immigrant was beaten to death by 3 strangers because he didn't respond to them in english or something?).

Rika_Furude posted...

He obviously deserves a trial, but some people here take innocent until proven guilty to mean Schrdingers murder. There is no evidence of murder until after the judge delivers the verdict. What murder?

Who, in this topic, did that?

andel posted...

we are not. this nation has been fractured worse than it is now and much more inhospitable for all but the rich and these things were made better vis legislation and the democratic process. the gilded age ended and the insane stranglehold the rich had ebbed incrementally.

change is never a snap of the finger, it has to go through the process. all the best places to live in the world have a similar process, though some arent as broken or corrupt.

I hate to tell you this about pretty much any positive social change throughout history, but it was never without violence. I'm assuming you're familiar with the history of labor in the US, and the battle of Blair mountain? Workers didn't get rights by asking the boss man nicely.

Rika_Furude posted...

Yeah its weird. But just cause its weird doesnt mean hes innocent

and you didnt answer my question

If HBO was given evidence (or "evidence") regarding the case before the trail has even started, it brings into question if a trail can even be considered "fair" at that point. Your average person accused of murder doesn't have a documentary discussing how they totally murdered someone.

As for more or less likely? If this was treated like a normal murder, I'd lean towards "He probably did it", but given how hard the wealthy and the media are leaning in and really trying to make everyone hate Luigi (Meanwhile the Asian spa killer "Just had a bad day" according to a police officer) really has me second guessing things.

Rika_Furude posted...

He obviously deserves a trial, but some people here take innocent until proven guilty to mean Schrdingers murder. There is no evidence of murder until after the judge delivers the verdict. What murder?

Nobody questions whether or not there was a murder.

Yeah a murder 100% occurred, no one is denying that.

KajeI posted...

LS trying to stick everything he could to get people to turn on Luigi in the first few days was really funny tbh. To paraphrase.

"We don't know anything about the shooter, he needs to be taken into custody, he might start hurting random people!!!" (Meanwhile the Defend, Deny, Depose bullets had already been reported.)

"Did you guyz know Luigi was, gasp, rich???"

"Actshully Luigi's a rightwinger, you guys wouldn't want to agree with one of them, right?"

(2 and 3 might be in the wrong order.)

-

And I'll make it clear here. I think Luigi shot him, and I don't care if Luigi goes to jail for it or not. I think it's very convenient that he was found with a manifesto and the murder weapon on him in a mcdonalds when he easily could've ditched them long beforehand and probably gotten away with a "perfect" crime, and there was 0 chance he was ever going to get a fair trial for a billion reasons that were blatantly evident from everyone's reactions to a shitbag healthcare CEO getting shot VS the god knows many school shootings we get (and don't forget that other death that day in that city that I think is still unsolved. What was it, an immigrant was beaten to death by 3 strangers because he didn't respond to them in english or something?).

Yeah, the fact he's an asshole techbro with abhorrent views who just happened to shoot an asshole is pretty important, not that the shallow morons lionizing him care.

This entire thing is "we hope the asshole murderer gets off," and it's been pretty shameful. Oh boo hoo, the guy who shot someone on camera has a bad case in court? Cry me a river.

HashtagSEP posted...

Literally all I implied there is that I believe in trials and the right of being innocent until proven guilty.

Why are you so upset by that? Please explain. Please explain why you hate those rights?

What rights of Luigi Mangione's have been violated by us calling him a murderer?

Please explain

LightSnake, be perfectly honest.

Which do you hate more:

1. People you don't like having a right to a fair trial
2. Poor people having access to affordable health care

Because both really seem to send you into a tizzy

I feel like everyone has gotten off track of the actual purpose of this topic:

Dunking on andel.

LightSnake posted...

What rights of Luigi Mangione's have been violated by us calling him a murderer?

Please explain

Where did I say that?

Are you sure you're feeling okay? You seem very unable to read.

ai123 posted...

The purpose of Russian bots isn't so much to push a particular line as it is to sow confusion to the point where people don't know what to believe any more.

They are very successful.

There will be both pro and anti Mangione bots.

That doesn't refute what I said.

DrizztLink posted...

I feel like everyone has gotten off track of the actual purpose of this topic:

Dunking on andel.

Other people showed up asking for people to dunk on them.

HashtagSEP posted...

LightSnake, be perfectly honest.

Which do you hate more:
1. People you don't like having a right to a fair trial
2. Poor people having access to affordable health care
Because both really seem to send you into a tizzy

I've ensured plenty of people I don't like have a fair trial. Kind of my job, actually.Until you've had to defend a guy who tried to chop his daughters into pieces with a machete to ensure his rights are defended, then you can lecture me.

Literally nothing has suggested Luigi isn't having access to a fair trial. He just faces a near certainty of conviction and that's entirely a self-inflicted problem he has.

andel posted...

change in the us has almost always been incremental

Except when it wasn't.

I'm not saying such drastic change needs to be the first option, but we have absolutely employed it when incremental change wasn't feasible given the circumstances.

killing this guy accomplishes less than nothing

We are way too early in the history textbook to make such a claim.

i will ask the same question another guy asked that got ignored (and will be likely ignored again). where is the line drawn? is it ok to murder tobaccoo execs? alcohol? gambling? unhealthy food? when is it ok to have a braindead level of bloodlust and when does it become abhorrent behavior?

The answer of the Cynic is that there is no line, and never was.

The greater answer is that ultimately, society will decide in the aftermath where the line is.

But really, the problem is you're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "how can we allow this bad thing" and not asking "how can we allow the root causes that led to the bad thing".

Umbreon posted...

I believe I asked this before but...

Are you aware of American history? Yes or no?

are you? making vague retorts doesnt accomplish much imo

LightSnake posted...

Yeah, the fact he's an asshole techbro with abhorrent views who just happened to shoot an asshole is pretty important, not that the shallow morons lionizing him care.

This entire thing is "we hope the asshole murderer gets off," and it's been pretty shameful. Oh boo hoo, the guy who shot someone on camera has a bad case in court? Cry me a river.

Don't forget people wanted the McDonald's worker to suffer loss of employment or other consequences for turning in this millionaire clown

Absolutely no principals

CyricZ posted...

Except when it wasn't.

I'm not saying such drastic change needs to be the first option, but we have absolutely employed it when incremental change wasn't feasible given the circumstances.

We are way too early in the history textbook to make such a claim.

There's been no proposed legislation. Nobody is uprising against insurance companies. The only change they made was anti-consumer thanks to terrible PR. No meetings were delayed, someone worse than Thompson replaced him.

Luigi is Time's person of the year I thought

LightSnake posted...

Yeah, the fact he's an asshole techbro with abhorrent views who just happened to shoot an asshole is pretty important, not that the shallow morons lionizing him care.

This entire thing is "we hope the asshole murderer gets off," and it's been pretty shameful. Oh boo hoo, the guy who shot someone on camera has a bad case in court? Cry me a river.

But LS, you were trying to turn people against him with unsubstantiated fearmongering before anyone knew anything about who the shooter even was, and you were so insanely blatant about it.

That's the part that's funny to me. Him actually turning out to be a shitheel was just a lucky coincidence, I'm sure not a day has gone by where you weren't thankful for him presenting such an easy target, which is probably why you're still so PO'd by how for the most part people still don't actually care about his background.

If it happens again and the the person gets caught and they're much harder to find fault with, well, that idea must be terrifying to certain people.

GeraldDarko posted...

That doesn't refute what I said.

It wasn't intended as a refutation. My fault for not making it clear.

I was just expanding on the idea that any opposing viewpoint getting ascribed to Russian bots is the result of Russian bots working as intended.

andel posted...

i will ask the same question another guy asked that got ignored (and will be likely ignored again). where is the line drawn? is it ok to murder tobaccoo execs? alcohol? gambling? unhealthy food? when is it ok to have a braindead level of bloodlust and when does it become abhorrent behavior?

And here is where all those angry platitudes die. Tested under their own weight, they always fail. Because they aren't built on principals. Progress is justice, and justice is not retribution.

LightSnake posted...

I've ensured plenty of people I don't like have a fair trial. Kind of my job, actually.Until you've had to defend a guy who tried to chop his daughters into pieces with a machete to ensure his rights are defended, then you can lecture me.

Literally nothing has suggested Luigi isn't having access to a fair trial. He just faces a near certainty of conviction and that's entirely a self-inflicted problem he has.

That's fair.

So it really is just people having affordable health care at the expense of obscenely rich people being very slightly less rich than the day before that makes your skin crawl.

LightSnake posted...

There's been no proposed legislation. Nobody is uprising against insurance companies. The only change they made was anti-consumer thanks to terrible PR. No meetings were delayed, someone worse than Thompson replaced him.

It's so weird you think I'm referring to what the insurance companies are doing.

KajeI posted...

But LS, you were trying to turn people against him with unsubstantiated fearmongering before anyone knew anything about who the shooter even was, and you were so insanely blatant about it.

You mean I was saying that a guy who murdered a man in broad daylight might actually be a danger to society? you don't say?

That's the part that's funny to me. Him actually turning out to be a shitheel was just a lucky coincidence, I'm sure not a day has gone by where you weren't thankful for him presenting such an easy target, which is probably why you're still so PO'd by how for the most part people still don't actually care about his background.

Yeah, you know what was a great indication he was a shitheel?

Shooting an unarmed man in the back in broad daylight. Something well adjusted, non-asshole people typically don't do. People were dismissing the idea a guy who, again murdered a guy in broad daylight, might actually be a danger to others around him because they didn't like the guy he shot.

HashtagSEP posted...

That's fair.

So it really is just people having affordable health care at the expense of obscenely rich people being very slightly less rich than the day before that makes your skin crawl.

This is a strange leap of logic even for you

LightSnake posted...

This is a strange leap of logic even for you

Oh, your position on that is well known, don't worry.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I feel like the people who are upset about a health insurance CEO being killed are the kind of people who will bow down to fascism at the first opportunity.

CyricZ posted...

Except when it wasn't.

I'm not saying such drastic change needs to be the first option, but we have absolutely employed it when incremental change wasn't feasible given the circumstances.

We are way too early in the history textbook to make such a claim.

The answer of the Cynic is that there is no line, and never was.

The greater answer is that ultimately, society will decide in the aftermath where the line is.

But really, the problem is you're asking the wrong question.

You're asking "how can we allow this bad thing" and not asking "how can we allow the root causes that led to the bad thing".

the only time incremental change didnt happen was the civil war, where lincoln proposed incremental change to prevent a civil war. if that is the metric i think almost no one would be ok with millions dead to change our shit healthcare system.

we really arent too early at all. there has never been an incident of some loon killing someone and the murderer gaining praise that led to legislative change. the change happens in the other direction if anything since society is generally disgusted by someone murdering another person he hasnt interacted with in cold blood.

society has long since decided that vigilante murder is unacceptable. even if a jury acquits mangione (not happening, the best he can hope for is hanging one or two), society is certainly not in sync with that

HashtagSEP posted...

Oh, your position on that is well known, don't worry.

That I'm a supporter of an expanded safety net and universal healthcare and have been as long as I've been a voter? Hence why I protested against the attempted repeal of the ACA and worked with other loccal attorneys on proposed legal challenges against attempts to screw over people on public healthcare?

If you've done anything more than post on message boards, good for you

Rika_Furude posted...

He obviously deserves a trial, but some people here take innocent until proven guilty to mean Schrdingers murder. There is no evidence of murder until after the judge delivers the verdict. What murder?

you realize for high profile murder they really really want to find a guy and are extremely pressured to do so right?
there was a murder
there was no leads

all the sudden it is as if a miracle happened

suspicious? very

DrizztLink posted...

I feel like everyone has gotten off track of the actual purpose of this topic:

Dunking on andel.

he probably got a moderation and dipped

If Luigi was an ugly creep, how much traction would this story have gotten?