“Eat the Rich” memes spread, but is it a political movement?

[Carolina Fever]

You can talk class all you want, but the studies and voting patterns have shown time and time again that religion and race (not to mention rural/urban, democrat/republican, etc.) are much stronger identities than class in America. Poor people, generally speaking, do not feel any kinship with other poor people in this country. The poor rural whites (and the cosplaying rural whites from the suburbs) feel much, much more kinship with Trump than the poor racial minorities in the cities.

Because mo matter how bad it is for them they can still tell themselves they're superior to others who aren't straight white Christians.

 

[Icky Mettle]

“…
Americans under 30 are especially likely to think a mix of factors is to blame for Thompson’s death. They say that insurance company denials and profits are about as responsible as Thompson’s killer for his death. About 7 in 10 U.S. adults between 18 and 29 say “a great deal” or “a moderate amount” of responsibility falls on profits made by health insurance companies, denials for health care coverage by health insurance companies or the person who committed the killing.

Young people are also the least likely age group to say “a great deal” of responsibility falls on the person who committed the killing. Only about 4 in 10 say that, compared with about 6 in 10 between 30 and 59. Roughly 8 in 10 adults over 60 say that person deserves “a great deal” of responsibility.

About two-thirds of young people place at least a moderate level of blame on wealth or income inequality, in general.

People under 30 are more likely to place blame on the media, with 54% saying that compared with about one-third of older adults. …”

I find this very sad.

 

[nycfan]

I find this very sad.

I do, too.

 

[wmheel1287]

Really? I find it somewhat encouraging.

You find it encouraging that people don't think a cold blooded murderer is primarily responsible for his own actions?

Really?

 

[StrangePackage]

 

[BlooVooDoo]

I do, too.

I think it’s terrible. I could understand some sympathy towards the shooter if he was a dad whose child or wife died or was suffering because of denial of coverage. It wasn’t remotely close to that. I don’t see a single mitigating detail to a pointless act of barbaric violence. He deserves no sympathy, pity, support or consideration beyond a fair trial.

 

[wmheel1287]

I find it encouraging that people understand the dynamics behind this killing.

I don't think people do understand the dynamics behind this killing at all. And I'm not remotely defending insurance companies.

People are cheering on the violence. Thats all they are doing. They aren't advocating for meaningful change. Hell, they don't even know his background or history in most cases.

Having sympathy for this asshat is nothing more than allowing a spoiled brat temper tantrum to turn into murder in my opinion.

If you think this gets us closer to reform of our Healthcare system, we are just going to disagree.

 

[Icky Mettle]

Really? I find it somewhat encouraging.

Are you serious? I find it very alarming how they conflate two distinct issues. On one hand there is the issue of how for-profit insurance conducts its business. On the other hand, there is the issue of someone taking another’s life. Sadly, many of the people polled think that because of the way for-profit insurance works, it was justified for the killer to take another’s life based on that person’s position within the for-profit insurance industry. That’s messed up. And it’s also messed up to think that people would find it acceptable for individuals to decide to take the life of another— and carry out the act— if there is something about that person that they deem morally reprehensible.

But the inability of those being polled to fully think through those questions and adequately consider the ramifications is troubling to me.

 

[wmheel1287]

If you’re intent on taking the worst possible interpretation of what I’m saying and what these poll results are saying, then I guess you would come away with that position.

From my POV, I see a majority of young people realizing that this wasn’t an act of random violence or something that happened in a vacuum. They seem to understand that there is legitimate anger at the system. This anger can be dangerous as we see.

It says nothing about the possibility of healthcare reform, and my posts on the subject in the past have said as much.

"Young people are also the least likely age group to say “a great deal” of responsibility falls on the person who committed the killing. Only about 4 in 10 say that"

60% don't even place "a great deal" of responsibility on the person with the gun. You read that to say they aren't justifying the killing?

 

[lawtig02]

How would you read that to say they are justifying the killing? If someone places a “moderate” amount of blame on Mangione and a “great deal” of blame on the for-profit health insurance industry, are they justifying the killing to you?

Yeah, that’s pretty much the definition of justifying the killing.

 

[Icky Mettle]

That doesn’t seem to be what the polling in question is saying. The questions leave things much more open ended than for you to assert that people are justifying this killing. Explanation is not justification. All this polling seems to be saying is that, on average, younger people are more likely to accept that this killing was not just because of one person’s decision.

That doesn’t absolve Mangione of anything.

“About 7 in 10 U.S. adults between 18 and 29 say ‘a great deal’ or ‘a moderate amount’ of responsibility falls on profits made by health insurance companies, denials for health care coverage by health insurance companies or the person who committed the killing.”

“Young people are also the least likely age group to say ‘a great deal’ of responsibility falls on the person who committed the killing. Only about 4 in 10 say that…”

(ETA: wmheel beat me to that part).

And the last sentence of your first paragraph makes no sense.

 

[lawtig02]

Delusional.

If someone placed a “moderate” amount of blame on Medgar Evers’s murderers and a “great deal” of blame on the NAACP troublemakers who needed to stay the hell out of Mississippi, are they justifying the killing to you?

 

[Icky Mettle]

Nothing you’ve said up to this point has made sense.

I can see how you’d think that.

 

[lawtig02]

Leave it to a former Republican to try to find any sort of equivalence between the lynching of Emmitt Till and the killing of a healthcare CEO.

We are talking about blaming individuals for bad actions vs blaming systems.

I would place much more blame on the system of racial supremacy and segregation than I would any individual committed a lynching. Does that mean that someone who commits murder should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? No. Does it mean the act isn’t reprehensible? Of course not.

The actions are a result of lived experience under the system, not vice versa.

You’ve lost the moral thread in your zeal to be as progressive as possible. Sorry. I hope you get it back as you mature a little more.

 

[wmheel1287]

How would you read that to say they are justifying the killing? If someone places a “moderate” amount of blame on Mangione and a “great deal” of blame on the for-profit health insurance industry, are they justifying the killing to you?

Yes. Absolutely they are.

He is responsible for his actions. Full stop. He murdered someone in cold blood because he disagrees with the policies of the company that person runs.

The company he runs is horrible and their policies are awful. That justifies doing everything to undermine them as a business and to put them out of business.

That does not justify killing someone or transfer the responsibility for murder.

 

[superrific]

1. i think there are two definitions of justify being used here. both sides of this debate are correctly applying the term as they are using it. there's just a difference in the assumed meaning.

2. technically, justify doesnt mean deflect. to answer the emmett till analogy, i would say that blaming the civil rights movement isn't justifying the killing. it could be true, for instance, that killing till was wrong and also the movement's agitation made that sort of event inevitable. ironically, here, the side justifying would be the civil rights protesters and organizers who knew all too well that the south would respond with violence. indeed, that was integral to their strategy. they thought that gaining equality for black people justified the risks of bodily harm. they thought correctly in my view and in the view of most people.

3. at the same time, the till analogy has force because deflection is itself bad. blaming the civil rights movement for his death is trying to change the subject from the depravity of jim crow to whether the civil rights protesters are good or bad people. as we know, just changing the conversation is a form of suppression. and in our culture, we often use the word justify. it is an incorrect usage, but here's how i think we got there: you could say that blaming the civil rights movement is an apology for the killers, in a variant of the old religious sense of that word. and that old religious sense usually carries an element of justification. the variant does not necessarily do that, but people put the concept in there.

so i think posters dont need to argue over this point.

 

[superrific]

You’ve lost the moral thread in your zeal to be as progressive as possible. Sorry. I hope you get it back as you mature a little more.

as someone who was riding paine a little hard a while back, i now feel a moral responsibility to defend him. i don't think it's fair to attribute what he is saying to his age. and as i just posted, i think there is something of a definitional contest here.

 

[superrific]

“About 7 in 10 U.S. adults between 18 and 29 say ‘a great deal’ or ‘a moderate amount’ of responsibility falls on profits made by health insurance companies, denials for health care coverage by health insurance companies or the person who committed the killing.”

“Young people are also the least likely age group to say ‘a great deal’ of responsibility falls on the person who committed the killing. Only about 4 in 10 say that…”

my take is that polls such as this one aren't very informative. they assume, afaik, that the survey respondents are passive describers of their opinions. i dont think people necessarily see polls this way. its one reason that issue polling and political outcomes are broadly inconsistent, in that people don't vote for the issues they say they support.

lets suppose you are a 25 year old guy who has had really bad experience with a health care insurance company. young people, on net, subsidize others' care, paying forward what they will consume later. in rare instances, young people need a lot of care -- and if the insurance company makes that hard, it is especially frustrating. like, "im not getting dialysis or hearing aids or cancer treatment. i was in a car accident that fucked up my back. i am not asking for that much. just cover my fucking physical therapy."

all right. so now a pollster calls you and asks what you think of the Luigi killing. if you are like most americans, you have almost no power to change anything. at most, you can complain to your employer, who might or might not care. you're probably a lower-level employee, easily replaced and lacking any pull within the company. you can complain to the insurance company, but nobody there gives a shit. you've watched elections in which health care has curiously played almost no role and was rarely even discussed.

so now you have someone specifically asking your thoughts about the matter. wouldn't you take this opportunity to vocalize your dissent? its a shitty medium, to be sure, but at least it's a medium. so do people say "the insurance industry is mostly to blame" because they legitimately think that? or because they are wanting to express a frustration that finds little outlet anywhere else. saying "the killer is to blame" is punting away this opportunity that might not come around again.

i don't know exactly why researchers are so intent on taking polls at face value. i suspect it's the same reason that statisticians so frequently assume gaussian distributions. its easier. the math gets much, much messier for other types of distributions (especially empirically determined ones), and its much harder to get a finding. so too with surveys. if you find yourself asking how many of the responses were strategic, its going to be hard to get a good paper. ignoring the problem gives you a publication.

 

[superrific]

I don’t think it justifies the killing or transfers responsibility either, but I would’ve responded the same way to that poll if asked.

I would think people would be interested in hearing from a Gen Z member of the board on this subject. I guess you would rather just think we’re all depraved sickos who are “justifying” murder.

would you have responded that way because you legitimately believe that luigi was not the most responsible person? or because luigi has given you an opening to register your discontent with the system. sort of like obama's "dont let a teachable moment go to waste" in reverse?

the world is in a weird place. we just watched as a terrorist organization launched a huge terrorist attack, and in the process garnered more sympathy for their underlying grievances than ever before. of course israel played a huge part in that, but the fact is that the hamas attack succeeded in what it was trying to do: sway global public opinion against israel and in favor of the palestinians. it would have been a smashing success (no pun intended) but for Iran overplaying its hand.

and that was unthinkable twenty years ago. 9/11 occasioned no such discourse (or almost none) about american global hegemony. it could have. america did have global hegemony; it was having a direct negative influence in many places; and the underlying al-Q grievance (america using the middle easterners as pawns in war games) not unreasonable. but we also believed that blowing up buildings should not get you a seat at the table.

but you werent around for that, were you? your adult experience has mostly been in the post social media world of "attention above all." getting attention is the first priority and sometimes the only one. i'm not saying that you're consciously choosing to prioritize that. i am saying that everywhere you look, you see attention whores doing bad things to get that attention. it's not crazy for you to go with the flow a bit. if elon or trump or even bannon can kill legislation by tweeting out lies (and as a result, people will die), is it so bad for luigi to do something similar from a very different position of influence? i don't agree with that but i can understand the mentality.

if your position is "i actually do think that the insurance company is more responsible than the shooter" then put me down with the others as skeptical of that. but i don't think that's what you mean, not exactly.

 

[wmheel1287]

I don’t think it justifies the killing or transfers responsibility either, but I would’ve responded the same way to that poll if asked.

I would think people would be interested in hearing from a Gen Z member of the board on this subject. I guess you would rather just think we’re all depraved sickos who are “justifying” murder.

I didn't call you a depraved sicko or anything else. I have openly spoken up for you and advocated for you posting here even when you were being directly insulting in the past. I do hope you express the viewpoints you have.

Id also think you wouldn't be quite so thin-skinned about being disagreed with.