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

[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.

 

[Paine]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Paine]

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.

Not thin-skinned about being disagreed with, just take issue with being misconstrued when trying my best to operate in good faith and make what I’m saying clear.

 

[Paine]

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.

Yes, I think this is accurate.

 

[superrific]

Not thin-skinned about being disagreed with, just take issue with being misconstrued when trying my best to operate in good faith and make what I’m saying clear.

i empathize. it is a real problem. i think we get so many bad faith posters that people have forgotten how to be respectful and open-minded toward our good faith ones. or not forgotten, so much as apply it inconsistently. or maybe it's just the nature of anonymous message board posting.

and the false accusations are also a problem.

 

[wmheel1287]

Not thin-skinned about being disagreed with, just take issue with being misconstrued when trying my best to operate in good faith and make what I’m saying clear.

But you didn't make it clear yet...at least not to me. Do you think that the actions of the insurance company are more culpable in this instance than the shooter himself?

That's what those poll results mean to me and that's the question I have not seen you answer. If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

As for me, I ALWAYS think the Individual is most responsible for their own actions. To use the most macabre example I can think of, I think every guard at Auschwitz and every other camp should have been put to death. They were all individually responsible for their own actions. They could have just as easily put a bullet into their commanding officers as those who they murdered who were innocent. Would it have cost them their own lives. Yes, but that was the choice they made.

 

[wmheel1287]

Yes, I think this is accurate.

Which option is accurate? The post supposed two possible motives for answering the question in that way.

 

[superrific]

Yes, I think this is accurate.

glad to be of assistance.

 

[UNCBAdookJD]

Does this look like the poor and middle class are paying disproportionately?
I think I've about worn a hole in the internet googling this stuff. The poor don't pay squat in income taxes, thanks to George W. Bush. They pay some sales tax imposed by the states and SS, for which they receive an oversized benefit in relation to what they pay in.

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2024 Update

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made many significant, but temporary, changes to the individual income tax code to lower tax rates, widen brackets, increase the standard deduction and child tax credit, and more.

taxfoundation.org

High-Income Taxpayers Paid the Highest Average Income Tax Rates

In 2021, taxpayers with higher incomes paid much higher average income tax rates than taxpayers with lower incomes.

The bottom half of taxpayers, or taxpayers making under $46,637, faced an average income tax rate of 3.3 percent. As household income increases, average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGI between the 10th and 5th percentiles ($169,800 and $252,840) paid an average income tax rate of 14.3 percent—four times the rate paid by taxpayers in the bottom half.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $682,577 and above) paid the highest average income tax rate of 25.93 percent—nearly eight times the rate faced by the bottom half of taxpayers.

High-Income Taxpayers Paid the Majority of Federal Income Taxes

In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.

In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $531 billion.

Using AGI as the measure there is the problem. The truly wealthy generally have an AGI close to 0. By time you have calculated an AGI the rich have already used their loopholes to eliminate their taxes.

 

[Paine]

But you didn't make it clear yet...at least not to me. Do you think that the actions of the insurance company are more culpable in this instance than the shooter himself?

That's what those poll results mean to me and that's the question I have not seen you answer. If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

As for me, I ALWAYS think the Israelis divide all is most responsible for their own actions. To use the most macabre example I can think of, I think every guard at Auschwitz and every other camp should have been put to death. They were all individually responsible for their own actions. They could have just as easily put a bullet into their commanding officers as those who they murdered who were innocent. Would it have cost them their own lives. Yes, but that was the choice they made.

The ultimate culpability for the killing lies with Mangione, IMO.

But the killing reveals the rot and discontent within our political system. It didn’t happen in a vacuum. That’s all I’m trying to say, and that’s the sentiment I’ve heard *most* of my peers express. I don’t agree with the people who are sanctifying Mangione.

Again, explanation is not justification. It’s an important moment for people to realize how systems affect people’s actions.

 

[superrific]

But you didn't make it clear yet...at least not to me. Do you think that the actions of the insurance company are more culpable in this instance than the shooter himself?

That's what those poll results mean to me and that's the question I have not seen you answer. If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

As for me, I ALWAYS think the Individual is most responsible for their own actions. To use the most macabre example I can think of, I think every guard at Auschwitz and every other camp should have been put to death. They were all individually responsible for their own actions. They could have just as easily put a bullet into their commanding officers as those who they murdered who were innocent. Would it have cost them their own lives. Yes

Which option is accurate? The post supposed two possible motives for answering the question in that way.

the post suggested that the second option, the protest vote option so to speak, was more likely. when he agreed, i take him to mean that he would have seen the poll as an opportunity to be heard.

i mean, think about it. someone calls you and asks for your opinion on something but in a way designed to stifle your expression. there's no option for "the killer made his choice, but in addition to that we need to talk about health insurance because never before in the history of the world has injustice been accepted without violence somewhere." you have to pick an answer. "the killer is responsible" makes no difference in the world. he will be prosecuted; everyone will go on business as usual; and nothing will change. "the insurance company is responsible" has at least a chance to spark conversations that will result in change.

 

[wmheel1287]

The ultimate culpability for the killing lies with Mangione, IMO.

But the killing reveals the rot and discontent within our political system. It didn’t happen in a vacuum. That’s all I’m trying to say, and that’s the sentiment I’ve heard *most* of my peers express. I don’t agree with the people who are sanctifying Mangione.

Again, explanation is not justification. It’s an important moment for people to realize how systems affect people’s actions.

And im fine with (and agree with) this stance, but that is NOT what those survey results say to me and based on what I see on social media the survey is indicative of a more sinister view than that.

 

[Paine]

And im fine with (and agree with) this stance, but that is NOT what those survey results say to me and based on what I see on social media the survey is indicative of a more sinister view than that.

Fair enough. I’m basing my opinion/interpretation of the results, disregarding the points super made about the accuracy and relevance of these results, on what other people in my life who are my age have said about the killing.

These are good people, and they have said the same things I’m saying here and, I think, would’ve responded similarly to these polls.

I’m not on social media, so I’m only slightly aware of the veneration Mangione has found on social media. I just wouldn’t put a ton of stock in what memes people are posting about Mangione on X or Instagram.

 

[UNCBAdookJD]

And im fine with (and agree with) this stance, but that is NOT what those survey results say to me and based on what I see on social media the survey is indicative of a more sinister view than that.

People are sick of the oligarchs and the country is much closer than many people realize to violent revolution. People voted for Trump because they want to tear the system down, because the system no longer works for ordinary people. They’re just too dumb to realize what Trump is offering is much worse than even the broken current system.

 

[superrific]

And im fine with (and agree with) this stance, but that is NOT what those survey results say to me and based on what I see on social media the survey is indicative of a more sinister view than that.

one downside of communication-by-meme, which is a dominant form of communication on social media, is that it rarely allows for any sort of nuance. the whole point of a meme -- or one of them -- is to avoid having to express any specific opinion. you can be all things to all people (or the opposite).

i'm not saying you are wrong, but i do think that you need to take your observations and the polls on this with a grain of salt. if everyone had exactly the view that paine expressed, i am not sure social media would be much different. the nuanced view is just not social media friendly.

i long ago predicted that twitter would be the demise of democracy. i didn't mean it 100% seriously -- and i certainly didn't predict that a right wing edgelord would buy it and turn it into a firehose of disinformation -- but i think the general intuition was right. nothing good can come from limiting expression to 240 characters. people accuse me of writing long posts. they certainly are long compared to tweets. they are not long compared to the history of written expression. it wasn't that long ago that advertisement -- one page advertisements in magazines and newspapers -- contained more text than all but my longest posts. what has happened is that americans, and maybe others as well, have lost the ability to express ideas coherently.

 

[wmheel1287]

one downside of communication-by-meme, which is a dominant form of communication on social media, is that it rarely allows for any sort of nuance. the whole point of a meme -- or one of them -- is to avoid having to express any specific opinion. you can be all things to all people (or the opposite).

i'm not saying you are wrong, but i do think that you need to take your observations and the polls on this with a grain of salt. if everyone had exactly the view that paine expressed, i am not sure social media would be much different. the nuanced view is just not social media friendly.

i long ago predicted that twitter would be the demise of democracy. i didn't mean it 100% seriously -- and i certainly didn't predict that a right wing edgelord would buy it and turn it into a firehose of disinformation -- but i think the general intuition was right. nothing good can come from limiting expression to 240 characters. people accuse me of writing long posts. they certainly are long compared to tweets. they are not long compared to the history of written expression. it wasn't that long ago that advertisement -- one page advertisements in magazines and newspapers -- contained more text than all but my longest posts. what has happened is that americans, and maybe others as well, have lost the ability to express ideas coherently.

This is all true, but it isnt just the memes themselves. It is the overall response to them. When someone does express the more nuanced view, people pile on with "that fucker got what he deserved"

You were very right about Twitter and I'm glad I never participated in it.

Here's my prediction....what we are seeing with the acceptance of such things by people is the natural offset to MAGA and it is just as dangerous.

We are rapidly cruising toward a society that places no value on human life itself and all value on being agreed with 100% of the time.