• poo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    263·
    8 days ago

    Can’t remember the last time that a headline about someone being shot and killed brought a smile to my face, but here we are. Brian Thompson deserves no sympathy.

    • Shadywack@lemmy.worldEnglish
      105·
      8 days ago

      Comment’s still up after an hour, yup, looks like the mods here are pretty good. I like this place. Over in /c/news the modlog is insane, looks like it’d be easier to just remove themselves from the Fediverse rather than try and remove all the comments that might hint at “celebrating violence”.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      45·
      8 days ago

      I have an old friend named Brian Thompson who is 100% not this Brian Thompson.

      I feel bad for him having this guys name today and how much shit he’ll hear about it.

      • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
        44·
        8 days ago

        Huh, from your post I’d assumed it painted a brutal picture of him. Instead, it’s basically just his family and company saying “he was such a nice man”.

        I expected better, NPR.

        • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
          46·
          8 days ago

          NPR has been targeted by republicans for reporting on facts in the past few years that they’ve been scared shitless and now report on the most shallowest softest version of news to avoid offending anybody.

          Shame, as Trump will still defund them.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          7·
          8 days ago

          Don’t expect a mainstream news outlet to condone an assassination.

          Also, don’t feel the need to have a mainstream news outlet validate your ideas.

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            7 days ago

            They don’t have to condone assassination, they just need to point out all the harm UnitedHealthcare has done.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zipEnglish
      23·
      8 days ago

      I made almost verbatim this same comment in c/news and mods deleted it, instance level tos violation.

      EDIT: Oh, interesting, looks like my 24 ban to all of world got lifted, after I made a thread elsewhere showcasing myself and a bunch of others getting their comments deleted and temp banned.

      Guess lemmy.world uses the old school twitter / twitch approach to moderation.

      • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
        6·
        8 days ago

        You can get instance wide ban? How have I not gotten one yet I’ve been really pissing off the libs since they lost the US election by being insufferable

        (Coming from the left)

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zipEnglish
          8·
          8 days ago

          Yeah, I got an instance wide, 24 hr temp ban…

          Made a thread in yepowertrippinbastards on db0’s anarchist instance, a community that exists to report on silly mod activity, and within about one or two ish hours, after a good bit of discussion, including at least a few mods for various .world communities, and possibly a .world admin?

          … 24 temp ban removed, or shortened to 2hrs or whatever.

          How have you not gotten one?

          My guess would be ‘post insane shit, mods/admins are sleeping’.

          (For anyone interested, i am summarizing a good deal here, a lot more people than myself got temp banned and comments deleted, i did actually say something ‘more extreme’ in a seperate comment, but the point of me complaining was that the mods were going wild, check the mod log or db0 for more context)

            • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zipEnglish
              7·
              7 days ago

              Drag, I was in that thread.

              I had to basically do lingustic analysis on the last few weeks or so of your comment history to figure out was going on.

              Here's my self quoted analysis of your grammar style from that thread.

              Drag never uses ‘I’ in sentences to refer to themself.

              They have a comment saying they are using ‘first person pronouns’, by which they mean that they are using custom, or neopronouns when referring to themself in the first person.

              The grammatical problem with this is that the ‘pronoun’ they are using is their own nickname.

              Which functionally reads as them referring to themself in the third person only, akin to the deprecated ‘royal we’.

              You got a bunch of hostile responses, and apparently banned, not because you are trans and people are intolerant of that, but because you insist upon your own custom personal pronouns which are extremely grammatically confusing to anyone who is not you or someone that already knows you quite well.

              It took me a significant amount of effort to figure out how your way of communicating works, and after I figured this out, it became apparent that from your point of view, everyone was saying you said things that you did not say, but from a conventional english speaker’s point of view, you can easily be interpreted as having actually said those things, and then you would deny having said them.

              I put in this amount of effort because people were claiming you were doing a bit or intentionally trolling people, and I wanted to actually analyze that claim, and ended up attempting to describe and explain your essentially unique way of speaking, in hopes of at least defending you from accusations of being a troll.

              • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
                2·
                7 days ago

                You didn’t need to do all that work. You could have just clicked on drag’s profile. It says drag uses person-independent drag/dragself pronouns. You could have looked at drag’s post history and seen posts about drag’s gender. You decided to reinvent the wheel.

                The grammatical problem with this is that the ‘pronoun’ they are using is their own nickname.

                And you messed up. Drag isn’t drag’s nickname. Baator, the post you were replying to was about drag having comments removed that said drag isn’t a nickname.

                Your analysis didn’t add to the discussion because you were two steps behind everybody who either read drag’s bio or read the post. And that’s the thing about understanding us queer people. If you want to understand us, then listen to us. Ask questions if the answers aren’t obvious to you. You don’t explain your own assumptions to other people as if they’re authoritative information. That’s just causing more problems for queer people.

                If you had clicked on drag’s profile, you would have seen posts about drag’s gender on Blahaj Zone and lemmy.ca, where people asked questions and drag answered. Those people have it figured out. They know how to listen to queer people. Why doesn’t everyone?

                • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zipEnglish
                  4·
                  7 days ago

                  You could have looked at drag’s post history and seen posts about drag’s gender. You decided to reinvent the wheel.

                  Thats what I did Drag, that’s what I said I did.

                  I did linguistic analysis by reading your profile and post/comment history.

                  I am queer myself, and also neurodiverse, and I am not talking about your gender, I am talking about your communication style.

                  I have known tons of queer, gay, lesbian, bi, trans, etc people and you are the only person I’ve ever met that uses ‘person independent pronouns.’

                  I’ve even dated a trans person with dissociative identity disorder, whose different identities had different genders, but this person would still use I and My, would still use he or she or they depending on which alter I was interacting with.

                  If your username is Dragon Rider, 99% of people will view your use of Drag or drag as a nickname, the same way John is often a shortened version of Johnathan.

                  Drag isn’t drag’s nickname.

                  99.9% of people, who use standard English grammatical rules, including myself, a former copywriter for a university newspaper, automatically interperet “drag’s” in this sentence as you referring to yourself in the third person.

                  99.9% of people would say “Drag isn’t my nickname.”

                  I know that you like to describe it as person independent pronouns, but that is a confusing, foreign concept to 99.9% of English speakers who are not part of a very small part of the already comparitively small queer / neurodiverse community/ies.

                  …

                  If I were to go around saying “That is not what spec said, spec claimed that blah blah blah…”, never using standard first person pronouns…

                  I would encounter exactly the same confusion, people would think I was referring to myself in the third person, by a nickname.

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    127·
    8 days ago

    One thing that should scare the shit out of these fuckers is that nobody is blaming it on their political enemies. Both the left and the right secretly hope it was one of their guys that did this.

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
      56·
      8 days ago

      Pick any rural county, and you can find a bus load of people who’ve been screwed over or denied care by health insurance. And for those who do not have a specific, personal grudge, healthcare options in the sticks are increasingly geographic monopolies run by a single provider, with a Byzantine network of in/out network insurers.

      Someone driving their mother four hours for biweekly dialysis or cancer care because the local provider is not covered is going to be pissed. A parent buying their child because the local provider ‘streamlined’ care while slashing nursing headcount is going to be a lot more than pissed.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        1·
        6 days ago

        Pick any rural county, and you can find a bus load of people who’ve been screwed over or denied care by health insurance.

        Any examples of country with public transport and without UHC?

      • psivchaz@reddthat.com
        21·
        7 days ago

        I knew healthcare was messed up but I legit didn’t know how messed up until it happened to me. My daughter got put on a specialty medicine because of a relatively rare kidney condition. It had to be compounded, because she is a small child but the medicine only came in adult doses.

        Aetna denied coverage, stating I had to get the medicine from CVS (which is owned by the same parent company of Aetna). CVS does not compound medicine, so we couldn’t get it from them. I spent almost a full year on the phone arguing with them and around $6000 paying out of pocket before I was able to switch insurances.

        I consider myself reasonable. Even in a functioning system, mistakes can happen and need to be resolved, and I spent the first month or more assuming this was just an innocent mistake. What got to me was the total lack of recourse. Day after day on the phone with people, some of whom genuinely seemed to care but could do nothing. They intentionally separate the patients from the people making decisions so that all the decision makers get is a few fields in a form, not the whole story. The people in charge are even more separated so they never have to hear anything about the people they’re screwing over. And if I couldn’t afford the extra $6000 burden, I just wouldn’t have gotten the medicine and in the best case she would have spent that year in and out of the hospital and in the worst she wouldn’t have survived the year.

        I tend to think most people are decent. But the system we’ve built makes sure to separate people by impenetrable layers of bureaucracy to ensure that the decent people either can’t do anything or never know there’s a problem, while the indecent never have to be confronted with the damage they do. It’s insane.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        20·
        7 days ago

        Reason #2193 we should have switched over to universal healthcare decades ago. For profit healthcare and services undermine the very thing they are supposed to provide

    • b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      33·
      8 days ago

      Yeah, the sentiment in comments I’m seeing are taking this as the working class fighting back against the ruling class. They should be scared of the 99% waking up to the fact that the 1% are not invincible and their fortunes and bunkers won’t save them.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        7·
        7 days ago

        I’m guessing it was a child more than a spouse. Could be a spouse. But kids are next level assholery.

  • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
    121·
    8 days ago

    I didn’t even know who this guy was until a few hours ago, but holy shit I am glad he got what was coming to him, and I hope the shooter never gets caught and lives a long and prosperous (and most importantly, free) life.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      33·
      7 days ago

      NGL if there were copycat crimes targetting other health insurance CEOs, most people would probably herald the vigilantes.

      Yeah murder is bad and all but these guys are responsible for so much death and pain and suffering for making a profit.

      Killer here is a legit antihero. Like Dexter Morgan. In the earlier seasons.

      Really I’m just picturing the scene in Dogma where Matt Daemon and Ben Affleck drop in on a Mooby’s board meeting and kill nearly all of them.

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      7 days ago

      It’s unfortunate that in Canada they have a handgun freeze that means all current handgun owners in Canada cannot get new guns, and if you get a firearms permit, even a restricted one, you can no longer buy new handguns.

      There are alternatives… but I am not talking.

      • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
        9·
        7 days ago

        A pipe with a nail I’d all you would need. Shit. Humanity overthrew leaders and governments without firearms for most of our history. A few CEOs aren’t the governments. So…? I am not implying any violence should be taken against any single persons. There are limits to freedom of speech (imo).

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          6 days ago

          Yeah but these days you can do a lot better, LutySMGs, p80 frames, ender5 and PLA+, 80% lowers, the works.

          (I can talk because it’s legal where I am, ha!)

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              1·
              6 days ago

              Oh I’m not advocating violence, IMO violence is only for proportional self defense from immanent threats. I am for people being armed so as to do that if (“Bob” forbid) the need arises, so long as they themselves don’t hurt others outside of self defense. I’m also for building/tinkering, and target shooting, etc.

              By “I can talk about it” I just mean the RCMP won’t knock on my door to haul me off to some Yukon gulag for posting about it, because even if the ATF did show up “bruh idk what to tell you, you (and the supreme court) say it’s legal” is a pretty rock solid defense lol.

  • VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca
    44·
    8 days ago

    Now his life insurance should consider pre existing condition of being a shitbag CEO to deny it.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    35·
    8 days ago

    This is HORRIBLE news! I’m talking about the News about ONE person dying not the MILLIONS he Kills each year!

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      24·
      7 days ago

      Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury’s reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

      1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.

      2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.

      A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. It may also happen that a jury convicts a defendant even if no law was broken, although such a conviction may be overturned on appeal. Nullification can also occur in civil trials; unlike in criminal trials, if the jury renders a not liable verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a new trial.

      • Brown5500@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        7 days ago

        Unfortunately, the justice system works very hard to make nullification seem like a non-option and to only select jurors that agree that it isn’t viable.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          7 days ago

          It’s a problematic concept, and based on current selection rules it’s probably for the best. It got used more to get people off for lynching than anything.