• meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Donations flatline then skyrocket? Classic propaganda machine narrative. First they paint Mangione as a martyr—convenient—then “anonymous benefactors” magically revive the coffers.

    Wake up, sheeple: this isn’t organic support. It’s either bots laundering oligarch cash or the deep state stress-testing narrative elasticity.

    ”Legal defense funds” = Patreon for white-collar theatrics. Mangione’s either a pawn in their chess game or the sacrificial lamb. Either way, grab popcorn.

    Democracy’s a rigged carnival, and we’re all just clowns paying to watch.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      43 minutes ago

      None of that is real. Health care companies have been abusing the population pretty hard for a very long time. They kept rolling dice until they crapped out.

      People hate them enough that a lot of people actually support or at least approve of what he did. Its not much more complicated than that.

      Why would you be able to launder money by donating it to a random dudes death penalty defence fund?

  • Jimmycakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Need to get him out of there ASAP. Hopefully the inmates got his back so the guards don’t get him 1 on 1

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      idk if a Mario brother is the right person for that.

      donate to BJ Blazkowicz instead.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      12 hours ago

      No, but you might be able to set up a betting pool. If you just happen to win, make sure you have an alibi.

      But seriously, don’t do that. The person who originally thought up that, who I wont name because his name and the name for this thing are probably weighted heavy in the spider bots, was a student who landed in jail twice for tax evasion. Like, the second time happened immediately after the first.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I know it’s exited the news cycle, but I still remember this was a big thing for the left and right to both agree on supporting. I’d very much like to prompt Trump for his opinion on the man to force him to take a side.

    • Sabata@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Best to not remind Trump that Luigi exsist. Don’t need him falling out a window with the cameras off and the guards napping.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      17 hours ago

      prompt Trump for his opinion on the man anything to force him to take a side.

      That’s how you get banned from the press pool.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          I bet more cops and bootlickers agree with you than not. My stance doesn’t promote any authority at all, it’s as simple as “pointless murder is wrong, doesn’t help us”.

          EDIT: BTW that user is a fucking Tankie so it’s extra ironic.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            Luigi’s assassination absolutely had a point, and had immediate results in BCBS rescinding/delaying their plan to cut anesthesia allowance for people during surgery. Luigi directly saved thousands of people from unnecessary suffering with just one targeted attack. Imagine what a more widespread action could accomplish.

            I’m betting you’re a cop. You’ve got the same blind loyalty to the law, paired with a lack of moral compass.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              BCBS announced those changed before the assassination, they also stopped suing over medical debts the year prior, got any others?

              Also, even if Luigi did somehow change that and not the countless other people including the governor going after them in court and on social media for the year prior, it would have saved people from potential debt, not death and not certain debt.

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 hours ago

                  Ah wait hang on wrong link, 1 moment

                  Theres like a million articles talking about this story after UHC happened so it’s taking a minute

                  GOT IT! https://www.rochesterfirst.com/new-york-state/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-to-cap-anesthesia-coverage-after-certain-time-frame/

                  It was published Dec 4th talking about “last thursday” which would be Nov 28th!

                  Ah but the article was updated on the 6th…

                  You know what, I might have been misinformed about this, it’s possible that the changes took place on Dec 5th, all the paperwork being written up, board meetings held, and filed less than 24 hours after the assassination, although I still doubt Luigi had as much to do with it as the Governor saying “Outrageous. I’m going to make sure New Yorkers are protected" just before that. And also those bad policy changes were announced in late 2023 or January 2024 but also never implemented due to criticism they received then as well.

            • nimbledaemon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              14 hours ago

              I mean, definitionally yes murder is always wrong. Killing isn’t always wrong, but murder is when killing is unjustified so yeah, it’s always wrong.

                • nimbledaemon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  They are very similar, yes, but synonyms will often have subtly different definitions and connotations that mean you can’t just replace one with the other wherever you want. Frankly, the difference between murder and killing is something I learned in high school English so I understand that the difference might have been off your radar before now, but this is the way the words are used most frequently, they’re different words for a reason. Murder implies a moral or legal judgement on the action of killing, and killing is just dispassionately describing that something has died as a result of some other action. We all learn something new every day, it’s OK not to know something.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Luigi’s Trolly Problem:

              2 separate tracks

              Track 1 has Brian Thompson, pulling the lever kills him but he is immediately replaced by another guy

              Track 2 has some unknown number of people who will die regardless of any action you take

              • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                14 hours ago

                Yes, one Luigi will not solve the problem. Once you get past 4 or 5, you’ll find less people willing to take on the risk of the job. You get to a dozen, and you’ll be shocked just how much progress we get.

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  If nobody does the job then nobody gets health insurance and everything is out of pocket for everyone, you realize? Even worse now that the USA Federal Government is freezing funds for Medicaid.

          • Dezzillion@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I agree that cops have no place here. If They wanna lick boots and circlejerk eachother about how just their unjust system is they can go to reddit or Twitter.

      • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        14 hours ago

        That was not the sentiment I saw when it happened.

        I saw incredibly low turnout for people against the action taken but I saw people on the left and right agreeing and with glee. Like everywhere.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Here is an Emerson Poll that found TOTAL 17% of people agree the killing was justified, and the highest demographic was young people with 41% (still not a majority). https://www.axios.com/2024/12/17/united-healthcare-ceo-killing-poll

          The poll was about a week after the killing.

          Another small poll of college students found this:

          according to a poll conducted by College Pulse and shared with Newsweek—32 percent of survey participants said he should be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole; 14 percent chose life imprisonment without the chance of parole; 26 percent preferred a fixed-term prison sentence; and 2 percent believed he should get the death penalty. The remaining respondents chose “other” or “no opinion.”

          • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Never heard of Emerson but I would be asking who paid for that poll? Did they have a vested interest in playing down support? Has the poll been manipulated to get the best charts etc.

            PragerU puts out lots of polls, but it doesn’t mean they’re valid.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Emerson College was established in Boston, Massachussets in 1880

              Their “About Us”

              The Polling Center is a non-partisan organization dedicated to accurately reflecting populations through public opinion research. Established 25 years ago as a classroom exercise, in 2012 Emerson College Polling was transformed into an innovative, nationally-ranked polling center. Emerson College Polling conducts research on civic behavior, polling methodology, public health, and public policy.

              Emerson College Polling (ECP) is a Charter Member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Transparency Initiative. AAPOR is the leading professional organization of public opinion and survey research professionals in the United States, with members from academia, media, government, the nonprofit sector, and private industry. ECP publishes not only its full topline results, but also its full crosstabs for each survey, aiming to ensure that data is easily accessible and available to researchers.

              They also have a MBFC rating of least biased LINK HERE

              They haven’t failed a fact check in 5 years, have very low traffic/popularity, and in the past rarely reported on politics.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      And thus the lord said: “Get really pissed off reading books and news, then kill people you’ve never met before instead of doing literally anything else to actually change the system that causes the problems you were angry about in the first place” Amen.

      EDIT: /s is mandatory

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 day ago

        Wait … how is that link working?? kbin.social has been offline for months.

        Edit: Ohhhh … the name of the community at LW is “eattherich@kbin.social” - now I see.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          No, you’re right the 1st time. It’s eattherich, hosted at kbin. It’s a weird side effect of federating. The original instance hosting the comm is gone, but all posts and comments go into the local instance first (in this case, Ozma’s posts to .world) to be federated back to the main instance (kbin). Since kbin is gone, that federation ain’t happening, and nobody from any other instance can view the content from their home instance. But you can directly view .world’s local copy of what it thinks the instance should look like, which contains all of Ozma’s contributions.

          • skip0110@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            19 hours ago

            This is super cool

            I don’t think we’ve yet witnessed the full benefits of the distributed nature/federation.

          • Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Your instance needs to be instructed to fetch it.

            E.g., by setting up a subscript’ to the community, or viewing individual threads and comments.

            The interesting thing here, as the other responder observed, is it’s the local copy of a previously-federated community.

            I would have assumed that the copies would be read-only from outside the actual instance. But it sounds like you’re able to post to the copied-communities too. Lul.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’m not smarter in the law, but I remember the OJ trial. Just because all the evidence points to the obvious conclusion doesn’t mean that the result will be as you expect. Did the police do everything by the book, or is some of the evidence they’re relying on tainted? Did a cop worry the evidence wasn’t going to be enough and plant some more? Was he caught? Did they forget to read him his rights before interrogating him?

      The trick with legal cases is that the prosecution basically has to avoid making mistakes, and it’s up to the defense to find a mistake they made. One major difference between a public defender and an extremely expensive legal team is the number of flaws they can find in the prosecution’s case before they run out of time.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      There is absolutely no way. That jury is going to be tampered with more than any you’ve ever seen in history.

    • Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Aside from the nullification and hung jurys, there’s a good chance for a mistrial from them parading him around and letting everyone in the US know he fought for them.

    • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m not good at law but I have heard from people smarter than me that there are chances for at least a hung jury (I think could be retried) and there’s also another option called jury nullification, where the jury essentially says, “yeah we know he is guilty but we don’t agree with the law in this case” and acquits.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        24 hours ago

        The jury nullification thing pisses me off.

        I get that people don’t want Luigi to go to jail but wishing for juries to just make up the law based on the vibe of the case is just bonkers.

        The court system is a joke already.

        • TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          16 hours ago

          I’m going to copy WoodScientist’s post. Don’t know how to tag, sorry, but credit goes to him for this.

          "I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.

          Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!

          No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.

          The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.

          THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.

          Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place."

          • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            This is just more words saying the same thing - that jurors should just make up the law based on the vibe of the case. It’s absurd to me that so many people in these threads complain that the legal system is unfair, and in the next breath propose that citizens should be able to set aside the law in specific situations because of the feels.

            That is the antithesis of a fair and just system and honestly it’s exasperating rehashing the same concept over and over.

            The answer to why guilt is determined by a jury of your peers is that it avoids having a judiciary that can charge, convict, and sentence a defendant. That seems patently obvious to me.

            You need to be found guilty of the charges against you by a jury of your peers. The whole point is that the jury is not experienced in law, and interprets the facts and evidence as any reasonable third party would.

            Juries are not appropriately positioned to determine a sentence because they are not experienced and have no frame of reference.

            It’s telling that in these threads my comments are awash with downvotes but no one can provide an actual rebuttal.

            Basically, people just don’t want luigi to be punished for murdering a shitty CEO. Sadly, that doesn’t make jury nullification a legitimate course of action.

            • TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              You’re missing the point, especially if you think a fair and just system even exists within the US. If you want to take the stance that “murder is illegal”, sure, what he did was illegal. Jury nullification is a way we peons can still hold an iota of power. It’s spitting in the face of unjust systems.

              Let me ask you this. Would you prefer a situation in which Luigi was convicted for murder, sentenced to life in prison, and the system never changes? Or would you prefer a situation in which exceptions are given in exceptional circumstances in an attempt to change a fundamentally broken system?

              If your answer is the former, you might just want to apply at United and work your way up.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                I guess this is the core of the issue.

                I find it bizarre that anyone could honestly think that a broken system could be improved by allowing 12 random people to make exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Sorry but it’s difficult to say anything charitable about that opinion.

                Every case is exceptional, and we have a complex process for weighing the circumstances and determining the least-bad outcome.

                You can look at Luigi’s case and say “this victim deserved to die therefore Luigi should not be punished”, but what is the consequence of that? How many people will be murdered that don’t really deserve to die? How many murderers who deserve to be punished will not be?

                • TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  I can provide no further information that is going to help you see the point.

                  God speed.

        • Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Jury’s have kind of always been vibes. There’s plenty of black kids that got the guilty verdict and hung and later it was revealed to be the womans father or friend of the family that raped.

          It is important to be more than a clockwork orange, understand the law but don’t apply it with such rigidity as to be devoid of morals or humanity.

        • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          44
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Why let only judges make the jokes then and not the people in the jury too?
          Imho that’s a fairness in a sometimes unfair system.

          • notabot@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Because that’s how lynch mobs got off without penalties too. It’s very much a case of being careful what you wish for in this case. If he gets off because the jury says it’s OK to gun someone down without direct provocation, you can bet that others will too. You shot a gay man for no reason? No problem, the jury says that’s fine. You shot someone you suspect of having sympathies for Democrats? Head home, the jury was packed with MAGAs.

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              17 hours ago

              Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren’t bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.

              • notabot@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                53 minutes ago

                I agree with what you are saying, but this is not a precident you want to set. Jurys are supposed to consider whether the defendant broke the law, not whether they agree with the ethics of the action. Too many miscarriages of justice have occured for ‘vibes’ to be an acceptable way to judge these things.

                I would rather see his defence mount a case around self-defence or something of that nature (the CEO was harming Luigi or his family for instance) so that the jury have a reason to say he was within the law.

              • notabot@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                45 minutes ago

                Yes, pardons get used like that, but are applied but one, theoretically accountable (I know, I know…) office. Having jurys just decide someone is not guilty because the dont like the victim seems far more likely to lead to a complete breakdown of what remains of law and order. Given what’s coming, maybe that’s inevitable, but I don’t think encouraging it is a good idea.

            • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              22 hours ago

              Well, given that jury nullification is a thing and considering how rarely it happens, I’d rather risk the scenarios outlined by you than having no way of giving a not guilty verdict to people this way who do something illegal but legitimate.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 hours ago

            It’s really not a “fairness” because every case will be heard by different jurors with no legal experience.

            The “fairness” you’re talking about will depend on the popularity of the accused.

            Do you honestly believe Luigi would enjoy the support he has of he were an aging overweight bald guy?

            At its core, jury nullification is about deciding cases based on the vibe.

            • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              20 hours ago

              I do believe that the perception of the action of which Luigi got accused weighes orders of magnitude more than the perception of his appearance or his popularity.
              It’s not him who was popular in the first place.
              It was what was done.
              Accusing him of it in turn made him popular. That would’ve worked for other people too.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                That’s not the type of popularity I’m talking about.

                Luigi is young, approachable, affable, and not unattractive. I don’t believe for a moment that someone without those qualities would enjoy any sympathy from a jury.

                • Slowter1134@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  18 hours ago

                  Full hearted agreement. Pretty privilege is an observable phenomenon and Luigi is a cutie.

                  Heck, you could even argue that sharing a name with one of the Mario Bros from Nintendo makes Luigi seem family-friendly, silly, and meme-able.

                  Either of which could explain a future where Luigi would be found innocent by jury nullification where an amorphous blob that represents every other possibility would be found guilty.

                  However, the only way to be sure is to test the hypothesis. So to all you scientists out there, go forth and collect more data points!

        • mcherm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          21 hours ago

          I have two arguments to defend jury nullification. First of all, in our system “jury nullification” is NOT a policy. It is the name for the inevitable fact to that members of a jury can decide to vote “innocent” without being subject to some kind of interrogation.

          My second argument is this: I think jury nullification is actually a good policy, because the only thing it produces are delays unless fully 12 out of 12 randomly selected citizens think this application of the law is completely unfair. If the citizenry believes a law is unfair with that much unanimity it probably IS unfair.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Well, to your first point, jurors cannot be held accountable for their verdict. Obviously if they could the whole system breaks down. Jurors can exploit this protection to return a false verdict with impunity, but it is exactly that - false testament. Others will try to say that jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal system but IMO it’s just exploiting a limitation.

            Secondly, you’re not talking about an unfair law, you’re talking about an unjust outcome. All laws will produce unjust outcomes in some specific circumstances. However a law against murder reduces more harm than it causes, so it’s worth upholding.

            To me, the idea of having juries decide to set aside the law in cases they feel are unjust is an absurdity. Imagine if Trump were on trial and the jury unanimously returned not-guilty despite obvious guilt.

            • Manalith@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              20 hours ago

              To be fair, both Biden and Trump set aside the law by not actually banning TikTok, so it makes sense that at least in some specific instances, normal people are allowed to as well.

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          19 hours ago

          He isn’t a threat to the public. No need to lock him up. Odds are good he won’t reoffend either.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 day ago

      No. He’s going to die in prison. I’m not happy about that fact. I’m just telling the truth. Just like there’s zero chance Charles Manson ever gets out. There’s zero chance Luigi gets out.

      • thefluffiest@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Might happen. Then when a sensible government gets in, somewhere down the line, we pardon him and make him secretary of HHS

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Any government that puts this man, who murders strangers after getting emotional from reading books, in charge of HHS is not sensible.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    I think by now we can all verify there were no positive impacts from what Luigi did, so there is absolutely no benefit to funding his legal defence: it’s just throwing money away to scammers and lawyers that his rich family could already afford anyways.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I mean if a drone can take out a firefighting plane, why not a corporate jet? You don’t need 1000 Luigis. You just need need 1000 people who can follow through on a plan that will make the wealthy afraid.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            DC has a lot of sewers. Would be a shame if it backed up.

            Strikes that ground airplanes also have historically caused congress to cave.

            Closing car roads in favor of pedestrian only streets also make it harder for police and rich people to fuck with people. Part of being rich is security caravans. Reducing motor vehicle access makes rich people feel less safe. Consider lobbying local politicians for more walkways and removing unnecessary thru streets.

            There are a number of wealthy communites. They have infrastructure going to them. You can legally file complaints about that infrastructure. As well as other things.

              • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                I’ve always wondered what would happen if somebody pointed a particle accellerator at the ceo office in an office building. Maybe an aspiring scientist would run that experiment…

                Speaking of office buildings, out of order elevators are really awful. Its a real problem when somebody needs to go up thirty floors to get to their office and the only option is the stairs.

                You ever wonder what would happen if you somehow got water into those subterranean gas tanks that gas stations and police stations use to refuel vehicles? Sometimes corporate fleets of cars use similar setups.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Things didn’t change with 1 Luigi, won’t change with 10, would hardly change with 100, and you’ll never get 1000.

        1 Luigi could have made real change by participating in politics, instead he threw away his life and his rich boy education. The money in his backpack when he was caught alone could have completely changed people’s lives instead of buying a margarita machine for the precinct.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          15 hours ago

          You have to have a good education to realize how fucked we are.

          I listened to a clip a minute ago on the radio of dumbass Trump and his dumbass supporters from the show he made on inauguration day, signing orders, and the one withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord stuck out to me. “Could you imagine Biden doing this?” Raucous applause. “This is going to save $1,000,000,000,000.” Raucous applause.

          No, I could not imagine Biden doing it, because it’s fucking idiotic. The world is burning. The air is turning to poison. Only cutting greenhouse emissions in half will provide any hope of anything resembling social stability over the next several decades and the only way to do that is to reign in the dozens of corporate poluters who are responsible for such desolation. It will save a trillion dollars for corporations, which savings they will absolutely not pass on to Trump’s gullible, stupid supporters, but in fact they will use to live lifestyles marked by even more greenhouse emissions, yachts and air travel. Even the capitalists who are self aware enough to see what’s coming will use their savings to build lavish prepper bunkers and hoard medical technology. When shit hits the fan, and MAGA rubes are chanting “let us in” outside the bunker while wild fires close in, maybe as they suffocate and burn to death they will realize they should have done more.

          One good looking kid with an education going into politics isn’t going to overcome the power structures that have these donkeys cheering wildly for the missteps towards their own demise. You have to have the education to know that we are past that. Their kids will be dying of small pox, and they’ll still be blaming their grief and anger on the woke left and diversity, equality, and inclusiveness, on immigrants and the unhoused. The oligarchs own the government and the media. Only the people at large can depose them, one by one. We have all these mass shooters looking for infamy, maybe after Luigi they will see they can get actual fame, adoration, if they choose a culpable target instead of rooms full of innocent kids.

          I think that’s what Luigi’s supporters are saying.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            I can pretty much guarantee you most of Luigi’s supporters are not the most educated bunch.

            One kid with an education going into politics does a hell of a lot more than one random murder that makes the board of a random company play musical chairs for a few minutes.

    • Whateley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      A ratfucking healthcare CEO whose killed far more people with his greed and indifference to human suffering was erased from this planet.

      I see that as a net postive.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        A ratfucking healthcare CEO that pushed a few people into debt while redistributing wealth for covering the healthcare costs of a very large majority of planholders.

        Who was immediately replaced by another healthcare CEO doing the exact same thing.

        I see that as nothing but 1 more corpse on the pile.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            12 hours ago

            Nobody has any real numbers. Some people say UHC denies 30% of claims, KFF say UHC denied 17% of costs, NyTimes say they denied more private care than medicaid plans, and the exact costs of the denied claims per person is completely unknown.

            UHC is worse than the competition, but they’re still worse today and nothing is improving.

    • dustyb0tt0mz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      15 hours ago

      i’ll bet if you knew that making these posts put your life in imminent danger, you’d stop making them.

      see how that works?

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        My gods! This was the one! The comment that made me change my mind. What a thorough and well thought out argument citing all of those sources.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          What a thorough and well thought out argument citing all of those sources.

          Fun little double standard you have there.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            You want me to go out and prove something isn’t real? You clearly haven’t thought this through at all.

            Look! There it isn’t, it’s not existing right over not there!

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    Then slowed… then surged… then slowed… then surged… then slowed… then they had some orange juice and a muffin… and now they’re surging again.