If they can elect a felon to the white house, so could we.
Edit: Better image, thanks to @PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
Actually… Shit. That’s kind of a good point. His approach was the non-violent solution.
If we’re fighting with the same weapons, then Biden’s last act should be a pardon for Luigi…
He hasn’t been convicted yet. You cannot pardon someone who doesn’t technically have a record.
Incorrect. Example, hunter was pardoned for everything he might’ve done in the past 11 years, not just what he was actually convicted of.
Didn’t Trump already issue pre-emptive parsons last time around? Or at least try to?
Yep. Sometimes it’s good to remind the bourgeoise that they should be scared if the mistreatment of the working class grows unacceptable to the latter, with no way to change things from within the system.
They seem to forget every few decades, maybe it’s time we reinvent the guillotine?
I fear we’re already doing it and it’s going in the wrong direction. Bipartisan support for Luigi is a good example. The entire base of the MAGA movement are disgruntled working class racists who are voting the way they do to fuck up the system. They’re just too nearsighted / indoctrinated / uneducated / racist / greedy / plain stupid to see that the felonious oligarch they are putting into office is just another crocodile and has no interest in draining the swamp, in fact the water may rise so he and his fellows can eat more of them.
I upvoted, but these kinds of posts make me uncomfortable. Luigi was a wealthy crypto bro working though a mental crisis. Luigi is not lefty batman.
I am very happy about the discussions his actions are creating and the overreaction from the upper class, but I am not sure it is a good idea to glorify Luigi.
Explain how Batman was not a wealthy crypto bro working though a mental crisis ?
lmaooo
tangentially I feel like Batman could never jive with leftist ideology anyhow. His whole thing is beating and scaring the crime out of people, which is in contrast to the leftist idea that crime happens because the needs of individuals (physical, psychological, and social) are not met by their material conditions.
the leftist idea that crime happens because the needs of individuals (physical, psychological, and social) are not met by their material conditions.
Like, why do people always jump to thinking there can only be one correct option out of multiple choices?
I am sure there are many people committing crimes because they can’t fulfill their basic needs any other way.
But do you think Trump is lacking in material conditions? People are diverse and they commit crimes for diverse reasons.
Also batman didn’t change the systemic issues with Gotham.
This is exactly what I have been saying since the assassination. You cannot fix systemic problems with vigilantism.
Did anyone’s coverage go down? No. Did UHC just deny the claim of a woman in a coma? Yes.
You cannot fix systemic problems with vigilantism.
Luigi was a wealthy crypto bro working though a mental crisis. Luigi is not lefty batman.
That sounds a lot like Batman.
Lefty Batman is inherently contradictory too. Because a real leftist Batman would use his money to fix the systemic problems of Gotham, and are you still really Batman if you’re not out beating the shit out of poor mentally ill people?
Or you could make the argument that Batman solves his problems with violence, in which case Luigi is fucking literally Lefty Batman for targeting a person far closer to the problem than Batman ever normally would.
Because a real leftist Batman would use his money to fix the systemic problems of Gotham
The last Batman movie makes explicit this contradiction in Batman. Batman acts in a vigilante manner to save individuals. Yet, the fund Bruce Wayne is custodian of is the source of the cancer at the core of Gotham.
I mean if people are gonna have guns and people with mental crises who go and murder other people, then let’s choose the lesser evil:
a) Sandy Hook style shooting up a school, killing many kids and teachers
b) New Orleans style driving a car into a public event, killing many partygoers
c) Luigi style murdering a single person who is arguably themselves guilty of causing the legal death and suffering of thousands
Now what would be the lesser evil in this scenario?
Obviously, I prefer no dead people, which would require regulating guns and providing mental healthcare and a social safety net to people, but alas, that option seems to be impossible.
unfortunately it is also a bad showing of the left because this guy ends up taking more action.
“the point of theory is to change the world” -Marx. If the left does nothing then the left has failed us. Luigi isn’t perfect, but he is a real person who was willing to sacrifice everything, to walk away from a life of comfort and privilege, just to take a stand against evil and to show the entire world that even a god king can bleed (300 reference)
I don’t think he’s a hero, but his actions are the inevitable outcome of our system.
When justice can no longer be achieved through peaceful demonstration or the legal system, people will increasingly turn to violence as their only option.
While I won’t celebrate violence, I do prefer targeted violence upon those causing the damage to mass murders of innocents.
If you’re going to murder someone - don’t. But if that doesn’t stop you, I’d rather the victim be someone who damages the world instead of schoolchildren and churchgoers.
The NOLA NYE terrorist attack on random party-goers is also an inevitable outcome of our system.
A lot of people on Lemmy believe that a wealthy elite controls the whole system. I think it’s far more likely that no one controls the system. Sure, some people are able to get rich off the system and carve out a little niche for themselves but the whole state apparatus is just a big tug of war that’s long since pulled everyone into the mud pit.
Political gridlock was long ago designed into the system as a way of preserving the compromise between ideologically disparate groups. Now we’re reaping what we sowed.
A lot of people on Lemmy believe that a wealthy elite controls the whole system. I think it’s far more likely that no one controls the system. Sure, some people are able to get rich off the system and carve out a little niche for themselves but the whole state apparatus is just a big tug of war that’s long since pulled everyone into the mud pit.
The closest I’ve seen to that is people explaining that the upper owning class has influence and control over many aspects of society, like politicians and mass media, but this does imply a conspiracy, that any one group has a cohesive agenda or control. It’s more about acknowledging a mutual class interest among the owning class which trends towards certain outcomes despite that tug of war among them.
There will never be the perfect Robin Hood. Engels was wealthy, Bernie is a millionaire.
Really the point is that Luigi is (allegedly) right, and represents a justifiable sentiment of disdain for the system and class solidarity.
I think this is less about actually making Luigi a political leader and more about reminding everyone that the actual political leaders the working class puts forward deserve consideration as a compromise by the powerful people in the system, because the working class could at any point decide to stop compromising.
The System works by compromising, should the system through fuckery stop delivering acceptable compromise, the (by far) larger class has other ways to defend its interests.
Well if the OP does literally mean to imply that they want Luigi to run or something I do disagree there, but I’m pretty sure they’re just making a point.
It’s not glorifying Luigi. He’s a vigilante. The health insurance companies are criminals in the eye of the majority, and the majority can’t get it changed through legal peaceful means. The vigilante sees an injustice and takes it upon themselves to enact justice extrajudicially.
As we have seen, the majority appears to to support his actions. His background is unimportant. Humans are very grey. That’s one of the things that democracy can account for.
Think of it this way: if he was willing to risk all that he had to enact justice once does that not make him better than many of us? How many of us have smaller amounts of excess, are directly impacted by the health insurance companies, yet have done nothing but take steps that have not helped anyone else? That’s the definition of sacrifice rather than compromise.
Does the meme not imply that Luigi should be the next Presidential candidate? Is that not glorifying Luigi?
No.
The meme is pointing out that the non-violent solution didn’t work. The “common cultural knowledge” that makes it humourus is that a wealthy guy with 37+ felony convictions and no interest in the common people. Luigi killed one dude that had it coming.
It’s not glorifying a thing. It’s the common millennial Gallows Humor.
Honestly, I feel about the same. Meme is funny, and I thoroughly enjoy the discussion, which is why I posted it, but I want actual leftist leaders in charge, not actual Luigi.
The point though is: Bernie was the working class trying to better the system from the inside. If the system keeps fucking us over, the system CAN be overthrown through different means.
The political class better realise that it’s in their favour to have us change the system non violently.
I appreciate you trying to shift the narrative and demonize our modern day folk hero, but it’s probably not going to work.
Just because he’s your “modern day folk hero” doesn’t make him or his actions immune to scrutiny. This way of thinking opens doors that people like you tend to stand firmly against.
No one should ever stand above our laws, our standards of morality, or our ethical codes of conduct without question. And propping someone up to such a height makes you every bit as bad as those you accuse of doing so.
It’s a symbol. People are attracted to the idea that someone could coolly shoot an evil guy and (for a couple days) get away with it.
If he had hurt innocents or fumbled the execution (pun intended) he wouldn’t be so popular.
Also consider how our institutions are failing us. People feel, often rightly so, that the systems aren’t working for them. The supreme Court is openly corrupt and makes wildly unpopular decisions. Health care is a shit show. The police somewhat routinely kill innocent people and their dogs. Plus a bunch of stuff that’s not true but people believe. It feels like there’s no path forward, and then some smooth guy just shoots one of the perpetrators dead? Amazing.
When has Batman been lefty?
His generally agreed upon biography is a wealthy billionaire trust fund baby who suffered great emotional loss and broke, who now spends the rest of his life and fortune fighting injustice
That’s the point though- people tried playing by the rules, the system shat in their faces. Now you have people snapping and going vigilante with guns and that’s called consequence.
You break the socialist contract, bad things start getting lauded
Yeah, I get that this is an inevitable outcome. But now that we’re talking about it, instead of putting every CEO’s head on a spike, let’s try to do something more constructive. You know like creates systemic change to close the wealth Gap.
I’m still proposing that we take the richest person in the US every year, and confiscate 50% of their wealth and use it to fund healthcare, housing, education and food (all basic needs that the top 1% has stolen from us). Then we build a statue in their honor somewhere, labeling them as “This Year’s greatest winner and Patriot”.
All I know is that his family is very wealthy. I hadn’t heard that he couldn’t afford healthcare. Do you have a source on that?
He’s part of the reason I hate phrases like “Kill all billionaires”.
Yes, most rich people are pretty evil, and I’d like them taken to task. But simply being born into fortunate circumstances doesn’t make someone evil; it’s the things they DO to keep that wealth that make them a greater or lesser evil. Ideally, everyone would have at least that basic quality of life that he did. Investing in crypto is one thing, but if he committed some atrocity using crypto I’ve yet to hear about it.
Mental health crises are very common now. They don’t necessarily make the act “not brave”.
I have the position that murder is the least ideal form of change, but as the post states all less violent options have been removed from the table at this time. It’s sad that CEO (person) was killed, but it may have been an inevitable outcome.
What’s important is what you do.
Not what you claim to be, or what others say you are.
That’s why identity politics are a failure. Classifying people between good or bad by a bunch of meaningless labels. The only classification that matters is what one is doing or not doing.
I’m not classifying Luigi as good or bad as a whole. I am just saying that making Luigi out to be some lefter version of Bernie is not a good comparison. I don’t think we want kill CEOs to be the message of left leadership. The idea scares me, like the pendulum is swinging to far the other way.
I don’t think we want kill CEOs to be the message of left leadership.
Spoken like an agent provocateur. A key aspect of decent humans (what you call left) is that there is no (moral) authority. That’s a concept of asshole humans (a.k.a. “right”).
I think this kind of exemplifies our problem. We’re more focused on keeping up partisan divides than we are on celebrating what brings us together. I’m guilty of it too, but it’s not supposed to be Left vs. Right, it’s a class struggle and we’ve let them create a situation where all we want to do is fight amongst ourselves.
I’d vote for him. Or against his conviction, if I was on his jury.
I haven’t had anything deleted and I’ve said more than a few things about Luigi and death to CEOs
Lemmy.world was never not cool with that opinion. There was an issue about talking about jury nullification which, it turned out, did not apply to this case, and it is not legal to call for assassination in The Netherlands, where the server is based, so those posts get removed because, and I really don’t know why people don’t get this, we want Lemmy.world to continue to exist.
Yes, thank you! There’s an important difference between “I can understand why he did that, the system indeed is fucked” and “More people should do this”.
Empathy isn’t necessarily a call to copy that behaviour and reminding people that a system that mistreats people will create suffering on all sides isn’t the same as endorsing the suffering of one side.
I love this.
Here is a better version.