Summary
Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.
The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.
Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.
Correct. That doesn’t stop me from being able to use my imagination to see what the material conditions some people face could make them do. I do it by putting myself in these shoes. Consider people who’ve lost loved ones because of one of these fellas. Some might feel they’ve nothing left to lose, entertain suicide, decide to take a bastard or two instead. As conditions get worse, the number of such people will grow. I don’t think people who care about ending up in the ER would be part of this.
I wish I could live in a world where there’s no such thing as ricochets and friendly fire deaths.
Try expanding your imagination to include things like that. Life isn’t a movie or a video game where every bullet only hits the intended victim.
Also, WW1 started because one brave shooter decided to stand up and be counted.
Unintended consequences are a bitch.
All of this makes sense but none of it will change the mind of the person who shot the guy recently or the next one, or the number of such people the system creates. I’m merely pointing out that the system creates these people and they will kill others. The person who killed the CEO recently was already beyond the reasoning you’re suggesting. There’s no point considering these rational reasons when we have proof some folks don’t stop because of them. Instead I think it’s useful to look at what conditions got a person to disregard them. If we want to make a prediction we could observe how those conditions are likely to develop. I think that part is obvious. So I conclude the system will create more such people. If they get numerous enough, I speculate they might start organizing into groups too.
Read some history. The Minute Men thought they could stop the British. It didn’t work. The Redcoats were stopped by a British style army and the entire French navy.
Also, you can’t talk about squads and lone gunmen at the same time
`
It’s like you are having a different conversation from the other person.
Them, repeatedly: These conditions will create people desperate enough to take measures into their own hands, like we’ve just seen.
You: Well it won’t work. And I’m going to provide a logical example of where similar things have failed.
Them: I’m saying these are the conditions that create the sorts of acts we’ve just seen. People are or are becoming desperate enough that the possible futility of their actions won’t be a factor.
You: Well those acts will fail. Ever hear about…
People who are desperate enough to take these actions aren’t weighing their decisions against historical record, or against any concern for any rational assessment of success. The point is that we’ve reached the point where people are desperate enough to take these actions, and the level of desperation being felt at large is unlikely to decrease during the next four years at least.
Here’s the main reason I worry about people taking direct action.
Blackwater et al.
If you think that companies run and staffed by ex-CIA operatives don’t have a plan to capitalize on civil unrest, you haven’t been paying attention.
My dude, my point is you are arguing against a viewpoint that has not been expressed.
So, this isn’t a thread about direct action?
Because gunning someone down seems pretty direct to me.
Sure it is, but I feel you are ignoring the context of the branch of it you have chosen to participate in, as I’ve already attempted to illustrate.
Having said that, if you don’t get my point, nothing I say now is likely to make a difference…
A bit of a tangent, but Gavrilo Princip wasn’t really the cause of WW1 (and WW2 which was on some level is an extension of WW1).
His actions were the spark and he has gone down in history for his assassination, but in an abstract, analytical sense his actions had nothing at all to do with the beginning of WW1.
I don’t agree.
Individuals and their actions matter.
Look at what this thread is about. We wouldn’t be talking if the shooter hadn’t acted.
The state of healthcare in the US is exactly the same as it was yesterday. But the discussion has changed dramatically
The tensions between the USSR and the West were as bad as the ones pre-WW1. Individual actions kept things from going into all out war.
I am just saying Serbian independence movement in context of Austro-Hungary was only a small part of the buildup to WW1.
German unification and expansionism (but failure to establish colonies), weakness of the Ottoman Empire (this was going on for centuries), internal issues in Tsarist russia, changes in warship building dynamics in the early 20th century, general rise of socialism, rise of national self-determination, increase in literacy rates among the plebs, urbanization. etc.
Oh course Gavrilo Princip’s actions mattered. His name is still somewhat well known over a hundred years later. But there were many other very important moments w.r.t. start of WW1.
Not going to argue.
I will point you at a book you might not have read.
https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-proud-tower-a-portrait-of-the-world-before-the-war-1890-1914-barbara-w-tuchman-s-great-war-series-barbara-w-tuchman/1417915?ean=9780345405012
Great book about pre-WW1 Europe and the tensions that made people think that ‘maybe a little bloodshed will calm everything down and let us get back to normal.’
Have not read it. But does look interesting. I will add it to my to-read list.
Cheers! 😀
She’s a long time favorite.