Still, I would’ve been disappointed if someone hadn’t just typed it out. Probably woulda felt like I had to.

Damn, I never considered how much the marketing of the earlier eras must have contributed to toxic gamer culture, particularly misogyny and eventually inceldom.

I’m a little uncertain how much credit to give it, I feel like that kinda stuff was commonplace in advertising in general. But that was a long time ago and it’d be easy for me to just think that since I saw it in gaming and beer marketing that it was “everywhere”. Maybe it was way more uneven than I’m thinking, or something. Sure feels relevant.

You magnificent SOB!

That’s a consistent and reasonable take. Mob violence can be unpredictable and harmful to its own causes. I’m certainly willing to call it murder myself, while also being glad for it. And I condemn going after the person who called in the tip, for many reasons, but succinctly - that person cannot possibly bear enough responsibility for the state of things, even acknowledging the actions they sure didn’t have to take, to be an appropriate target of anything like what happened to Brian Thompson.

Well, I can understand your point of view without sharing it. As for the hostility, beyond most folks just following whatever up/downvoting they see taking place already, there’s a critical element here that shouldn’t be missed - the positive response has been largely bipartisan, which is rare and valuable. And not only is it bipartisan, it points out an important truth which any resident of this country would do well to keep in mind -

At this stage of the game, we might be a hair’s breadth from realizing that it hasn’t been Democrats vs. Republicans for a long time, it’s just all of us regular folks vs the abusive rich (+their enablers).

I’m reaching here, but if other people feel that way, I can imagine wanting to discourage anything that takes away from a sudden (much needed) feeling of unity.

Just to give one more take (without contributing any hostility, I hope!) - one way to look at it might be that you see this new development (Thompson’s murder and the nation’s “hell yeah!”) as the scary, dangerous step too far, whereas maybe many of us see the scary dangerous step(s) too far as having already happened (maybe long) in the past.

We’re in a really scary situation as a country, and that was almost exactly as true the day before Thompson’s murder as it is today. The significant events leading to our scary situation are a list of egregious misdeeds and manipulations by people in power, stretching back years - even if I take your premise that it’s wrong, this is just yet one more event (if a notable acceleration). I sincerely believe that a few more gray hoodies might actually send things back in the right direction and bring the owner class back to the negotiating table. As it stands (and ~equally true two weeks ago), the social contract in this country is in tatters. The rich get everything, everyone else - nothing, not even the healthcare we already frickin bought.

Laws are not virtuous by default, is it a moral judgment against killing itself here, or is the problem that it was not a legal act? Of course don’t let me reduce your position to one of my own two phrasings lol, but I am curious about the specific objection you have.

Clever reversal bud, sure got me.

You’re defending a stranger who went hostile and attacked the poster of a meme in a place for memes. Spend your time however you like, I just can’t imagine how you or the original commenter I replied to are able to take the littlest stuff - posted to a JOKE community - and extrapolate out (AKA invent) a bunch of serious takes, and then disagree with those fictional takes. The OP posted almost nothing, to a meme community. What y’all are doing is Don Quixote stuff (or more accurately, straw man bullshit), but like I said, spend your time however you see fit.

Yeesh friend, kinda jumped down OP’s throat here, no? Seems pretty uncharitable to go from their posted meme to “this cartoonish fantasy world of yours”, and then take that even further.

I mean, OP never really described any kind of “world” at all, just expressed disappointment. So I mean.

…it’s kinda your cartoonish fantasy world, by definition, isn’t it? Whatever thing you’re imagining here? Weirdly hostile take.

LOL I like it, take it one step further too: “…and you’ll be hearing about this shit during my performance review!”

What a legend.

Really? Have you watched the uninterrupted start-to-finish footage? I struggled to find emotion of any kind. The way he walks toward Thompson after shooting him, clearing his pistol’s misfire, is so unhurried and casual - it’s what I look like putting my earbuds back in their case as I walk. The dude does not look emotional or even remotely stressed that he just shot someone in full view of another person.

That’s a great point. And truly, it speaks to what may be the root of the problem - skin in the game. Skin in the game shapes how we solve problems. When leaders make it plain they have none, people notice and reasonable problem solving falls apart.

At some point, I personally blame Jack Welch at GE decades ago for pioneering & normalizing this (thanks Behind the Bastards) - companies shifted from prioritizing outcomes for stakeholders to only prioritizing outcomes for shareholders. Historically I think that was because better outcomes for all stakeholders was seen as the primary driver of better outcomes for shareholders. Jack Welch realized they aren’t nearly as coupled as everyone thought - over the short term only, a crucial distinction! To be fair, someone else would have, too, if he were never born.

For an example, he pioneered the tactic of closing profitable manufacturing plants that were not as profitable as he wanted - and despite the net loss of profit, and the sudden deep trauma to a town full of human lives - investors liked it. It’s the origin of “line goes up”.

Oversimplifying a complex issue of course because I don’t want this to get any longer, but that behavior really does make two different systems of inputs and outputs that are often in competition with each other. One system for investors, and one for everyone else. And a growing number of people see it, see the different outcomes, and are rightfully enraged.

With that said, angry people are easy to manipulate and abuse, which is counterproductive and bad, and I’m not so much disagreeing with you as offering another point of view. Cheers!

I appreciate your measured takes and inside point of view, more of both are always welcome (not that you need my invitation lol, you’re basically famous around here).

The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I’m not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don’t blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.

Our institutions no longer fix our problems, and that’s growing worse, not better - the deck is getting stacked more and more heavily against us as time goes on.

I’m not advocating mass violence. What I am saying is that executives who create conditions like these, for people suffering under an increasingly-dysfunctional and hopeless system like this, should absolutely expect their lives to be in danger on the daily - out of just pure pragmatism. I’m not putting a value judgment on that, I’m saying it is flat out inevitable.

CEOs frequently measure any and all human events as costs to be managed. Especially these insurance executive pieces of shit. I don’t see why a certain number of fairly predictable CEO murders resulting from their hideous behavior should be any different.

Welp, yours is the most creative take I’ve seen this morning haha, kudos!

This is the exact line I was gonna quote too lol, this story is very specific and fun to read

It was always going to end this way.

Yeah this sounds REAL off.

But don’t you see?! Those increased expenses will just be passed along to the scammed!

(No actual point here just thought it was funny to compare to the logic we hear for not punishing other abusive businesses)

Oh man, that’s hilarious. “Our business model doesn’t actually even work where we live. But I know what we’ll do about that, we’re going to do it exactly the same in a place we don’t have a clue about!”

The hubris, lol. It’s delicious.