Re: The Hypocrisy of Luigi Mangione's Leftist Fandom

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 12:21:11 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2024-12-25 5:02 PM, shawn wrote:

On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 16:08:20 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
 

On 2024-12-25 3:22 PM, shawn wrote:

On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 14:28:07 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>

On 2024-12-25 1:50 PM, super70s wrote:

On 2024-12-25 01:36:44 +0000, BTR1701 said:
>

According to the Left, the death penalty is unfair, unjust, immoral, and
evil.
>
Unless you have the opportunity to walk up to a rich guy you don't
like on
the sidewalk and shoot him in the back. The only form of the death
penalty
that's okay for the Left is the form that doesn't include a judge,
jury, or
court, and where the executed person has not been charged with, convicted
of, or even accused of any specific crime.
>
This is the actual position of millions of leftists in this country.
Not a
straw man. It's what they believe.

>
Why do you presume Mangione's fandom is "leftist" exclusively?

>
Because you leftist types love anything that can be portrayed as a blow
against capitalism and assassinating a CEO absolutely SCREAMS "Down with
Capitalism!"

>
The only people I see supporting Mangione were just average people on
Twitter. While I'm sure some would be considered on the left I
couldn't tell you if they were all on the left or just partly on the
left. I don't see any media types on the left or right supporting him.
>

How are you determining the political inclinations of people on Twitter,
particularly if they are "average", which presumably means unknown to
you, as opposed to famous people? In other words, how do you know that
these "average" people aren't just as far left as AOC or Bernie Sanders?

 
Based on their words. How else would one determine anyone's political
inclinations based on a text centered communication platform?
 

So these tweets actually say explicitly that the tweeter is a confirmed
socialist/Marxist or conservative? Otherwise, I'm not sure how you could
tell their basic orientation.

You don't do twitter so you don't know.

After all, the vast majority of people may be right-leaning but have
some left-leaning opinions - or vice versa - so expressing an opinion on
one issue rarely makes it crystal clear where they are in general.

Sure, if that was all that you see on Twitter.

What I do see is many people hating on the current health care
industry and supporting anything that gets them to change their ways.
The problem is that it's not at all clear that killing that CEO does
anything but get the other CEOs to close ranks. I've seen posts from
other CEOs decrying the attack but not commenting on what the CEO had
done as the CEO of that health care company. (Having the largest
number of rejected claims by far from every health care insurance
company.)
>

I've seen claims from people in comments under news stories about
Mangione that say they've mysteriously found themselves getting their
claims approved since the murder, claims that had previously been
rejected.

 
I haven't seen that but then I haven't been on Twitter in the last
couple of days so I have no idea what claims are being made.
 

I don't do Twitter. I think I saw those remarks in a New York Post
article about Mangione. My impression is that the Post leans right in
general but I've only read it a handful of times so I could be wrong.

There's the problem. One thing you can see on anyone's post is a link
to their profile where many self identify as to having a political
leaning. So you can find people who self identify as a MAGA believer
or a liberal or even a Neo-Nazi. So you don't have to depend upon a
single tweet to identify what they identify as.

>

I have no idea how credible those claims are. I can't help but
wonder if they are part of an initiative to give oxygen to the crowd
that is cheering on the murder: "See? Kill one of their executives and
claims start being accepted. Maybe we need to think about killing more
of them...." Of course this could be a complete lie.

 
Or it's just people seeking a bit of attention by making such a claim.
It's not like anyone is going to actually check their claims and get
them in some sort of trouble if they were found to be lying on
Twitter.
 

Agreed.
>

Why doesn't someone start a health insurance firm that is willing to set
itself an objective - and promise its customers - that they will be
satisfied by a profit of, say 10% per year with any additional profit
being paid back to customers in rebates on their premiums or reduced
co-pays? If they could be satisfied with a modest profit, I would think
they would be attractive to customers.

 
 
It seems like Blue Cross is doing close to that. In that at least they
were found to be the best at actually approving claims. Of course that
still raises questions about 5-7% of claims that they deny but I
haven't seen any follow up that looked into the validity of those
claims that were denied by the company.
 

I truly can't picture an insurance company that would ever approve ALL
claims. That would imply that all of their customers are perfectly
honest and not trying to put something over on them. There are always
going to be a few people who try claiming something sketchy. And sadly,
with medical claims, there are some sketchy doctors who will write up
medical documentation for a claim that they suspect is bogus so simply
accepting everything the claimant says at face value is not something
that is likely to happen anywhere.
>

>

>
I thought Donald Trump (allegedly) had this big populist appeal going
and one would think that would include sticking it to health insurance
companies.

>
Has he even commented on the reasons behind the attack? I mean
everyone can (or should) be able to say that murder is bad, but that
still leaves the reasons behind the attack unsaid by many.
  
>