NYC assassination news thread - Please no politics (2 Viewers)

[Capella]

Sorry, was trying to give my fellow (younger) man the benefit the doubt above. It is the holiday season after all. Perhaps I shouldn’t have - and perhaps I should just be sad at society in general.

I don’t blame you. Of course it’s sad to think this is where we are.

If I ask 100 of my friends and family, I doubt 2% would find murder acceptable and those two probably would have misunderstood the question.

I don’t have hundreds of friends lol why would I want to talk to that many people but of the 5 I talked to about this one said yea that rules and the other wasn’t upset about it at all but also didn’t cheer it on.

You live in Florida right?

Yes. Wild West. Gunshine State etc

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Here's another poll conducted by The Economist. It shows Mangione with a +9 favorable/unfavorable rating amont 18-29 year olds. Basically consistent with the Emerson poll. (He's only -1 among 30-44 year-olds).

I need for some of you to realize that your circle of family and friends isn't representative of the US population as a whole.

I'm pretty sure that's the wrong poll. If not, can you let us know what page the Mangione component is

It's on page 12. The first page is a table of contents that links to each section.

 

[Atomic Punk]

Arguing with polls is a fool’s errand. It is a data point, nothing more, nothing less. Some of the results are not surprising (youth vs older generation), while others are hard to make sense of (Hispanics favorable almost 2 to 1 vs whites).

I agree with IK and others, seeing this is troubling and a sad state of society but not sure it tells us anything we haven’t seen coming in the past decade due to a whole host of reasons, both political and societal.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Arguing with polls is a fool’s errand. It is a data point, nothing more, nothing less. Some of the results are not surprising (youth vs older generation), while others are hard to make sense of (Hispanics favorable almost 2 to 1 vs whites).

I agree with IK and others, seeing this is troubling and a sad state of society but not sure it tells us anything we haven’t seen coming in the past decade due to a whole host of reasons, both political and societal.

it's always been like this, the difference now is that it's posted on social media where as before someone read it in the newspaper and said out loud either "well that's a damn shame" or "Hell yeah the guy got what he had coming" and then maybe some water cooler conversations.

 

[opensourcebeer]

New York State Considers CEO Threats Hotline After the Slaying of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson​

MSN

 

[djmich]

Arguing with polls is a fool’s errand. It is a data point, nothing more, nothing less. Some of the results are not surprising (youth vs older generation), while others are hard to make sense of (Hispanics favorable almost 2 to 1 vs whites).

I agree with IK and others, seeing this is troubling and a sad state of society but not sure it tells us anything we haven’t seen coming in the past decade due to a whole host of reasons, both political and societal.

it's always been like this, the difference now is that it's posted on social media where as before someone read it in the newspaper and said out loud either "well that's a damn shame" or "Hell yeah the guy got what he had coming" and then maybe some water cooler conversations.

I'd want to see some data, like a poll, before assuming 40% of a demographic was always cool with murder of a business leader.

 

[ChiefD]

Gunshine State

I've never heard this before and I giggled. Just wanted you to know that.



This thread is hard to read otherwise. Lots of scary stuff in here.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Arguing with polls is a fool’s errand. It is a data point, nothing more, nothing less. Some of the results are not surprising (youth vs older generation), while others are hard to make sense of (Hispanics favorable almost 2 to 1 vs whites).

I agree with IK and others, seeing this is troubling and a sad state of society but not sure it tells us anything we haven’t seen coming in the past decade due to a whole host of reasons, both political and societal.

it's always been like this, the difference now is that it's posted on social media where as before someone read it in the newspaper and said out loud either "well that's a damn shame" or "Hell yeah the guy got what he had coming" and then maybe some water cooler conversations.

I'd want to see some data, like a poll, before assuming 40% of a demographic was always cool with murder of a business leader.

that's the thing, there were no polls looking for this information so there is no way to know how people felt back then. Should who was murdered matter regardless if they are a criminal or a business leader? I ask that because I know people were cool with Gary Plauche killing the man that was accused of molesting his son.

 

[Terminalxylem]

That question was asked of 141 people ages 18-29 in that poll.

18-29 years

141

14.1

14.1

14.1

ECP_National_12.13.24.xlsx

docs.google.com

Seems like a reasonably accurate poll, right? Even if it’s a bit biased and outside the margin of error, it still tells us the “support” for the killer is certainly significant.

It is, but what we don’t know is, how those numbers would look 10/20/30 years ago? I’m sure public sentiment for insurers and CEOs in general has worsened over time, but are these results notably different, and how do they reflect behavior?

IMO, there’s always a segment of the (generally) younger population in favor of violent protest, and I don’t think that percentage is up much. Moreover, I don’t think the results suggest a whole generation of would-be murderers, or large swaths of the population willing to partake in any form of violence.

 

[fatness]

More detail on that poll result (from the polling company):
Do You Think The Actions Of The Killer Of The United Healthcare CEO Are Acceptable Or Unacceptable?
Age Group 18-29

Completely acceptable: 17% (24 people)
Somewhat acceptable: 24% (34 people)
Neutral: 19% (27 people)
Somewhat unacceptable: 7% (10 people)
Completely unacceptable: 33% (46 people)

Added the number of people making these answers in the poll.

 

[fatness]

New York State Considers CEO Threats Hotline After the Slaying of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson​

MSN

Does New York State have hotlines for other groups of people besides CEO's? Schools perhaps?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

More detail on that poll result (from the polling company):
Do You Think The Actions Of The Killer Of The United Healthcare CEO Are Acceptable Or Unacceptable?
Age Group 18-29

Completely acceptable: 17% (24 people)
Somewhat acceptable: 24% (34 people)
Neutral: 19% (27 people)
Somewhat unacceptable: 7% (10 people)
Completely unacceptable: 33% (46 people)

Added the number of people making these answers in the poll.

Cool. Now do this one.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Let's recap how this thing has gone and see if we figure out where the goal posts are currently located. They're not showing up on my GPS right now.

When this shooting took place, people like me noted that our political culture was becoming more violent. We were told that we were over-reacting and nobody except a few online weirdos supported the shooter.

A few days pass and we get one media story after another about how so many people support the shooter. We're told that it's still just a few online weirdos who are driving this conversation and people like me need to just calm down. At this point "online weirdos" has expanded as a category to include sitting US Senators and journalists who were recently employed at the Washington Post.

A poll from a respected polling outfit comes out showing that a bunch of people do actually support the shooter. We're told that it's just an "anonymous" poll (wut?) with a small sample size, and who really believes polls anyway.

A second poll from an even more respected source comes out showing the same thing. It has a much larger sample size. What's the excuse for why I should throw out this data point this time?

 

[RCon]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum is not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

 

[Stoneworker]

Let's recap how this thing has gone and see if we figure out where the goal posts are currently located. They're not showing up on my GPS right now.

When this shooting took place, people like me noted that our political culture was becoming more violent. We were told that we were over-reacting and nobody except a few online weirdos supported the shooter.

A few days pass and we get one media story after another about how so many people support the shooter. We're told that it's still just a few online weirdos who are driving this conversation and people like me need to just calm down. At this point "online weirdos" has expanded as a category to include sitting US Senators and journalists who were recently employed at the Washington Post.

Agreed. At this point the notion that support and/or sympathy for the shooter is somehow a "fringe" concept is ludicrous

 

[djmich]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

 

[FiredMartz]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

I guess no one wants to talk about this loser that cold blooded murdered a successful business man...they want to compare health care policies and health care problems

 

[Terminalxylem]

OK, let’s assume there is a real increase in the potential for violence. What should we do about it, both on an individual and societal level?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

I guess no one wants to talk about this loser that cold blooded murdered a successful business man...they want to compare health care policies and health care problems

I don’t think I’d categorize either perpetrator or victim as you have, but am much more interested in health care problems than homicides.

 

[Dickies]

New York State Considers CEO Threats Hotline After the Slaying of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson​

MSN

Was fully expecting this to be from The Onion

 

[RCon]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

If this is directed at me, I'm not belittling anybody for their political views. I'm pointing out that a group of posters are simply ignoring empirical evidence because they don't like what the evidence shows. That's not political. It's epistemic closure.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

If this is directed at me, I'm not belittling anybody for their political views. I'm pointing out that a group of posters are simply ignoring empirical evidence because they don't like what the evidence shows. That's not political. It's epistemic closure.

You could disagree more respectfully imo.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

We can talk about the reaction to the murder of the United CEO. If that's half-stepping or ridiculous to you, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[BassNBrew]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

Considering who is going to be sworn in as president in January and how he got there it is more than a little political when discussing how we as a society view violence as a tool in furtherance of our agendas. Some agree with it's use sometimes, some never but there is a lot of side eyeing and hypocrisy being presented.

Please don't do this. Plenty of other places to discuss this.

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

Maybe just retreat from the thread. Ukraine thread has gone on strong for a couple of years without a problem. Drone thread seems to be in an OK place. You could claim any topic is political if politicians have an opinion on the topic.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

If this is directed at me, I'm not belittling anybody for their political views. I'm pointing out that a group of posters are simply ignoring empirical evidence because they don't like what the evidence shows. That's not political. It's epistemic closure.

You could disagree more respectfully imo.

Why should I respect people who disregard polling data, in the context of a discussion of public opinion?

 

[BassNBrew]

Let's recap how this thing has gone and see if we figure out where the goal posts are currently located. They're not showing up on my GPS right now.

When this shooting took place, people like me noted that our political culture was becoming more violent. We were told that we were over-reacting and nobody except a few online weirdos supported the shooter.

A few days pass and we get one media story after another about how so many people support the shooter. We're told that it's still just a few online weirdos who are driving this conversation and people like me need to just calm down. At this point "online weirdos" has expanded as a category to include sitting US Senators and journalists who were recently employed at the Washington Post.

A poll from a respected polling outfit comes out showing that a bunch of people do actually support the shooter. We're told that it's just an "anonymous" poll (wut?) with a small sample size, and who really believes polls anyway.

A second poll from an even more respected source comes out showing the same thing. It has a much larger sample size. What's the excuse for why I should throw out this data point this time?

Given how wrong some of the bigger polls have been recently, I think it's fair to question the data.

 

[BassNBrew]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

If this is directed at me, I'm not belittling anybody for their political views. I'm pointing out that a group of posters are simply ignoring empirical evidence because they don't like what the evidence shows. That's not political. It's epistemic closure.

You could disagree more respectfully imo.

Why should I respect people who disregard polling data, in the context of a discussion of public opinion?

Because polling data hasn't had a great track record recently.

 

[djmich]

Let's recap how this thing has gone and see if we figure out where the goal posts are currently located. They're not showing up on my GPS right now.

When this shooting took place, people like me noted that our political culture was becoming more violent. We were told that we were over-reacting and nobody except a few online weirdos supported the shooter.

A few days pass and we get one media story after another about how so many people support the shooter. We're told that it's still just a few online weirdos who are driving this conversation and people like me need to just calm down. At this point "online weirdos" has expanded as a category to include sitting US Senators and journalists who were recently employed at the Washington Post.

A poll from a respected polling outfit comes out showing that a bunch of people do actually support the shooter. We're told that it's just an "anonymous" poll (wut?) with a small sample size, and who really believes polls anyway.

A second poll from an even more respected source comes out showing the same thing. It has a much larger sample size. What's the excuse for why I should throw out this data point this time?

Given how wrong some of the bigger polls have been recently, I think it's fair to question the data.

Which ones have been "wrong"? I think polls have to all be looked at as directional, with statistical limitations. Just because they don't say predict an election perfectly doesn't mean they aren't statistically valuable. Predicting a states voting outcome within +/- 2% is pretty good. And if we take the poll being discussed here in the same context...the point is still the same.

 

[djmich]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

Yes, political violence, J6, should never have been brought into the thread. But that wasn't IK that brought it and a different poster ended it.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Which ones have been "wrong"? I think polls have to all be looked at as directional, with statistical limitations. Just because they don't say predict an election perfectly doesn't mean they aren't statistically valuable.

Agreed. And the margin of error in this case is a lot less significant than in a close election IMO. A political poll that says candidate A will get 55% of the vote when they actually get 45% isn't very useful, but if a poll says 41% of people find this murder acceptable and it's actually only 31%, it still seems fair to talk about that as a significant societal issue.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Trevor Noah & Josh Johnson discussed the UHC assassin on Trevor’s What Now? podcast

Worthwhile listen that offers some nuance on why Americans responded the way they did to this murder.

EDIT

excerpt of transcript

And then other people are like, well, if we allow this to happen, it's like America's eventual decay.

Yes, but I think the people who are saying that, first of all, you must look at who they are.

Yeah.

You know? Again, it's such a hard conversation to have, because, like, everyone will try and paint you as if you are pro just killing a person, which I'm not. You know those natural experiments that you never expect in the world, but then are forced to live through?

They happen to you and they force you to think about what's happening in society, right? If I think of the Sackler family, right? The Sackler family is responsible for killing millions of people in America or whatever number, right?

Hundreds of thousands at least. They are partly responsible for doing this in many ways, actively, right? They're not in jail.

They're not going to be, you know, put on trial in that. All of this stuff, all of this. They're not going to be treated the way he was.

And so, in a strange way, to your point, I go, corporations and giant groups of powerful people is the domain of the powerful. Like, this is the land of the kings, right? They get to do a thing to a group of people, and we don't call that quote unquote murder or an assassination.

They just go like, no, they were irresponsible, and they put profits over people's health and safety. And I'm like, okay, but then what happened to the people that they did it to? Well, many people died, so they weren't killed, they just happened to die.

And so in a weird way, if this guy had started a company somehow, made it about health care, created a drug that this guy needed, gave him too much of the drug or too little of the drug, and then this guy died, then Luigi wouldn't be going to jail. It's just about how instantly he did it and how much he did out of the system that he gets treated differently. And again, I'm going to say it a thousand times because you know how the world is.

I'm not for what he did, but it just throws up like an interesting, do you know what I mean
conundrum. Because the same people who are pro the system, apply it differently depending on who is doing the killing.

They turn a blind eye to like corporate greed. I would call it, some people call it corporate manslaughter. I call it like corporate freaking murder, right?

Yeah, I think that also, if you are able to spread as much of the culpability as possible, we have a hard time imagining 1,000 people in a company being liable for one murder, if that makes sense.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, completely.

So that also takes away some of it, even in the person's mind who does it. Because I think the thing that I won't say no one wants to say, because I'm not acting like I'm some complete outlier in my rhetoric over it. But I think the thing I have not heard anyone say is that this man, Luigi, committed murder, but he did not commit the murder of an innocent man.

And I think that's where everyone's struggling.

I think that is where a lot of people are struggling.

Yeah, I mean, because it's like, I understand what the Josh Shapiros and even what the news to a certain degree is doing, where they're like, no, we can't just have murder, blah, blah, blah. And I get that, but he killed a killer. So like, when it's on Dexter, we love it.

Yeah, that's true.

So how are we now so shocked that people mostly, and people who have been killed, by the way, because that's the other thing that I think a lot of, I won't put it on all of like white America or anything, because they obviously have their own factions and their own sections and stuff like that. But that's what a lot of people don't even understand about like gang culture, is that it's like someone eventually gets got. You stay in the street long enough, you get your people and then you get got.

And then there are people that were never going to come for you, but they're waiting for the day that you get got because you killed their cousin. And so they don't necessarily...

You were responsible for the shooting, and they weren't involved in gang anything, but they are happy the day you get... That's a great analogy actually, yes.

And so I think that's what a lot of the... I guess you could say upper echelon or the well-off parts of America do not understand because they are so used to having swift and definitive justice for themselves, that they cannot put themselves in the shoes of someone who did something to you, and that's just how it is, and that's just what happens. And so then I move on, and you have to live with it.”

 

[Joe Bryant]

Which ones have been "wrong"? I think polls have to all be looked at as directional, with statistical limitations. Just because they don't say predict an election perfectly doesn't mean they aren't statistically valuable.

Agreed. And the margin of error in this case is a lot less significant than in a close election IMO. A political poll that says candidate A will get 55% of the vote when they actually get 45% isn't very useful, but if a poll says 41% of people find this murder acceptable and it's actually only 31%, it still seems fair to talk about that as a significant societal issue.

Please let's keep this to the reaction to the CEO murder and not political.

I think what some of are feeling is it's not so much a thing where the poll said 41% but it was really 35%.

I think what some of us, maybe just me, are thinking is "Why in the world is there more than 1% who would say it's ok to gun down another person like that?"

 

[IvanKaramazov]

FWIW, I'm not particularly interested in the which-side-is-worse aspect of any of this. I mean, obviously we're not going to be able to discuss J6 on this forum, but as a matter of principle I wouldn't have any objection to expanding the topic to include stuff like that. We have a serious problem with civil unrest right now in this country, and its on a trajectory to get worse. I don't see that as a partisan issue, although I guess it is intrinsically political.

 

[Joe Bryant]

FWIW, I'm not particularly interested in the which-side-is-worse aspect of any of this. I mean, obviously we're not going to be able to discuss J6 on this forum, but as a matter of principle I wouldn't have any objection to expanding the topic to include stuff like that. We have a serious problem with civil unrest right now in this country, and its on a trajectory to get worse. I don't see that as a partisan issue, although I guess it is intrinsically political.

Understood. But for here, let's keep this to the CEO murder.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

FWIW, I'm not particularly interested in the which-side-is-worse aspect of any of this. I mean, obviously we're not going to be able to discuss J6 on this forum, but as a matter of principle I wouldn't have any objection to expanding the topic to include stuff like that. We have a serious problem with civil unrest right now in this country, and its on a trajectory to get worse. I don't see that as a partisan issue, although I guess it is intrinsically political.

Understood. But for here, let's keep this to the CEO murder.

Got it. I wasn't going to push that angle.

 

[Max Power]

Which ones have been "wrong"? I think polls have to all be looked at as directional, with statistical limitations. Just because they don't say predict an election perfectly doesn't mean they aren't statistically valuable.

Agreed. And the margin of error in this case is a lot less significant than in a close election IMO. A political poll that says candidate A will get 55% of the vote when they actually get 45% isn't very useful, but if a poll says 41% of people find this murder acceptable and it's actually only 31%, it still seems fair to talk about that as a significant societal issue.

Please let's keep this to the reaction to the CEO murder and not political.

I think what some of are feeling is it's not so much a thing where the poll said 41% but it was really 35%.

I think what some of us, maybe just me, are thinking is "Why in the world is there more than 1% who would say it's ok to gun down another person like that?"

I think it boils down to how "evil" some people think the healthcare industry is. They fully believe insurers are putting profit before human life. I think a lot of people have a one off story about someone they love not getting the care they need or settling for lesser care.

Now combine that with how much a typical person thinks major reforms are possible through our current societal methods.

I think the intersection of those two mindsets is where the "support" for this method to implement change is.

 

[Atomic Punk]

Arguing with polls is a fool’s errand. It is a data point, nothing more, nothing less. Some of the results are not surprising (youth vs older generation), while others are hard to make sense of (Hispanics favorable almost 2 to 1 vs whites).

I agree with IK and others, seeing this is troubling and a sad state of society but not sure it tells us anything we haven’t seen coming in the past decade due to a whole host of reasons, both political and societal.

it's always been like this, the difference now is that it's posted on social media where as before someone read it in the newspaper and said out loud either "well that's a damn shame" or "Hell yeah the guy got what he had coming" and then maybe some water cooler conversations.

I'd want to see some data, like a poll, before assuming 40% of a demographic was always cool with murder of a business leader.

that's the thing, there were no polls looking for this information so there is no way to know how people felt back then. Should who was murdered matter regardless if they are a criminal or a business leader? I ask that because I know people were cool with Gary Plauche killing the man that was accused of molesting his son.

Agreed … hence my overall thinking is we should not rush to judgement (which is my default position on almost any subject) based on some recent polls or our gut feeling. If we go back 20, 40, 80, 100 years, I am fairly certain you can find instances of some significant percentage of the populace idolizing criminals or horrible people.

Do I personally think it is worse now? Maybe … due to social media and other things that we shouldn’t discuss in detail here. But I don’t think we are at the precipice of the end of civilization right now regardless of my personal gut feeling and a couple of polls.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

If this is directed at me, I'm not belittling anybody for their political views. I'm pointing out that a group of posters are simply ignoring empirical evidence because they don't like what the evidence shows. That's not political. It's epistemic closure.

You could disagree more respectfully imo.

Why should I respect people who disregard polling data, in the context of a discussion of public opinion?

Because it's the nice thing to do?

And that your argument (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm coming in about halfway) is that things are worse now than in the past. That isn't empirical evidence that proves your point because it only shows public opinion today, not in the past.

But I do agree, public sentiment is on Luigi's side more than one would expect.

But it's not unique. Similar to the OJ trial. Specific populations that were historically mistreated by police were pro OJ.

 

[BassNBrew]

Let's recap how this thing has gone and see if we figure out where the goal posts are currently located. They're not showing up on my GPS right now.

When this shooting took place, people like me noted that our political culture was becoming more violent. We were told that we were over-reacting and nobody except a few online weirdos supported the shooter.

A few days pass and we get one media story after another about how so many people support the shooter. We're told that it's still just a few online weirdos who are driving this conversation and people like me need to just calm down. At this point "online weirdos" has expanded as a category to include sitting US Senators and journalists who were recently employed at the Washington Post.

A poll from a respected polling outfit comes out showing that a bunch of people do actually support the shooter. We're told that it's just an "anonymous" poll (wut?) with a small sample size, and who really believes polls anyway.

A second poll from an even more respected source comes out showing the same thing. It has a much larger sample size. What's the excuse for why I should throw out this data point this time?

Given how wrong some of the bigger polls have been recently, I think it's fair to question the data.

Which ones have been "wrong"? I think polls have to all be looked at as directional, with statistical limitations. Just because they don't say predict an election perfectly doesn't mean they aren't statistically valuable. Predicting a states voting outcome within +/- 2% is pretty good. And if we take the poll being discussed here in the same context...the point is still the same.

Maybe my recollection isn't the best, but I seem to remember end results being off 5% on something that is polled a lot more frequently, intensely, and with larger sample sizes.

I also need to see the question.

Do you support people gunning down a corporate CEO?

Do you support the people trying to remove CEOs prioritizing profit over people's health?

Do you support the gunman's cause?

Do you think the gunman was right (note I didn't say right about what)?

 

[Juxtatarot]

I also need to see the question.

Do you support people gunning down a corporate CEO?

Do you support the people trying to remove CEOs prioritizing profit over people's health?

Do you support the gunman's cause?

Do you think the gunman was right (note I didn't say right about what)?

Question was, “Do you think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO are acceptable or unacceptable?”

December 2024 National Poll: Young Voters Diverge from Majority on Crypto, TikTok, and CEO Assassination - Emerson Polling

Majority Think Tariffs Will Hurt US Economy Majority oppose Biden’s Pardon of Hunter & Trump’s…Full Release & Results

emersoncollegepolling.com

 

[BassNBrew]

I also need to see the question.

Do you support people gunning down a corporate CEO?

Do you support the people trying to remove CEOs prioritizing profit over people's health?

Do you support the gunman's cause?

Do you think the gunman was right (note I didn't say right about what)?

Question was, “Do you think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO are acceptable or unacceptable?”

December 2024 National Poll: Young Voters Diverge from Majority on Crypto, TikTok, and CEO Assassination - Emerson Polling

Majority Think Tariffs Will Hurt US Economy Majority oppose Biden’s Pardon of Hunter & Trump’s…Full Release & Results

emersoncollegepolling.com

Thanks.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I also need to see the question.

Do you support people gunning down a corporate CEO?

Do you support the people trying to remove CEOs prioritizing profit over people's health?

Do you support the gunman's cause?

Do you think the gunman was right (note I didn't say right about what)?

Question was, “Do you think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO are acceptable or unacceptable?”

December 2024 National Poll: Young Voters Diverge from Majority on Crypto, TikTok, and CEO Assassination - Emerson Polling

Majority Think Tariffs Will Hurt US Economy Majority oppose Biden’s Pardon of Hunter & Trump’s…Full Release & Results

emersoncollegepolling.com

When I read this poll yesterday it struck me as very odd, both in the phrasing and in the response options. Why refer to the killer's "actions"? Why not just ask directly - do you approve of him killing the CEO? I think this failure to ask the question directly gives people answering some grey area. We've seen so many people say, "I don't condone murder or violence, but ..." and I think these are the people who could use this reference to "actions" to squirm around the fact that the question doesn't ask what it should be asking - do you think killing the CEO is acceptable or unacceptable?

The second thing that's odd is giving people the options of "Somewhat unacceptable" and "Somewhat acceptable" - what does this mean? Why provide five separate options to answer this already vague question? When we're talking about "actions" which is plural - meaning, multiple separate acts - and allow people to further condition their answer with "somewhat" - that just really destroys the value of the poll for me. The reported poll summary says 41% of people 18-29 find the murder "acceptable" but that's not at all what this poll shows because 24% said this guy's "actions" were "somewhat acceptable" rather than saying they believe it was acceptable to murder the CEO. I can see those people thinking some of his "actions" were "somewhat acceptable" in the same way people have said "I don't condone, but ..." It gives them a mental out because they don't have to answer the question directly. The poll question should be - "Do you condone the murder of this CEO?" or similar phrasing, to force people to say what they mean.

The other odd thing for me is the number of people who answered "Neutral." This went across much more of the age groups than the other questions, with 20% of all respondents aged 18-59 saying they are "Neutral" as to the actions of the killer. I don't understand how this is possible and for me it shows people being confused or uncomfortable with what they are being asked.

I have no doubt that the prosecutors in NYC will have no difficulty whatsoever finding 12 jurors who will convict in minutes. I'm pretty certain it will never get to a trial, but if it does the jurors will have to answer the question these pollsters failed to ask and there will be no doubt or confusion in their minds that this is a homicide that should be punished as provided by law.

 

[BassNBrew]

I also need to see the question.

Do you support people gunning down a corporate CEO?

Do you support the people trying to remove CEOs prioritizing profit over people's health?

Do you support the gunman's cause?

Do you think the gunman was right (note I didn't say right about what)?

Question was, “Do you think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO are acceptable or unacceptable?”

December 2024 National Poll: Young Voters Diverge from Majority on Crypto, TikTok, and CEO Assassination - Emerson Polling

Majority Think Tariffs Will Hurt US Economy Majority oppose Biden’s Pardon of Hunter & Trump’s…Full Release & Results

emersoncollegepolling.com

When I read this poll yesterday it struck me as very odd, both in the phrasing and in the response options. Why refer to the killer's "actions"? Why not just ask directly - do you approve of him killing the CEO? I think this failure to ask the question directly gives people answering some grey area. We've seen so many people say, "I don't condone murder or violence, but ..." and I think these are the people who could use this reference to "actions" to squirm around the fact that the question doesn't ask what it should be asking - do you think killing the CEO is acceptable or unacceptable?

The second thing that's odd is giving people the options of "Somewhat unacceptable" and "Somewhat acceptable" - what does this mean? Why provide five separate options to answer this already vague question? When we're talking about "actions" which is plural - meaning, multiple separate acts - and allow people to further condition their answer with "somewhat" - that just really destroys the value of the poll for me. The reported poll summary says 41% of people 18-29 find the murder "acceptable" but that's not at all what this poll shows because 24% said this guy's "actions" were "somewhat acceptable" rather than saying they believe it was acceptable to murder the CEO. I can see those people thinking some of his "actions" were "somewhat acceptable" in the same way people have said "I don't condone, but ..." It gives them a mental out because they don't have to answer the question directly. The poll question should be - "Do you condone the murder of this CEO?" or similar phrasing, to force people to say what they mean.

The other odd thing for me is the number of people who answered "Neutral." This went across much more of the age groups than the other questions, with 20% of all respondents aged 18-59 saying they are "Neutral" as to the actions of the killer. I don't understand how this is possible and for me it shows people being confused or uncomfortable with what they are being asked.

I have no doubt that the prosecutors in NYC will have no difficulty whatsoever finding 12 jurors who will convict in minutes. I'm pretty certain it will never get to a trial, but if it does the jurors will have to answer the question these pollsters failed to ask and there will be no doubt or confusion in their minds that this is a homicide that should be punished as provided by law.

 

[djmich]

Trevor Noah & Josh Johnson discussed the UHC assassin on Trevor’s What Now? podcast

Worthwhile listen that offers some nuance on why Americans responded the way they did to this murder.

EDIT

excerpt of transcript

They get to do a thing to a group of people, and we don't call that quote unquote murder or an assassination.

They just go like, no, they were irresponsible, and they put profits over people's health and safety. And I'm like, okay, but then what happened to the people that they did it to? Well, many people died, so they weren't killed, they just happened to die.

I'm not for what he did, but it just throws up like an interesting, do you know what I mean
conundrum. Because the same people who are pro the system, apply it differently depending on who is doing the killing.

I think that is where a lot of people are struggling.

I think that’s some pretty terrible nuance.

 

[rockaction]

I think it’s funny that I tried to say the same thing Ivan is saying (but this was a week ago without the subsequent polling) and was deleted by mods and told by contributors that my thoughts were “neato” and that my two cents were unwanted and out of place and yet we wound up here regardless.

Peace and Merry Christmas to everyone.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

If this is directed at me, I'm not belittling anybody for their political views. I'm pointing out that a group of posters are simply ignoring empirical evidence because they don't like what the evidence shows. That's not political. It's epistemic closure.

You could disagree more respectfully imo.

Why should I respect people who disregard polling data, in the context of a discussion of public opinion?

Because they’re disagreeing in good faith, and we’re trying to have a civil discussion?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Whatever happened to the "no politics" part of the thread title and forum in general? Seems like the entire forum in not-so-thinly veiled politics lately.

Its a shame that a discussion about if its acceptable to murder a public figure (a businessman) is a political topic.

I don't think reaction to the murder is necessarily a political topic.

The posts above are literally discussing "political violence" and, in many cases, belittling those posters who disagree. It's not just this thread with thinly veiled politics either.

Let's do politics or not, but this step half a toe over the line then two toes then a full foot, then retreat back to "it's not really politics" is ridiculous.

If this is directed at me, I'm not belittling anybody for their political views. I'm pointing out that a group of posters are simply ignoring empirical evidence because they don't like what the evidence shows. That's not political. It's epistemic closure.

You could disagree more respectfully imo.

Why should I respect people who disregard polling data, in the context of a discussion of public opinion?

Because they’re disagreeing in good faith, and we’re trying to have a civil discussion?

Dismissing evidence out of hand isn't good-faith disagreement. It's a prima facia sign of bad-faith disagreement.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I also need to see the question.

Do you support people gunning down a corporate CEO?

Do you support the people trying to remove CEOs prioritizing profit over people's health?

Do you support the gunman's cause?

Do you think the gunman was right (note I didn't say right about what)?

Question was, “Do you think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO are acceptable or unacceptable?”

December 2024 National Poll: Young Voters Diverge from Majority on Crypto, TikTok, and CEO Assassination - Emerson Polling

Majority Think Tariffs Will Hurt US Economy Majority oppose Biden’s Pardon of Hunter & Trump’s…Full Release & Results

emersoncollegepolling.com

When I read this poll yesterday it struck me as very odd, both in the phrasing and in the response options. Why refer to the killer's "actions"? Why not just ask directly - do you approve of him killing the CEO? I think this failure to ask the question directly gives people answering some grey area. We've seen so many people say, "I don't condone murder or violence, but ..." and I think these are the people who could use this reference to "actions" to squirm around the fact that the question doesn't ask what it should be asking - do you think killing the CEO is acceptable or unacceptable?

The second thing that's odd is giving people the options of "Somewhat unacceptable" and "Somewhat acceptable" - what does this mean? Why provide five separate options to answer this already vague question? When we're talking about "actions" which is plural - meaning, multiple separate acts - and allow people to further condition their answer with "somewhat" - that just really destroys the value of the poll for me. The reported poll summary says 41% of people 18-29 find the murder "acceptable" but that's not at all what this poll shows because 24% said this guy's "actions" were "somewhat acceptable" rather than saying they believe it was acceptable to murder the CEO. I can see those people thinking some of his "actions" were "somewhat acceptable" in the same way people have said "I don't condone, but ..." It gives them a mental out because they don't have to answer the question directly. The poll question should be - "Do you condone the murder of this CEO?" or similar phrasing, to force people to say what they mean.

The other odd thing for me is the number of people who answered "Neutral." This went across much more of the age groups than the other questions, with 20% of all respondents aged 18-59 saying they are "Neutral" as to the actions of the killer. I don't understand how this is possible and for me it shows people being confused or uncomfortable with what they are being asked.

I have no doubt that the prosecutors in NYC will have no difficulty whatsoever finding 12 jurors who will convict in minutes. I'm pretty certain it will never get to a trial, but if it does the jurors will have to answer the question these pollsters failed to ask and there will be no doubt or confusion in their minds that this is a homicide that should be punished as provided by law.

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the following people? Luigi Mangione.

My link