NYC assassination news thread - Please no politics (4 Viewers)

[Ilov80s]

Anecdotally, this topic came up with my extended family at a recent holiday gathering. My family is mostly older and pretty much everyone works in either the health care industry or law enforcement/criminal justice and while nobody outright approved, the general thought was mostly a shrug of the shoulders. When boomer retired cops and pharmacists and middle aged midwestern nurses are apathetic to sympathetic I have to imagine there’s “something there” in terms of a reflection of the National mood. But like most people’s families, mine are crazy lol so who knows. I doubt they have an overall favorable opinion of the Luigi but I don’t think they would have a favorable opinion of the CEO either. Who would they favor more is an interesting question.

 

[RCon]

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

My link

Now do Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James, Butch Cassidy, John Dillinger, Whitey Bulger, Kyle Rittenhouse, Al Capone, Machine Gun Kelley, Billy the Kid, Anna Delvey, Charles Manson, Robin Hood, the Sopranos, et.al. Real or fictional, this isn't a new thing. The public has always idolized criminals, especially ones that A) they perceive as striking against injustice, and B) are good looking.

 

[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

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

Very favorable is only 6%. The phrasing of the question also runs into the same type of problems CM mentions with the other poll. Someone could answer they are somewhat favorable of him because of their opinion on our for-profit healthcare system, evil corporations, etc.

I’m actually a bit relieved now. I don’t follow random people’s opinions on news and politics online much after the closing of the Political Forum. However, I do use Reddit to follow other topics and keep seeing threads about this murder from their algorithm. This murder has been heavily discussed and it piqued my interest so I’ve been reading some of those threads. The posters there largely have a favorable opinion of the killer and the masses use their upvotes and downvotes to confirm that. Overwhelmingly so. I had been wondering how representative they were to Americans as a whole and even certain demographic groups. From these imperfect poll questions, It seems like it’s not as bad as I feared. I’d like it to be less, of course, but it doesn’t seem to be large enough to worry about the degradation of society or anything like that.

 

[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.

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

My link

Well his abs are awesome. How about, "Did Brian Thompson deserve to be murdered? Yes or no? I think my poll question gets directly to the heart of the issue being discussed. I can't say how the numbers would look but it would be way more interesting to me than the polls we've been discussing here.

 

[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

Well his abs are awesome. How about, "Did Brian Thompson deserve to be murdered? Yes or no? I think my poll question gets directly to the heart of the issue being discussed. I can't say how the numbers would look but it would be way more interesting to me than the polls we've been discussing here.

Do you think that people responding to this poll are thinking about his abs when they respond?

I'm listening to your answer, and I'm judging you on it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This murder has been heavily discussed and it piqued my interest so I’ve been reading some of those threads. The posters there largely have a favorable opinion of the killer and the masses use their upvotes and downvotes to confirm that. Overwhelmingly so. I had been wondering how representative they were to Americans as a whole and even certain demographic groups. From these imperfect poll questions, It seems like it’s not as bad as I feared. I’d like it to be less, of course, but it doesn’t seem to be large enough to worry about the degradation of society or anything like that.

Thank you. That's sort of where I am. It is discouraging to see a murder have such popular support. Clearly, it's not some super fringe extremist thing one has to look hard to find. As @IvanKaramazov said, it's around us and easy to see.

But I also don't think it necessarily signals the end of society.

And as we said, the sentiment is not all that new. Some popular people here thought the protesting in front of Jeff Bezos' house with a guillotine was "great" back in 2020. https://forums.footballguys.com/thr...ront-of-jeff-bezos-home.786326/#post-22813270. Although the majority of posters( 45%) there voted that they "Hate it". But 7% of the people voted they "Love it".

All of that adds up.

When I've seen people shrug at people putting a guillotine in front of a guys house, I'm not surprised when I see others seemingly not too worried about something like this.

For me, it's mostly something that has my interest and something to have on the radar.

 

[Captain Cranks]

But I also don't think it necessarily signals the end of society.

Stuff like this is discouraging and I have trouble understanding how someone has a favorable opinion of a murderer. However, as others have pointed out, it's nothing new and not unique to a specific political lean (See the glorification of Ashley Babbitt).

 

[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.

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

My link

Probably think he's a Super Mario character. https://www.cbr.com/super-mario-bros-favorite-character-yoshi-luigi-mario/

And while I read your link and it was interesting, this is the same outfit that had Harris 240, Trump 218 and harris by 3% in the popular vote.

 

[Max Power]

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

My link

Now do Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James, Butch Cassidy, John Dillinger, Whitey Bulger, Machine Gun Kelley, Billy the Kid, Anna Delvey, Charles Manson, Robin Hood, the Sopranos, et.al. Real or fictional, this isn't a new thing. The public has always idolized criminals, especially ones that A) they perceive as striking against injustice, and B) are good looking.

For point B, I found Kimmel's and Cobert's standup bits on Luigi's looks to be gross. However, it does highlight that mainstream networks are willing to make light of a murder because "the murderer has abs". I think it's the wrong message to send.

 

[Ilov80s]

We do as a society glorify killers all the time. Whether it’s the guy who killed the person on the subway, Luigi, Billy the Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, now we even have Hot Dahmer and Hot Bundy. John Wilkes Booth was a hero to half the country. You be the judge of what that says about us. Actually the Luigi guy has a decent amount in common with people like Dillinger, Bonnie/Clyde, etc. They were pretty popular and seen favorably by many people because of who they were targeting and how much anger people felt toward financial establishments during the depression, resentment against the government who they saw as siding with big business and helping to foreclose on homes, farms, etc. We have even seen killing people become a chance for a platform for people like Rittenhouse. It seems like there’s something built into people to want to sympathize with violence when it fits their specific parameters.

 

[RCon]

For point B, I found Kimmel's and Cobert's standup bits on Luigi's looks to be gross. However, it does highlight that mainstream networks are willing to make light of a murder because "the murderer has abs". I think it's the wrong message to send.

I didn't watch either of those. I did, however, watch a few The Daily Show monologues on it, and they were hilarious.

 

[RCon]

If the argument/message from posters in this thread is "it's too bad the American public glorifies criminals", then sure, I'm on board.

If the argument is instead "this is new and unprecedented", then that seems obviously false. We've made blockbuster movies glorifying both real and fictional criminals literally since movies were invented.

 

[BassNBrew]

Anecdotally, this topic came up with my extended family at a recent holiday gathering. My family is mostly older and pretty much everyone works in either the health care industry or law enforcement/criminal justice and while nobody outright approved, the general thought was mostly a shrug of the shoulders. When boomer retired cops and pharmacists and middle aged midwestern nurses are apathetic to sympathetic I have to imagine there’s “something there” in terms of a reflection of the National mood. But like most people’s families, mine are crazy lol so who knows. I doubt they have an overall favorable opinion of the Luigi but I don’t think they would have a favorable opinion of the CEO either. Who would they favor more is an interesting question.

From Ivan's link, the favorability ratings of the insurance companies was rather shocking to me. I guess that's another benefit of employer linked health insurance. If you don't know the price and a big dog has your back on performance based on leverage then they probably do a great job.

 

[djmich]

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

Probably think he's a Super Mario character. https://www.cbr.com/super-mario-bros-favorite-character-yoshi-luigi-mario/

And while I read your link and it was interesting, this is the same outfit that had Harris 240, Trump 218 and harris by 3% in the popular vote.

Again depends on what your threshold for margin of error is to make data meaningful. So they were wrong by 4% on Harris. Does it matter if say 41% of people justify murder vs 37%?

 

[djmich]

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

My link

Now do Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James, Butch Cassidy, John Dillinger, Whitey Bulger, Machine Gun Kelley, Billy the Kid, Anna Delvey, Charles Manson, Robin Hood, the Sopranos, et.al. Real or fictional, this isn't a new thing. The public has always idolized criminals, especially ones that A) they perceive as striking against injustice, and B) are good looking.

For point B, I found Kimmel's and Cobert's standup bits on Luigi's looks to be gross. However, it does highlight that mainstream networks are willing to make light of a murder because "the murderer has abs". I think it's the wrong message to send.

I don't think that's the only reason why, but we can't get into that here.

 

[djmich]

If the argument/message from posters in this thread is "it's too bad the American public glorifies criminals", then sure, I'm on board.

If the argument is instead "this is new and unprecedented", then that seems obviously false. We've made blockbuster movies glorifying both real and fictional criminals literally since movies were invented.

Nothing is obvious without data, its anecdotal. Just like many folks were saying support for the CEO murderer was anecdotal...until data was presented.

We've gone from it isn't happening to well its happening but normal. Just because we made silence of the lambs, it doesn't mean we support eating peoples livers. Just because people like the concept of Robin Hood doesn't mean the glorification of shooting a real person in the back is how we've always been as a society to the extent we are seeing in the data.

Do people support terrible things, yes. People supported the holocaust. So lets just say the data does show that people always supported shooting businessmen in the back. ...that doesn't mean we should hand wave it away as it always has been this way, its very concerning and the magnitude of the support is very important here. 41% is a lot.

 

[Max Power]

This murder has been heavily discussed and it piqued my interest so I’ve been reading some of those threads. The posters there largely have a favorable opinion of the killer and the masses use their upvotes and downvotes to confirm that. Overwhelmingly so. I had been wondering how representative they were to Americans as a whole and even certain demographic groups. From these imperfect poll questions, It seems like it’s not as bad as I feared. I’d like it to be less, of course, but it doesn’t seem to be large enough to worry about the degradation of society or anything like that.

Thank you. That's sort of where I am. It is discouraging to see a murder have such popular support. Clearly, it's not some super fringe extremist thing one has to look hard to find. As @IvanKaramazov said, it's around us and easy to see.

But I also don't think it necessarily signals the end of society.

And as we said, the sentiment is not all that new. Some popular people here thought the protesting in front of Jeff Bezos' house with a guillotine was "great" back in 2020. https://forums.footballguys.com/thr...ront-of-jeff-bezos-home.786326/#post-22813270. Although the majority of posters( 45%) there voted that they "Hate it". But 7% of the people voted they "Love it".

All of that adds up.

When I've seen people shrug at people putting a guillotine in front of a guys house, I'm not surprised when I see others seemingly not too worried about something like this.

For me, it's mostly something that has my interest and something to have on the radar.

Looks like I was in the "Love it" camp in that voting. Reading through the thread some more, I loved it from a media hypocrisy angle. It happened in the month following George Floyd when anger and protests were raging. The Washington Post (which Bezos owns) had very sympathetic coverage of the protests, but changed it's tune when protests moved away from police abuse to corporate abuse and profiteering. I found the coverage to be enlightening with how corporate media covered the events.

 

[Max Power]

For point B, I found Kimmel's and Cobert's standup bits on Luigi's looks to be gross. However, it does highlight that mainstream networks are willing to make light of a murder because "the murderer has abs". I think it's the wrong message to send.

I didn't watch either of those. I did, however, watch a few The Daily Show monologues on it, and they were hilarious.

I didn't see the daily show's bit on it. Here are some quotes from mainstream latenight TV.

“I have never experienced anything like this. These are screen grabs of actual exchanges between members of our staff and their friends, relatives, whatever. I’ve changed the names to protect the guilty but, um…” Kimmel stated, continuing to read the messages.

“Lorraine C asks, ‘Do you guys think the UnitedHealthcare CEO killer is hot?’ Friend replies, ‘Yes, I love Luigi. I think he’s gay though,’” he continued.

“This is an exchange between two of our producers. We’ll call them Glinda and Elphaba,” Kimmel stated, referencing the names of the characters in the movie “Wicked” in an attempt to conceal the identities of his staffers.

“‘My TikTok is flooded.’ ‘My mom chain’s going nuts. That’s my TikTok,’” he continued, reading the text chain.

“Everyone is obsessed. Ppl are saying a NY jury has the power to find him innocent, Bc we all love him,” one of the staffers replied, with the second responding “I’m not mad at him.”

“Yes!!! So many questions,” Kimmel continued reading, “Like, ‘Can I fix you?’”

“Okay, so I would visit him in prison, and bake him cookies maybe. Perhaps more but I haven’t thought that far ahead,” the anonymous staffer wrote. “I need him so bad. No like so bad, so so bad.”

Kimmel later showcased an image that one of the unnamed staffer’s husbands sent, showing a shirtless photo of Mangione, to which she responded “I’m about to be a jailhouse bride, cause damn shorty is foooiine.”

 

[RCon]

Here's some data on public support for an infamous criminal: https://timesofmalta.com/article/poll-shows-public-backing-for-billy-the-kid-pardon.343155

Here's some more: http://www.aboutbillythekid.com/past_poll_results.htm

Butch and Sundance was the top-grossing film of 1969. There is, literally, a Butch and Sundance museum in Idaho. John Dillinger and other bank robbers of the era were lionized by the press and public, both at the time and since. Anyone suggesting the Luigi adoration is new is simply ignoring 100+ years of history.

 

[RCon]

For point B, I found Kimmel's and Cobert's standup bits on Luigi's looks to be gross. However, it does highlight that mainstream networks are willing to make light of a murder because "the murderer has abs". I think it's the wrong message to send.

I didn't watch either of those. I did, however, watch a few The Daily Show monologues on it, and they were hilarious.

I didn't see the daily show's bit on it. Here are some quotes from mainstream latenight TV.

“I have never experienced anything like this. These are screen grabs of actual exchanges between members of our staff and their friends, relatives, whatever. I’ve changed the names to protect the guilty but, um…” Kimmel stated, continuing to read the messages.

“Lorraine C asks, ‘Do you guys think the UnitedHealthcare CEO killer is hot?’ Friend replies, ‘Yes, I love Luigi. I think he’s gay though,’” he continued.

“This is an exchange between two of our producers. We’ll call them Glinda and Elphaba,” Kimmel stated, referencing the names of the characters in the movie “Wicked” in an attempt to conceal the identities of his staffers.

“‘My TikTok is flooded.’ ‘My mom chain’s going nuts. That’s my TikTok,’” he continued, reading the text chain.

“Everyone is obsessed. Ppl are saying a NY jury has the power to find him innocent, Bc we all love him,” one of the staffers replied, with the second responding “I’m not mad at him.”

“Yes!!! So many questions,” Kimmel continued reading, “Like, ‘Can I fix you?’”

“Okay, so I would visit him in prison, and bake him cookies maybe. Perhaps more but I haven’t thought that far ahead,” the anonymous staffer wrote. “I need him so bad. No like so bad, so so bad.”

Kimmel later showcased an image that one of the unnamed staffer’s husbands sent, showing a shirtless photo of Mangione, to which she responded “I’m about to be a jailhouse bride, cause damn shorty is foooiine.”

I'm confused. You say you're objecting to the message here, but that message seems to be "large swaths of the public are supportive of Luigi Mangione solely because he's hot"?

 

[Max Power]

For point B, I found Kimmel's and Cobert's standup bits on Luigi's looks to be gross. However, it does highlight that mainstream networks are willing to make light of a murder because "the murderer has abs". I think it's the wrong message to send.

I didn't watch either of those. I did, however, watch a few The Daily Show monologues on it, and they were hilarious.

I didn't see the daily show's bit on it. Here are some quotes from mainstream latenight TV.

“I have never experienced anything like this. These are screen grabs of actual exchanges between members of our staff and their friends, relatives, whatever. I’ve changed the names to protect the guilty but, um…” Kimmel stated, continuing to read the messages.

“Lorraine C asks, ‘Do you guys think the UnitedHealthcare CEO killer is hot?’ Friend replies, ‘Yes, I love Luigi. I think he’s gay though,’” he continued.

“This is an exchange between two of our producers. We’ll call them Glinda and Elphaba,” Kimmel stated, referencing the names of the characters in the movie “Wicked” in an attempt to conceal the identities of his staffers.

“‘My TikTok is flooded.’ ‘My mom chain’s going nuts. That’s my TikTok,’” he continued, reading the text chain.

“Everyone is obsessed. Ppl are saying a NY jury has the power to find him innocent, Bc we all love him,” one of the staffers replied, with the second responding “I’m not mad at him.”

“Yes!!! So many questions,” Kimmel continued reading, “Like, ‘Can I fix you?’”

“Okay, so I would visit him in prison, and bake him cookies maybe. Perhaps more but I haven’t thought that far ahead,” the anonymous staffer wrote. “I need him so bad. No like so bad, so so bad.”

Kimmel later showcased an image that one of the unnamed staffer’s husbands sent, showing a shirtless photo of Mangione, to which she responded “I’m about to be a jailhouse bride, cause damn shorty is foooiine.”

I'm confused. You say you're objecting to the message here, but that message seems to be "large swaths of the public are supportive of Luigi Mangione solely because he's hot"?

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

 

[BobbyLayne]

We do as a society glorify killers all the time. Whether it’s the guy who killed the person on the subway, Luigi, Billy the Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, now we even have Hot Dahmer and Hot Bundy. John Wilkes Booth was a hero to half the country. You be the judge of what that says about us. Actually the Luigi guy has a decent amount in common with people like Dillinger, Bonnie/Clyde, etc. They were pretty popular and seen favorably by many people because of who they were targeting and how much anger people felt toward financial establishments during the depression, resentment against the government who they saw as siding with big business and helping to foreclose on homes, farms, etc. We have even seen killing people become a chance for a platform for people like Rittenhouse. It seems like there’s something built into people to want to sympathize with violence when it fits their specific parameters.

America has always had an element of violence, and guns are a huge swath of American lore. We were birthed from an armed rebellion. Our third vice president killed a man in a duel & then completed the final 8 months of his term. John Brown’s body lays a smoldering. The Wild West. Fast forward to the modern era, and we see that 20 kindergarten school children being slaughtered was insufficient to cause any meaningful inertia toward change.

Guns, murder & violence have always been woven into the fabric of our American lives.

The minute fascination with the macabre & infamous criminals does not adequately explain the collective shoulder shrug. It has far more to do with the broken healthcare system that has enriched behemoth insurers and pharmaceutical companies whilst failing the general populace.

 

[thecatch]

I'm a big fan of the "The Rest is History" podcast. They recently did a mini-series on America in 1968. The cliche that history doesn't repeat but does rhyme has an unusual amount of resonance for me after listening to it with respect to the political/social violence being discussed here and general populist unrest. A lot of this is unprecedented for me in terms of what I've seen in my life, but it's certainly not unprecedented in American history.

 

[djmich]

For point B, I found Kimmel's and Cobert's standup bits on Luigi's looks to be gross. However, it does highlight that mainstream networks are willing to make light of a murder because "the murderer has abs". I think it's the wrong message to send.

I didn't watch either of those. I did, however, watch a few The Daily Show monologues on it, and they were hilarious.

I didn't see the daily show's bit on it. Here are some quotes from mainstream latenight TV.

“I have never experienced anything like this. These are screen grabs of actual exchanges between members of our staff and their friends, relatives, whatever. I’ve changed the names to protect the guilty but, um…” Kimmel stated, continuing to read the messages.

“Lorraine C asks, ‘Do you guys think the UnitedHealthcare CEO killer is hot?’ Friend replies, ‘Yes, I love Luigi. I think he’s gay though,’” he continued.

“This is an exchange between two of our producers. We’ll call them Glinda and Elphaba,” Kimmel stated, referencing the names of the characters in the movie “Wicked” in an attempt to conceal the identities of his staffers.

“‘My TikTok is flooded.’ ‘My mom chain’s going nuts. That’s my TikTok,’” he continued, reading the text chain.

“Everyone is obsessed. Ppl are saying a NY jury has the power to find him innocent, Bc we all love him,” one of the staffers replied, with the second responding “I’m not mad at him.”

“Yes!!! So many questions,” Kimmel continued reading, “Like, ‘Can I fix you?’”

“Okay, so I would visit him in prison, and bake him cookies maybe. Perhaps more but I haven’t thought that far ahead,” the anonymous staffer wrote. “I need him so bad. No like so bad, so so bad.”

Kimmel later showcased an image that one of the unnamed staffer’s husbands sent, showing a shirtless photo of Mangione, to which she responded “I’m about to be a jailhouse bride, cause damn shorty is foooiine.”

I'm confused. You say you're objecting to the message here, but that message seems to be "large swaths of the public are supportive of Luigi Mangione solely because he's hot"?

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

And lets be clear, he's a sex symbol because he killed a healthcare CEO. If he killed Bill Gates or Taylor Swift I don't think we see loverboy skits from Kimmell and Colbert.

 

[RCon]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

 

[RCon]

And lets be clear, he's a sex symbol because he killed a healthcare CEO. If he killed Bill Gates or Taylor Swift I don't think we see loverboy skits from Kimmell and Colbert.

But we certainly would from Greg Gutfeld and the like. To wit, see the adoration heaped on Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Perry.

 

[Max Power]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

It's Kimmel's staff saying these things. They are the ones who want to bake him cookies and be a prison wife. I think he's condoning that line of thinking by putting it on the air and chuckling along.

 

[djmich]

And lets be clear, he's a sex symbol because he killed a healthcare CEO. If he killed Bill Gates or Taylor Swift I don't think we see loverboy skits from Kimmell and Colbert.

But we certainly would from Greg Gutfeld and the like. To wit, see the adoration heaped on Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Perry.

I don't know Greg Gutfeld, but if he, like you are here, would draw parallels with the Daniel Penny case and shooting an unarmed Bill Gates in the back...then this goes in the "this is not normal" bucket for me.

 

[Stoneworker]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

 

[RCon]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

Late night shows base their entire existence on making jokes about serious issues, frequently by pointing out the absurdity of public reaction to said issues.

 

[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.

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

My link

Well his abs are awesome. How about, "Did Brian Thompson deserve to be murdered? Yes or no? I think my poll question gets directly to the heart of the issue being discussed. I can't say how the numbers would look but it would be way more interesting to me than the polls we've been discussing here.

Do you think that people responding to this poll are thinking about his abs when they respond?

I'm listening to your answer, and I'm judging you on it.

Referencing his abs is just my frustration with the fact that asking whether someone views this man "favorably" or "unfavorably" weirdly avoids the act itself. Its purely my personal angle on it. I have an unfortunate retentive obsession with using clear language on things like this. I would like to see a poll focused on the killing and not on the killer. If we ask whether someone views Lee Harvey Oswald favorably or unfavorably what would the answers tell us? Almost nothing. Questions asking people whether they approve his actions or have a "favorable" view of the killer leave too much vagueness for me to draw broad conclusions. I'd like to see what people think about the act itself rather than the actor.

 

[Stoneworker]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

Late night shows base their entire existence on making jokes about serious issues, frequently by pointing out the absurdity of public reaction to said issues.

Only when they know it will play well to the political leanings / social values of their audience

 

[Nugget]

Interesting data that it was low support, but bipartisan. 22% Dem, 12% Rep. I don't think they support actual murder, but support a conversation about changing healthcare and wealth inequality.

 

[Joe Schmo]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

Late night shows base their entire existence on making jokes about serious issues, frequently by pointing out the absurdity of public reaction to said issues.

Only when they know it will play well to the political leanings / social values of their audience

Yes

 

[dgreen]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

Late night shows base their entire existence on making jokes about serious issues, frequently by pointing out the absurdity of public reaction to said issues.

Only when they know it will play well to the political leanings / social values of their audience

Only when they think it will get a laugh.

It's strange to me to criticize comedians for making light of something. That's like criticizing a WR for catching a football.

 

[djmich]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

Late night shows base their entire existence on making jokes about serious issues, frequently by pointing out the absurdity of public reaction to said issues.

Only when they know it will play well to the political leanings / social values of their audience

Only when they think it will get a laugh.

It's strange to me to criticize comedians for making light of something. That's like criticizing a WR for catching a football.

I mean I guess. If there was a racist late night show host, who made light of the hanging of a person of color, and people cheered it...then yes, in the same way he did his job. I'd like to still be able to step back and say that wow, this is a little effed up.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

Late night shows base their entire existence on making jokes about serious issues, frequently by pointing out the absurdity of public reaction to said issues.

Only when they know it will play well to the political leanings / social values of their audience

Only when they think it will get a laugh.

It's strange to me to criticize comedians for making light of something. That's like criticizing a WR for catching a football.

I agree, but I think it's fair to judge a society (or an audience) based on what makes them laugh. I don't mind treating the comedian as simply a mirror that reflects his or her audience.

To @djmich 's point, I don't recall anybody making "jokes" about baking cakes for Dylan Roof. That serves as a data point telling me that a segment of society views these young men very differently. (I don't, obviously).

 

[dgreen]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

Late night shows base their entire existence on making jokes about serious issues, frequently by pointing out the absurdity of public reaction to said issues.

Only when they know it will play well to the political leanings / social values of their audience

Only when they think it will get a laugh.

It's strange to me to criticize comedians for making light of something. That's like criticizing a WR for catching a football.

I mean I guess. If there was a racist late night show host, who made light of the hanging of a person of color, and people cheered it...then yes, in the same way he did his job. I'd like to still be able to step back and say that wow, this is a little effed up.

I laugh at a bunch of stuff that I don't support. Me finding something funny doesn't mean I think the scenario of the joke is a good thing in real, serious life. I assumed that was a fairly typical approach to comedy, but I do think there are people who are more into cheering jokes that support their side than just laughing because something is funny.

I think how a comedian jokes and what people laugh at CAN shed light on their real life values, but I don't think that's necessarily true.

 

[jamny]

And lets be clear, he's a sex symbol because he killed a healthcare CEO. If he killed Bill Gates or Taylor Swift I don't think we see loverboy skits from Kimmell and Colbert.

But we certainly would from Greg Gutfeld and the like. To wit, see the adoration heaped on Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Perry.

I don't know Greg Gutfeld, but if he, like you are here, would draw parallels with the Daniel Penny case and shooting an unarmed Bill Gates in the back...then this goes in the "this is not normal" bucket for me.

I am familiar with Gutfeld and he would not make light of the cold blooded murder of Gates or Swift. Disgusting to even suggest it.

 

[dkp993]

I haven’t read every post in this thread so please excuse me if this has already been covered, but I’m not sure how the currently perceived acceptance of this murder is any different then when my wife (or anyone else) tries to tell me we are living in unsafe times. My response to her/them is the same. By any measurement we are living in the safest time in history. A trend line that has been going in that direction for generations. Society is getting safer and safer with each generation. It’s just our awareness levels due the 24hr news cycle and SM that make us feel like it’s not. Same with this. A certain percentage of people have always been ok with other people of power or wealth “getting what they deserve” (ie punished, killed, etc etc), we just now have a 24hr news cycle, SM, polling, etc etc where those opinions are now fully exposed. These are not a new or developing opinions, we are simply hearing/seeing them in mass for the first time.

 

[Max Power]

I'm rejecting a mainstream network's night show treating a murderer like a sexy symbol. It's the type of messaging that minimalizes what he did and fosters a line of thinking that this is no big deal. This is just more evidence as to why the polling numbers come back the way they do about how "acceptable" his actions were.

I'd argue they are doing the exact opposite. They are making fun of people who support Mangione because he's hot by pointing out that it's ludicrous to base one's support (or lack thereof) of his actions on his looks.

Nope. @Max Power is correct. The late night shows are trivializing a serious issue and their target audience is eating it up

Late night shows base their entire existence on making jokes about serious issues, frequently by pointing out the absurdity of public reaction to said issues.

Only when they know it will play well to the political leanings / social values of their audience

Only when they think it will get a laugh.

It's strange to me to criticize comedians for making light of something. That's like criticizing a WR for catching a football.

I mean I guess. If there was a racist late night show host, who made light of the hanging of a person of color, and people cheered it...then yes, in the same way he did his job. I'd like to still be able to step back and say that wow, this is a little effed up.

I laugh at a bunch of stuff that I don't support. Me finding something funny doesn't mean I think the scenario of the joke is a good thing in real, serious life. I assumed that was a fairly typical approach to comedy, but I do think there are people who are more into cheering jokes that support their side than just laughing because something is funny.

I think how a comedian jokes and what people laugh at CAN shed light on their real life values, but I don't think that's necessarily true.

I remember a couple comedians having to apologize over Harvey Weinstein jokes because sexual assault is not something to laugh about.

 

[El Floppo]

With Luigi caught, not sure what the argument in here is based upon at this point. IK and some others sound like they're not being heard... and continue making the point that- some polls showing 20% approval of Luigi's actions show that we've become a more violent society? I think I have that right?

The opposing side seems to be saying it's not about the murder, but about failing health care and an understanding- not approval- of why the murder happened. Is that right?

and on and on it goes.

Outside of these polls, which as cletius covered, aren't necessarily getting to the root of the question (is murdering the CEO ok?)... I'll ask again for stats that say we're trending more violent. IMO, always been radicals who lean that way going to back to our founding. Bobby touched on the 19th c, and I think of the 20th c as being chock full o' folk and movements that were literally up in arms about this that or the other (communists, fascists, nazis, racists, environmentalist, PETA, etc etc). perhaps I'm wrong.... dunno. it does seem social media gives more access to these folk, which then breeds a new crop.

I wonder how many people, if polled, would advocate for the CEO's murder vs express an understanding- not approval, but understanding- of why Luigi did it. to me, understanding the motive is completely different than approving of it.

 

[djmich]

I haven’t read every post in this thread so please excuse me if this has already been covered, but I’m not sure how the currently perceived acceptance of this murder is any different then when my wife (or anyone else) tries to tell me we are living in unsafe times. My response to her/them is the same. By any measurement we are living in the safest time in history. A trend line that has been going in that direction for generations. Society is getting safer and safer with each generation. It’s just our awareness levels due the 24hr news cycle and SM that make us feel like it’s not. Same with this. A certain percentage of people have always been ok with other people of power or wealth “getting what they deserve” (ie punished, killed, etc etc), we just now have a 24hr news cycle, SM, polling, etc etc where those opinions are now fully exposed. These are not a new or developing opinions, we are simply hearing/seeing them in mass for the first time.

I think there is a lot right about this, but also I think some flaws.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that society is safer today than 20 or 50yrs ago, or honestly the opposite. I'd like to see murder per capita data, as an example datapoint.

I don't think anybody is claiming "Robin Hood" is a new phenomenon. But I don't think the presence of Robin Hood syndrome in the past means that it exists in the same amount today. I think many people are surprised to see how many of their fellow citizens are accepting of cold-blooded murder. Surprised that there are some, no, but 40%...I can say I am. We can't say "its the same as it always has been" unless there is data to back it up. Again, earlier in this thread a lot of people were quick to say the support was minimal...and then we saw data that contradicted that.

Its not a new development that there will be people that find the murder of the president acceptable, or good. I'm going to guess it might not just be social media delusions to think that today, more people would be accepting of the murder of a president, than say when JFK was killed. I think its right to challenge are things really different, as you are, I don't think its right to just say its normal without data to support it and I think its certainly possible that times change.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I am familiar with Gutfeld and he would not make light of the cold blooded murder of Gates or Swift. Disgusting to even suggest it.

One could easily argue this is pretty disgusting.

“People say that Rittenhouse never should have gone to Kenosha. The dead guys shouldn’t have gone there either,” Mr Gutfeld said.

“They should not have been anywhere on a street right? They should have been in jail or in an institution. Kyle’s victims, the two dead guys, deserved better from the government. But they didn’t deserve better from Kyle. He did the right thing,” he claimed. “He did what the government should have done.”

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I haven’t read every post in this thread so please excuse me if this has already been covered, but I’m not sure how the currently perceived acceptance of this murder is any different then when my wife (or anyone else) tries to tell me we are living in unsafe times. My response to her/them is the same. By any measurement we are living in the safest time in history. A trend line that has been going in that direction for generations. Society is getting safer and safer with each generation. It’s just our awareness levels due the 24hr news cycle and SM that make us feel like it’s not. Same with this. A certain percentage of people have always been ok with other people of power or wealth “getting what they deserve” (ie punished, killed, etc etc), we just now have a 24hr news cycle, SM, polling, etc etc where those opinions are now fully exposed. These are not a new or developing opinions, we are simply hearing/seeing them in mass for the first time.

I think there is a lot right about this, but also I think some flaws.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that society is safer today than 20 or 50yrs ago, or honestly the opposite. I'd like to see murder per capita data, as an example datapoint.

I don't think anybody is claiming "Robin Hood" is a new phenomenon. But I don't think the presence of Robin Hood syndrome in the past means that it exists in the same amount today. I think many people are surprised to see how many of their fellow citizens are accepting of cold-blooded murder. Surprised that there are some, no, but 40%...I can say I am. We can't say "its the same as it always has been" unless there is data to back it up. Again, earlier in this thread a lot of people were quick to say the support was minimal...and then we saw data that contradicted that.

Its not a new development that there will be people that find the murder of the president acceptable, or good. I'm going to guess it might not just be social media delusions to think that today, more people would be accepting of the murder of a president, than say when JFK was killed. I think its right to challenge are things really different, as you are, I don't think its right to just say its normal without data to support it and I think its certainly possible that times change.

Agreed. I would add that the historical antecedents here are not to Robin Hood but instead to the Weathermen, the KKK, and other violent movements that have sprung up over and over again throughout US history. We have seen this movie before in the 1870s, the 1930s, and the 1960s/70s. We have always been able to put down these movements in the past, but past performance is no guarantee of future results.

 

[jamny]

I am familiar with Gutfeld and he would not make light of the cold blooded murder of Gates or Swift. Disgusting to even suggest it.

One could easily argue this is pretty disgusting.

“People say that Rittenhouse never should have gone to Kenosha. The dead guys shouldn’t have gone there either,” Mr Gutfeld said.

“They should not have been anywhere on a street right? They should have been in jail or in an institution. Kyle’s victims, the two dead guys, deserved better from the government. But they didn’t deserve better from Kyle. He did the right thing,” he claimed. “He did what the government should have done.”

What does that have to do with shooting Gates or Swift in the back? I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll stop there.

 

[RCon]

Agreed. I would add that the historical antecedents here are not to Robin Hood but instead to the Weathermen, the KKK, and other violent movements that have sprung up over and over again throughout US history. We have seen this movie before in the 1870s, the 1930s, and the 1960s/70s. We have always been able to put down these movements in the past, but past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Historical antecedents to Luigi Mangione are the KKK? The KKK is nothing like Luigi Mangione, in any way whatsoever.

John Dillinger and Billy the Kid are much closer in scope, motivations, and actions. Both enjoyed widespread support from the populace at the time.

 

[jamny]

CEO murder suspect Luigi Mangione arrives in NY to face federal murder charges​

 

[djmich]

Agreed. I would add that the historical antecedents here are not to Robin Hood but instead to the Weathermen, the KKK, and other violent movements that have sprung up over and over again throughout US history. We have seen this movie before in the 1870s, the 1930s, and the 1960s/70s. We have always been able to put down these movements in the past, but past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Historical antecedents to Luigi Mangione are the KKK? John Dillinger and Billy the Kid are much closer in scope, motivations, and actions. The KKK is nothing like Luigi Mangione, in any way whatsoever. Both enjoyed widespread support from the populace at the time.

I think Dillinger and Billy the Kid are decent corollary's, but its hard for me to compare today to the Wild West, I'd like to think we progressed and are a safer society as was referenced earlier. I'd also like to be able to discern if things have changed in my lifetime. I asked chatgpt, the examples it provided for corollary's in the past 50yrs are pretty weak imo

In the past 50 years, there have been instances where individuals have targeted corporate or institutional leaders, leading to public discourse and, in some cases, segments of public support. Notable examples include:

1. Luigi Mangione and the UnitedHealthcare CEO (2024):
   
   • Incident: Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old from Maryland, was charged with the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024.
     News.com.au
   • Public Reaction: An Emerson College poll revealed that 41% of young voters (ages 18-29) found the act "acceptable," reflecting significant discontent with corporate practices in the healthcare industry.
     New York Post
2. Assassination of Pim Fortuyn (2002):
   
   • Incident: Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician and public figure, was assassinated by Volkert van der Graaf, an environmental and animal rights activist.
   • Public Reaction: While Fortuyn's assassination led to widespread shock and condemnation, van der Graaf received support from certain extremist groups who viewed his actions as a defense against perceived threats to environmental and animal rights causes.
3. Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1995):
   
   • Incident: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli ultranationalist opposing Rabin's peace efforts.
   • Public Reaction: Amir's actions were condemned globally; however, he garnered support from fringe groups opposing the peace process, reflecting deep societal divisions.

 

[Captain Cranks]

What does that have to do with shooting Gates or Swift in the back? I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll stop there.

Seems rather obvious how that is a relevant retort to your comment about Gutfeld and what he's capable of. The values of the talking heads on television aren't objective, whether it's Kimmel, Gutfeld, or whoever.