It feels like you're not grappling with the actual issue. It seems more like presuppositional apologetics in a way. By framing it as "Murder is wrong" you are presupposing the unjust aspect of it. The hidden premise of people celebrating it was that, ethically speaking, it's justifiable homicide. Not murder. Obviously it's not that legally speaking. But I don't think the folks celebrating it are making a legal claim. I'm also very skeptical of a claim like "vigilante justice is never justice". There's a pretty heavy burden on the never part of that sentence. For instance, John Brown comes to mind.
Ya, Murder is wrong, vigilante is also wrong... Only when you take a direct action approach, but when you are denying ppl their urgently needed healthcare that they have paid for it, and as a result they died... You are a successful CEO... How is that ever morally justified?
Justifications are subjective. The CEOs and everyone who profit off of people like this do justify it to themselves but you would have to ask them how. You and I both seem to disagree with them and wouldn't treat people that way. Yay, us. Matt's point is that someone behaving reprehensibly does not justify taking reprehensible actions in revenge. Basically, two wrongs don't make a right. Mr CEO was a human, too; even if we wouldn't have liked him. If someone taking people away from their lives and families is wrong then it's wrong, and you must apply your standard evenly or be like the ones you hate.
@@finestPluginsAd populum isn't a humanist tool, it's a fallacy. The number of people in N Korea who think Un is great and does no wrong doesn't make it so.
@Wix_Mitwirth what I was trying to say is the US has long failed the ethic tests when they let private healthcare corporations took over the healthcare system, where they make their billions of profit via the suffering of the masses
@@finestPlugins If the majority elects Nazis in power who start committing genocide on a minority, and the majority even supports it, does it become justified or moral just from the fact that the majority supports it? The truth of something is not measured by the number of supporters.
What are these 'available processes' that you think would have adequately resolved Mangione's individual issue or the systemic problems with the US healthcare industry?
@SansDeity Lawsuits are clearly not adequately resolving the individual issues, and cannot resolve the systemic issues. Do you have something else to suggest? Also, please avoid the Straw Man, you're better than that. Whether I condone or condemn Luigi Mangione's actions, 'there are no available processes' does not mean 'murder is acceptable'.
@@SansDeity have you heard of Steve Donziger or the numerous other individuals who have tried to sue these massive corporations? Are you familiar with the history of labor unions and abolitionism in this country? Not to mention the violence and brutality regularly meted out by the state and private sector that far exceeds anything that could be done by an individual. Those forms of violence are legal and deemed necessary and acceptable. Violence is a tool and its utilization isn't strictly negative. Just to be clear, I am not saying that what he did was right I'm sure you're aware of the legal strategies these corporations tend to employ and how lawsuits against them usually go. All the while, people are forced into crippling debt, forced to ration medication, and often die or become disabled by these corporate practices. Fortunately for them, they happen to fall within the legal boundaries and have been continuously expanded due to major lobbying efforts and political donations. Our ability to resolve these issues is being eroded and I feel that should be taken into consideration when examining this complicated issue. The world is complicated and we need systemic change. Historically and in relatively recent history, changes have been motivated by less than peaceful means.
@@SansDeity do you think the average person is on a level playing field when it comes to seeking justice through lawsuits? Who do you think has the upper hand in this incredibly expensive and time consuming endeavor? You cannot reason with starving wolves or tyranny.
*"If you celebrate Luigi Mangione being above the law... then you have to celebrate the people on January 6th"* No. Celebrating Luigi Mangione and condemning January 6th does not make you a hypocrite. Your point is that if you celebrate one person being above the law then you must celebrate others who acted above the law - but fails to account for this: the reaction is based on the content of the crime itself - rather than celebrating any and everybody who acts above the law. The point is that man-made law is not infallible and should be resisted when it's wrong. You say "who decides?" as if to say nobody has that authority, but the idea that fraud and death for profit is wrong has already been decided by people en masse - and written into law. However, the law here is failing to uphold that by not classifying Healthcare companies denying legitimate claims as fraud. *"Companies have policies that you may or may not agree with... there's a system in place to deal with his grievances"* Policies to extract money from people for decades only to deny their legitimate healthcare claims is not comparable to the "stupid company policies without good reason" you reference here. A closer comparison is open fraud, fraud that directly leads to death. When the "system" in place (the law) both allows and assists this immorality after decades of peaceful letters and protests, it becomes void as a means of addressing the issue and is longer worth referencing as an option. *"I'm concerned that people on the left have lost their morailty in celebrating Luigi Mangione"* Because the CEOs actions were committed within the law, it creates a grey area where people are scolded for celebrating his death, by the same people who wouldn't complain if Ted Bundy's death was celebrated. His actions are nowhere near Bundy's, but the principle remains that the death of someone who caused large scale death and suffering will be celebrated by even perfectly good people. I also do not celebrate this murder (rather I just have no sympathy for the CEO) but I completely understand those who do celebrate and don't consider them immoral. (I paraphrased your points and understand they're not word for word)
honestly what do u expect? like do u expect people to just accept that their rights are being trampled and their livelihoods being made worse? should we all just lie down? and when the government & the law protects these people CEO & late stage capitalism are different to riots not accepting results to an election. They're the ones making people desperate enough to consider this the only solution. They proved that going high does not yield results. in a way it's similar to Hamas being the main resistance to th occupation, they tried peaceful protesting etc and they got killed anyways.
His actions were not comparable to Bundy’s He was (lol) responsible for far more deaths, far more suffering, and was a far greater direct threat to lives.
@@comradequestion4206I specifically said his actions were not on the level of Bundy's. The point is that when you commit evil within the bounds of law, people see it wrong to celebrate your death. But would celebrate your death if you caused the same amount of suffering in a different way. It's a general point about how people are less comfortable to condemn a "legally" evil person.
No amount of fraud comes with a death sentence without due process of law at the hands of some guy. Even if they were indicted for fraud, insurance companies aren't going to be tied to any murders. The healthcare for profit system is the problem. Until it gets fixed or everyone in business decides money is less important than people, this is the struggle and the people will inevitably suffer for it. Each casualty of this is a tragedy and that's why it has to end; but making more tragedies doesn't help and shouldn't be lauded.
@@Wix_Mitwirth I never said fraud should carry a death sentence, or even that the CEO was a murderer. When you unfairly contribute to people's death by frauding them for profit (even if you didn't murder them) you don't get to complain about their response to your killing. Murder or not it still has the effect of contributing to untimely death and tearing up innocent families. These people didn't pursue other health plans that could have saved them, because they were tricked into believing their company would actually cover them.
Does humanism support revolt? Are revolutions ever justified? Are peaceful revolutions actually successful, or does there come a time when violent revolution is the only ethical recourse by humanists? I don't imagine humanitarians promoting revolt, but I wonder if ethics can support it in certain circumstances. Is revolution just a synonym for war? I've never really had to consider it before, but your conversation has stimulated me to give it some serious thought at this point in time. It's always a pleasure to hear your thoughts.
I've been wondering the same. If the French revolution hadn't happened just the way it did would it have worked? Not for nothing, but all the money was tangible then, so redistributing it only meant finding the room it was in. Today would be different. Not a mess I'd want to figure out. Tangent. The real question is was it the right thing to do? I don't know.
My opinion is that humanism is all about weighing ethical pros and cons. Violent revolution is a hell of a con. Lots of death, Lots of suffering. In order for me to consider it the ethical course the thing being overthrown would need to be even worse than the conflict, and there would need to be no other way to improve the situation more peacefully. People often fall into the trap of missing other options because they think this must be dealt with right now. Time can be a tool. Gradually working to steer politics over a lifetime away from bad policies and towards good ones is usually a more ethical approach than violent revolution. Though its slower it may be able to achieve the desired result without the bloodshed. Never say never though. Humanism is a system of relative morality so one can always contrive an example where any traditionally evil act can be the lesser of two evils when it's presented as the only way to avoid some other even worse fate.
@TestTestGo You are correct. "In order for me to consider it the ethical course the thing being overthrown would need to be even worse than the conflict, and there would need to be no other way to improve the situation more peacefully." As some black people how bad it is. Revolution comes exactly as you say. When the price of doing nothing is worse.
I think the issue comes down to long term vs short term. On a short term knee-jerk scale violent response seems justified. A population is victimized, there will not be sufficient progressive change within their lifetime, what do they have to lose by smashing the system? History tells us that every famous revolution had a period of misery, oppression, and death as all the other things we take for granted that allowed for functioning civilization were also removed. No more courts? Warlords become the final authority. No more constitution? Machiavelli becomes the final authority. Without any system it becomes a rat race power grab with nothing off limits and that gets ugly quickly. At the end of the day humanistic morality is about what is healthiest for everyone in the long term. Is it healthiest in the long term for us to make exceptions about cold blooded murder for people who abuse a system to the point where they are utterly beyond regulation? In the short term yes, but in the long term it weakens the guard rails against worst case scenario conflict resolution strategies. So the option any given generation is presented is slowly work within the system to make a better world you will not live to see, or smash it and create a horrifying reset that might make a better world you will never live to see. But at least you have the catharsis of revenge.
Humanism is an ambivalent and amorphous blob that means any number of things to different people. There are Marxist Humanists who support revolutionary political movements. That's one example of it being possible.
"Vigilante justice is _never_ justice" is a big claim, Matt. I don't think you've said anything in this video to support such a strong claim. I'm not sure how you could prove the 'never' part. The whole video boils down to: "I'm not saying this", "I'm not say that", and "there's a process" but "I'm not saying I have solutions". Criticizing is easy, everyone can do it. But if you have no solutions to offer, I don't know what the point of this video is.
Using this definition _a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate._ Vigilante justice _is_ justice. Just without proper authority. Though by this definition, it wasn't actually vigilante justice, because he wasn't doing law enforcement. Which is neither here nor there with regards to what _should_ be done.
The people in charge are directly making sure there will never be a process for justice in these cases. There is only one solution to that. It sucks, but it has to be.
@@nitehawk86 that's the comment in this entire video that bugged the hell out of me the most - "there is a process". Matt said this with ZERO follow-up on what that process is, and why he thinks the process works, which is the obvious implication in that comment. So please Matt, Mr. Evidence, back up your assertion that the process that exists ACTUALLY WORKS because I think there is overwhelming evidence pointing in the opposite direction. That's the whole issue Matt - the process is fucking broken and has been for decades.
Matt, I appreciate your insights, but I feel there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the roots of revolution and why such drastic measures often become the only option for oppressed populations. Resistance and revolution don’t emerge in a vacuum-they are born out of prolonged exploitation, injustice, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. When CEOs, founders, philanthropists, and oligarchs hoard resources, profit off the exploitation of workers, and perpetuate wars and suffering, they create the conditions for revolution. Wealth isn’t just a personal asset-it’s a form of power, and when that power is used to oppress, it becomes a moral imperative to take it back for the well-being of the people. While you condone the killing of such figures, it’s worth reflecting on whether such resistance is inevitable when peaceful avenues for change are blocked. To condemn the revolutionaries without fully acknowledging the systemic violence and deaths caused by these oligarchs can come across as hypocritical. Where was the outrage when the exploited masses were suffering and dying under the heel of these systems? In a true revolution, power must be decentralized and redistributed to the people. This isn’t about revenge-it’s about creating a world where exploitation and oppression are no longer possible. That’s the foundation of socialism and communism: shared power, shared resources, and true equality. The question isn’t just whether revolution is justified-it’s whether we’re ready to build a society where such revolutions are no longer necessary.
@@MrAtheistQueen Yes, yes it is. Because THEY are already murdering us. 'Killing is wrong!' is the answer from privilege. This is retribution. This is fighting back.
@@MrAtheistQueen Thompson has stopped murdering people. Why were his tens of thousands of murders less worthy of condemnation than Luigi's (alleged) one murder?
Yes I agree, the system needs to change. Yet I noticed there’s no recommendation as to how to change it nor how long it will take. Years? Decades? All the while more and more people are becoming homeless, denied healthcare, and deprived of legal justice. Violence is already happening, and people will push back. Best to point upwards where it will have an impact, rather than the violence be directed into a school or a grocery store.
Matt had already said that he doesn’t think violence is justified “yet” which means he thinks there is a point in time which it’s justified. Luigi found his point in time, and Matt disagrees with the point in time. I dunno. I think killing is generally bad, but sometimes justified. If someone’s harming you, and there’s no system in place for justice, what else is there to do? Cry on UA-cam? Lot of good that’s done us.
He at least at one point believed violence was justified. You have to believe that to join the military. I know because that's what I felt when I joined.
@@CoreyJohnsonMusic so the ceo is in charge of all the denials? Insurance should accept all claims?? That's your take? Once you learn the basics then come back. Stop talking about things you don't know
@@mariomario1462he’s literally the top of the hierarchy, sure there is a question where the buck stops, but at the very least it stops at the tippy top, right?
Since bullies don't feel empathy, they must understand the most basic thing: their own pain and suffering. We all know what language will result in pain and suffering: It is the language of violence. Ultimately in this world the strongest, the fastest, the physically most powerful will survive: We all must obey the law of the jungle.
@@stiletteleray1326Idk. Given the results of the Haitian Revolution, and the results of more peaceful ends to slavery. This is a pretty bad argument. The people living in St Lucia, St Vincent & The Grenadines, Aruba, St Kitts & Nevis and most of the Caribbean live way better lives than people in Haiti kinda makes it seem like violent revolution has worse ends than the other countries who went by "Go along to get along,"
@@AntoineVello so you’re going to full lipped say it would have been better for them to remain slaves longer so they wouldn’t be in as much poverty today…?
@@AntoineVellothe only reason Haiti turned out so bad because every other country that has a slave owners in there basically waged economic warfare and every time they get a leader that starts doing good the United States has caused a coup which outs the leader for another dictator
If what that CEO was doing was just business transactions including ones that indirectly resulted in people dying then all Luigi allegedly did was give customer feedback
No, these are not the same, and the analogy is poor. Agreeing with this murder is the same as endorsing death penalty. Which isn't really humanism, most people would agree.
@BillHicks420 I love how you just said it's a poor analogy without actually doing the mental work to explain why 🤣. Is it humanism to just allow these people to profit off the death and suffering of tens of thousands of people? While doing absolutely nothing to stop it?
@ I felt like I didn't have to, it was so obvious to me. Why do you think this analogy holds water? You're equating "customer feedback" to murder. "Is it humanism to just allow these people to profit off the death and suffering of tens of thousands of people?" Should it be "humanism"? Can all human endeavors be classified into philosophical schools of thought? Funny choice of word, "allow". Like it is up to murderers killing at will which endeavors should be "allowed", and to what degree. Recipe for chaos, moral confusion and a state of absolute lawlessness.
Okay, Matt, let's say that he should have worked within the system. What was he to do? Vote for candidates who oppose a for profit healthcare system? Good luck. Both parties are bought by the insurance industry. File criminal charges against the insurance company? They did nothing illegal. So, Luigi's only legal option was to write a strongly worded email/letter to UHC, which they would have discarded w/o reading. This is how revolutions happen, folks.
@@Charlotte_Martel healthcare insurance companies have a 5% profit margin approximately. It's pitifully small. So what exactly is your problem? It's not like they're taking a 100% profit cut from the poor. It's a very slim cut throat industry with a lot of regulations such that you can't simply deny claims. Certainly shooting a CEO which does nothing isn't remotely justified and your comment is preposterous on all levels. Do you think Luigi's actions will have any meaningful change? No in fact healthcare will get slightly more expensive because now insurance companies need comprehensive security and higher salaries to justify the risk.
@@MrAtheistQueen Yes, yes it is. Because THEY are already murdering us. 'Killing is wrong!' is the answer from privilege. This is retribution. This is fighting back.
Matt is giving Humanism's side, and he's right. You don't get to judge who gets to die because you want "revolutions to happen". If you allow that behavior for everyone, you end up in a state of chaos for all.
@@MrAtheistQueenThen the answer is to shut up and know your place, pleb. If Matt were honest about that, I would be fine with his choice. It is not my choice, and I refuse to pretend that there is a democratic solution when there clearly isn't in our oligarchy. At least peasants under feudalism had heaven to look forward to while they endured being lower than dirt. What do we have?
When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps, he was following instructions from Mr. Jefferson. Are you saying Jefferson is wrong?
Think of a third opinion. When something is bad, you are saying the ONLY solution is to become that bad thing. Are you not smart enough to think of something that is NOT like what you say is bad?
@@alexpersonius3646 Literally yes. The American health insurance system, as it exists, is absolutely tyrannical. They exercise their power over their customers in a cruel and oppressive manner, denying necessary medical care which results in literal deaths, and/or financially ruins the lives of countless people.
“But there’s a process to address that claim…” Matt, there isn’t a process to address that claim. The system of addressing grievances has been designed to prevent resolution. There is no peaceful, legal method to resolve it. The lobbying power of the industry is too strong to be influenced, and regardless of the fact the vast majority of the US population is against the healthcare system, change is not being made. I guess you need to ask yourself, if suffering is being caused, and there is no peaceful means to prevent its continuation, what is the humanist response? To do nothing and allow human suffering to continue?
You used a mocking tone of voice right now when you said "He literally killed a serial killer, free Luigi"... But he did literally kill a serial killer. One who was operating in the open, and who had probably killed more people than I've even met. Was he could to get arrested sometime soon, after killing a few thousand more? It doesn't look like it. I would much prefer he had been stopped peacefully, but that wasn't going to happen. At least now he's been stopped, he won't kill anyone else. That IS worth celebrating, specifically as a humanist. There was nothing humanist about letting Thompson continue to murder the innocent for profit. You just said that there's no evidence that anything unjust happened but the murder, but that isn't true. Thompson specifically set the policies that lead to United going from a normal evil health care company to one that denied far more than it's competitors. He was a mass murder that put Bin Laden to shame. I didn't cry for Bin Laden either.
Link the evidence that Thompson specifically set the policies. Also if he was the one just upholding the policies that were already made, that’s his job and he is tasked to hold that out, you can’t kill someone for doing their job 😭 I’ll be waiting for the link, NO MORE TEXTING, just evidence.
@@northernlight8857 Yeah. not in line with secular humanism. Using the burden of proof video from Matt prove that his moral compass is broken! Good luck!
@@imquitz2730There were a couple of 1940s Germans who were also doing their job. They also did not set the policies of their leaders - but they carried them out. I'm not directly comparing the two. Just pointing out that "doing your job" is no excuse, and it doesn't matter if you didn't set a policy - you become responsible when you help enforce it.
I'm old. I've worked hard. Raised a family. And am tired of waiting for better times. At this point, I advocate for a million Luigi's. Sorry if that hurts your humanity but the boots on all of our heads often obscures reality for some people. The boots don't come off our heads and necks when we just ask nicely.
@@SansDeity Not sure what you mean by that. What is the 'due process' for holding employees accountable for legal but massively harmful actions? (For context, the time stamp points at where you referred to the people actually refusing the claims as just doing their jobs.)
@@SansDeity "That doesn't change due process" Tell that to the slaves that rebelled against their masters. Tell that to the french proletariat when they rebelled against the monarchy. Tell that to our founding fathers when they did the same. Tell that to the Palestinians. And tell that to the younger version of yourself that joined the military.
It's ok to disobey a law if it's unjust. There are laws that allow CEOs to and institutions to commit murder on a mass scale. To disobey those unjust laws, we disallow what they allow. When the state disallows something it uses violence to enforce that decision. The state is not the only entity that can use violence. Isn't that like, one of the amendments? If this video is what humanism leads to, no thanks.
@@MrAtheistQueen Tell that to the Palestinians! Tell that to the slaves who've participated in revolts all around the world and thru history! Tell that to the people who fought in the american revolution! Tell that to the many slaves that fought for the union in the Civil war!
@@MrAtheistQueen Then what is? We have tried protest. We have tried voting. We have tried civic participation. Every avenue we perform that follows social agreements is dismissed and rendered ineffective. How do you deal with someone who is killing your family members and is not amenable to reason?
@@billgraham861 what laws are you even talking about? If the CEO of the health insurance company is doing something that results in thousands of deaths, they're doing something illegal. They should be tried according to the law. That doesn't mean we become vigilantes and take the law into our own hands by killing people! Two wrongs don't make a right!
At what point does a rebellion or revolution become moral? I believe that people have the right to rebel against an unjust government, but I'm not sure where that point is. Is the US at a place where revolution is the right thing to do? And what means should we use?
@@MrAtheistQueen You're just posting the same copy-paste response under a bunch comments. Don't you think you'd make a better point by actually addressing what the commenters say? Instead, you're just repeating the same vaguery. You think murder is not an answer. Answer to what? And why isn't it?
@@ghurcbghurcb you're right, I did post the same response under multiple comments. That's because it applies to each of those comments, which were attempting to justify murder. I wasn't suggesting I have all the answers to everyone's problems; I was suggesting all of those comments contain the same flaw. Matt goes into great detail about why. I suggest you watch the video again.
This is where secular humanism has gotten us. We are dealing with a very dark administration, and we haven't evolved much from where we were 500 years ago. If we have to fight we should fight. Be a pacifist of you want, but they sure aren't on the other side.
We've achieved a ton in the last 500 years. Did you forget the time when women couldn't vote and people of other races were treated as property? That was less than 500 years ago. We've been sliding backwards mostly for some part of the last decade, sure. That's a big problem, but it's certainly nowhere near a 500-year lack of progress. But I'm not making any claim about how we should or shouldn't handle this.
@blueredingreen Remember when we fought a whole ass civil war to get rid of slavery? War doesn't seem very humanist to me. Remember the Nazis? Or what about the American revolution? Or the French? Or the Russian?
@@blueredingreen i meant our biology. I don't want to throw humanism out the window or anything. But I don't think it's a good idea to fight real threats this pacified.
Matt has an incredibly philosophical and logical brain. His huge flaw nowadays is that he's really cranky, but I still love listening to him in debates with theists. That said, I thought he made excellent points in this video. I like how he said our ethics of today comes out of older ethics, which came out of ethics before that, and so on down the line. In other words, our ethics have evolved to where they are today. But there appears, to me, to be a flaw in his logic on the topic in this video, which is that those ethics work only in a democracy. America no longer is a democracy; that's no longer our form of government. We are now the following: AUTHORITARIAN OLIGARCHY KAKISTROCRACY KLEPTOCRACY -- Oligarchy. (political campaigns financed by a handful of plutocrats, lobbyists writing legislation, candidates running around like string puppets operated by a cadre of the ultra wealthy.) -- Kakistocracy. Kakistocracy, an autocratic government by the least qualified people. We've got leaders who struggle to read a briefing book. Trump's Presidential daily briefings when he was President the first time around was reduced to one-page with two- or three-bullet points and a picture. -- Kleptocracy government. By those who seek status and personal gain, often at the expense of the governed. What Trump is seeking and what the people he's appointing plan to do is what's best for them, not what's best for the rest of us common folk. So to Matt, I would have to ask him how the ethics he applies to his life fit in with this new version of America?
America is a capitalist country. In a capitalist society, companies are amoral. Their only goal is to satisfy profits or shareholders. To keep them in line, we have industry regulation. UnitedHealthcare is not just going to give people money when they don't have to. If they did, they would not be profitable. It's not their job to do that, it is the job of regulations to ensure people have adequate coverage. People angry at the CEOs are focusing their rage in the completely wrong direction. They should be focusing it on politicians and industry regulators. Every company is the same. Many engineering companies know that their infrastructure will result in people dying. But regulations are in place to ensure that deaths are within a tolerable range. If your mother died in a car accident, would you kill the CEO of the company that constructed the road because they "put profits first" by not constructing an optional median barrier when one was not required according to the road safety regulations?
@@Duchess_Van_Hoof I think Capitalism can work fine. As long as you realize that regulation is required to keep everything in check. I'm not American, but I'm from a Capitalist country. Many countries have no problems like this.
@@MrAtheistQueen for him it was… and for him it was not about the life of the CEO, but about trying to end the policies set by him. And no, a CEO is not just doing his job… he is setting every rule and policy for the company.
@@MrAtheistQueen Then what is? Doing nothing while we continue to die? None of you would be saying "murder isn't the answer" if you were in a mall with an active mass shooter but, when it comes to FAR greater threats than any mass shooter, as long as they kill us indirectly, your type is all "give peace a chance uwu."
@@MrAtheistQueenYou’re right the answer is isn’t murder. But when your gov’t doesn’t listen to peaceful protest, they don’t care about the people suffering, they know people are dying so they can maintain their wealth. How do you fight back when voting doesn’t work becuase our politician are doing the bidding of major corporations? How do you combat that without violence? Again I agree that violence is wrong, but when the peaceful way isn’t working, and gets purposefully ignored, what are you supposed to do next?
I love mat, yet i absolutely love the backlash under this video. I think that in some sence Mat should be proud that he accumulated such amount of thought-independent individuals, who don’t blindly follow the person, and can provide good argumentative discussions in the comment section!
The problem that Matt and many other people have on this issue is that they cannot see that evil often hides behind abstractions. Yes, the CEO never personally killed another human being in his life; the killings were abstracted behind a set of policies and laws. Hitler probably never murdered anyone in cold blood, but he created the policies and laws that allowed for the slaughter of millions. If humanism say that it would be immoral to murder Hitler if given the chance then I don't know if I would want to call myself a humanist. That just sounds like cowardice disguised as morality.
There is another philosophy that applies here other than humanism, it is called "The living sword, the dying sword". The killing sword, is also the living sword, the sword that takes a life, as a result, also saves a life. Consider this philosophical gift from old Japan.
Those that say violence doesn't solve problems, has clearly never studied human history. It is pretty much how EVERY major problem has EVER gotten solved.
@@geelee1977 those that say it come from a very privileged place. If you don’t have a seat at the table there is no talking to be done bc no one is listening. Matt just completely ignore this truth.
So: • Unilaterally killing CEOs is forbidden • Normal channels don't work or don't exist • Individual action is ruled out, but collective action is approved You've just made the case for a mass uprising to overthrow, not just a specific corporation or government, but an economic system that crushes people to make profit. Yes, we do have a word for that. But you stop short of naming the conclusion to your own thought process. Which means either Matt Dillahunty doesn't want to finish his own line of reasoning, or we've discovered the limits of secular humanism.
@@comradequestion4206 No, he is not. No one should be lectured by arm chair communists that absolutely detest the idea of doing any organizing or hard work electorally and just casually advocate for murder as the ultimate solution. I've not seen A SINGLE ONE of you take the streets or even offer a single comment of support when Joe Biden tried to massively expand medicare under the infrastuctre bill that Republicans shut down, and yet, you all are massively upvoting comments equating both parties on health care issue. You all do absolutely nothing to help while pretending that no one else does or ever did concrete actions to improve healthcare.The truth is that you just want an apparent easy solution that will magically improve healthcare without doing any kind of hard work or even mildly supporting people that actually do that.
secular humanism was created to make slave owners feel good about themselves so its not surprising it has nothing interesting to really say in the year 2025
Theologians would argue that going back in time to kill Hitler is still murder. We are such privileged people to even have this conversation. Perhaps if you personally where more threatened, your empathy might override your built in entitlement. I.e. white,male, educated, probably from a middle class background exc.
I'm sure that the system will fix itself, and the 1% will see that it's better to share the wealth with the little people. There is no process; they own most of the courts. The fact that it is bad and getting worse doesn't mean there is no process to fix it; it is just that they own the process, and they don't want to share. There will be more of this, because there is no alternative
@ The French revolution did the job. It is a horrible method, with a lot of death, but would the French have been better off waiting for a Louis to decide to share (hint; he never would)
Matt, I sent you an email a month ago asking for a channel shoutout to help because my wife was dying from cancer. It addressed SO MUCH of this exact topic and I have a lot more. Since then she has died. Now we are facing eviction because her disability never came. They just waited her out until she died before they had to pay anything. We had to miss 3 months income caring for her 24/7 because medicaid doesn't cover full time care. So I had to watch her slowly fall apart. And now we dont know what is gonna happen. I never received a response to my email.
Sorry for your loss and the inhumane USA's medical system. The UK has the NHS and it has lots of issues especially poor funding for decades but I would never want it to become like the USA.
The system wont stop them, and they wont stop themselves. Give an option. Our friends and family are dying. You don't have a solution? Well action is needed so either come up with something that works or stop trying to pacify us while we all go bankrupt failing to keep our parents alive.
Thats why unions and workers councils are mandatory by Dutch law to improve businesses and policies. Similar in other Eiropean countries, Take notes Murica.
They can take a TON of notes from the Netherlands and other European countries. Healthcare, minimum wage, welfare, proper public transportation, government housing... (I could go on).
@ this is projection. Americans are the most controlled citizens, they can't even go outside and move around without a government approved (insured and registered) vehicle, because they don't have any bike paths or good trains. All of the policies I mentioned are standard in every developed country except the US.. it's the only country to not have these basic systems.
@@chrischandler889 this is projection. Americans are the most controlled citizens, they can't even go outside and move around without a government approved (insured and registered) vehicle, because they don't have any bike paths or good trains. All of the policies I mentioned are standard in every developed country except the US.. it's the only country to not have these basic systems.
@@chrischandler889 Americans are the most controlled citizens. You can't even go outside and move anywhere without your government approved (insured and registered) vehicle, because you don't have any bike paths or decent trains. All the systems I mentioned are standard in any other developed country, its frankly an oddity that the US doesn't have government services at a decent level. Unfortunately for you Americans, your government is a dystopian corrupt oligarchy that is entirely controlled by billionaires and big money, all because of lobbying. That's the explanation for why you don't have good infrastructure or govt services.
I think you finally made a video the majority of your audience has to say we disagree with. There's no due process for this. You said you have no solution. The whole US government couldnt take down one man in 4 years for causing a insurrection. The system is broken. Who can fix it? Certainly not the voters or people hoping a company accepts their healthcare claim.
@zachgamr99 the fact that you talk about due process while sanctioning a murder without due process as a viable solution... you guys just rebut yourselves. I'm against murder. Sorry you're not.
Matt you equating Jan sixers with Luigi is just factually inaccurate. Jan six was about seizing power in an unjust mob. Luigi’s actions were about giving a voice to the abused. One was a violent mob bent on more suffering. The other was violence driven by a desire for less suffering. You can disagree but saying they are the same is just stupidly wrong. Sorry but I can’t support this take even though it’s well presented.
I wonder if humanism might be impotent in the face of the evil we're all going to be/ currently are having inflicted on us. I find humanist ideals to be virtuous but I can't help but think maybe humanism isn't going to save us from the hole we're in and it might just be an ideal for the "good times".
Unfortunately, as someone who is a communicator and always looking for common ground, I'm worried our society is passed having reasonable discussions. Just "opposing" unjust laws has failed us. We are in a fight for life. We're sadly past the point of discourse.
Really toxic and unethical rhetoric. We are not in a fight for our lives whatsoever. An annual study from JD power associates showed that health care plans scored an average of 719/1000 points which is pretty good overall. Most people are happy with their health insurance. I know I am. its saved my butt several times personally. You just don't hear everyone who had a great experience with their health insurance, you only hear about the complaints. Saying that we're past the point of discourse is preposterous--discourse and debate is the foundation of democracy. Just because republicans won in politics this round doesn't mean we're past the point of discourse nor does the current state of insurance companies suggest we're past the point of discourse.
@@ajr993 You have set your standards too low out of habituation: for most of the world, the idea of having to pay the amounts Americans pay for the health care they receive is unacceptable. Also, America has never evolved to the point of being a proper democracy, and alt-right movements have already undermined it completely.
I think most people can still find common ground nowadays. It's not that bad yet lol at least not in most of the West. It's just that social media just makes everything seem toxic sometimes because like-minded people can share their opinions everywhere.
@@ajr993"Most people are happy" is not good enough when people are spending decades paying for insurance only to be denied legitimate health claims when they need it - and this is directly leading to death. Quoting percentages and high numbers also means nothing; a company could save 5 billion customer lives, but if even 200 people are wrongly denied the coverage they paid for and die, that company is automatically corrupt. You make it sound like a drop in the ocean compared to so many happy customers, but the truth is that the problem is deliberate, systematic, continuous and causing mass suffering. It's not marginal at all.
I mostly agree with you, but am surprised at a big misconstrued point here: the bean counter deciding who lives or dies is not "just a worker," not even a real person, but an algorithm. I'm pretty sure the CEO had a hand in the algorithm policy that led to the denial @ 6:30.
Even from a humanist perspective, I don't think there's an easy answer. If the murder results in changed policies, either by insurance companies or by regulators (which I don't see happening soon), resulting in more people surviving, then I think from a humanist perspective the murder was justified. Sadly, with Tangerine Palpatine back in office, and billionaires pulling the strings, acts like this are quickly becoming our only recourse, but that could also make things much worse. Again, there's no easy answer.
@@thedopaminestop2355maybe because saying "bad take" doesn't do anything useful to further the conversation... No explanation no further context. Just "you're wrong" it doesn't warrant response.
This is exactly the same argument I hear from racists and anti-trans and homophobes, elitist bigots in general; "it's not acceptable to work outside the system that's harming you. You could harm the billionaires that are harming you and THAT is immortal ".
He is not saying that at all. Stop being so limited in your thinking. So are you telling me that you can't come up with a better solution than a Chimp?
Great job and a very important discussion. As a secular humanist myself, I struggle with the same things. On one hand when a bully pushes you and continues pushing you there does come a time where you have to push back hard. But when to do that is becoming blurred.
I do not condone violence, but there are some people whose deaths I will not mourn. When you have a healthcare system that treats health and well-being like a commodity, like something to be bought and sold and slapped on a lunchbox....there is eventually going to be a problem. At some point, a situation becomes critical mass. At some point, talking does nothing. Policy does nothing. When you've reached the end of the line, there really isn't any other choice. Tyrannies are overthrown when good people have finally had enough. I wish it wasn't violence, but at this point we're beyond the point of talking and policy isn't doing enough.
Can someone tell me what this has to do with his mother? I've read his manifesto, watched many videos and read many articles about this, and not one mentions his mother. He was having severe back pain, and denied coverage is all I've heard. He had also been estranged from his extremely wealthy family for over a year and acting "strangely".
@@Charlotte_Martel Blood money. We bump off people in international conflicts everyday over less and nobody bats a fucking eye about it. But because it's a white guy in a sweater vest everybody is hand wringing.
You said yourself that the status quo civility politics haven't worked. The democrats have prided themselves on upholding procedure and decorum, and it hasn't worked. Why are you prioritizing moral virtue over material results now, but you didn't when it came to protesting what was going on in Gaza by refusing to give support to either of the two major political parties here in the US during the last presidential election?
No, that's not why. The reason every civil country (and I intend every, as USA hasn't been a civil country for decades) has a national health service, is because of dignity of every person.
For all its faults (and it does have some) the UK system of national healthcare largely deals with this problem. We still have people that decide if a particular treatment or drug can be provided on economic terms. (The service doesn't have infinite resources afterall, those tough choices have to be made.) But those people don't stand to gain anything by limiting provision more than absolutely necessary. They don't get a share of the profit because there is no profit to divide. They make the decisions based on cost vs benefit of the proposed medical treatment. Also, once a treatment has been approved, its available to anyone in a condition that warrants its use. Noone needs to check how much money you have been contributing into the pot. If you need it, you get it. Everyone has to contribute through taxes proportional to their ability to pay. (And yes, that does mean some people contribute nothing because they have little to give. These people still recieve treatment though because, and I can't stress this enough, THEY ARE PEOPLE) Due to its huge size, complexity, long history and inconsistent prioritisation in government policy it does have issues that need to be worked on, but its important to remember that the foundations are really well thought out to encourage ethical decision making. It could serve as an inspiration to a country like the US if they one day decide to build their own organisation to provide universal healthcare.
Most developed democratic countries have a healthcare system, gun regulation, STEM education, women liberation - because they elected governments that implemented these. US Americans never vote for these because they don't want these things.
@TestTestGo From an economic point of view, even if they cannot contribute financially to society, the British system works that they still support to society by working in low paid jobs that still needs to be done. As you point out "proportional to their ability to pay", this is the most significant point of the British way. Now there are people taking advantage, but I think our system of raising the standard of life of the lowest in society brings us all up. And I hate the fact that the USA capitalisation of our society is slowly taking over. Those on the right need to think carefully about how much more wealth they really need, because there is always the threat that the peasants might end up revolting if pushed too far. Or society collapsing, and those with most to lose will be at the top and likely to be the first to fall. All the money in the world isn't going to help you in a society that devolves into bartering for goods
Matt Dillahunty: The system needs to be fixed. No, the system isn't broken. It doesnt need "fixing". It's working AS INTENDED. We need a NEW system.☭☭☭
I hope the comments aren't too harsh toward Matt. We need people like him after, but right now this is basically like trying to speak ethical consistency to black people during a slave revolt. Corporations are the government sanctioned massas of our times.
I'm not convinced justice has any relevance here - when parties can't agree on what's "just" in the first place (as is likely the case with the powerful vs powerless), and if the environment is crafted such that the currently powerful hold all the cards, then the only recourse to this is some sort of shift in power. The question is, what happens when peaceful methods are ineffectual - It seems to be the case that the powerful are perfectly willing to ignore protests when they pose no actual threat. It also seems to be the case that not nearly enough people are willing to (potentially) sacrifice their own position to push for change, thus remaining a willing (albeit reluctantly) prisoner of the situation. I'm not advocating for any sort of violence, but It's not difficult to understand why some are willing to resort to it.
The problem here is that we have unjust laws, allowing for the indirect killing of thousands. But changing the system to get rid of those laws is also impossible. The companies responsible for the killings are also the ones who help set the policies. What do you do when there is no meaningful recourse, or the amount of money required to use the "lawful" methods is beyond your means? Our system prioritizes money and property over people. It is little wonder that people without money or property take the law into their own hands. It is the only choice they can make.
Hey Matt, I agree with pretty much all you said except you may have committed a fallacy in there, I'm not sure what the name of it would be but you said something along the lines of "if you're right, it should be easy to convince others", you yourself know that's not true, you've done these call in shows about God for years and it shows it isn't easy to convince people you're right, you're right and very few callers admit that, it's not an easy thing, anyways love your work, keep it up
"I don't know what to do, but not murder!" I think the point is we don't all agree that it was a murder. A person was killed by another, sure. But to call it murder I think misses huge swaths of the important context for this moment in history.
Is there an amount of harm a person could cause by inaction that would in your opinion justify. Violence against him? Is there a system where you would see the actions at a ceo that put profits over life as criminal ? Would it be possible for the people to enact a system where in they could hold the ultra wealthy accountable ? Does that system exist now? I think you are smart enough to therefore understand why the actions take by Luigi might be by some considered not only just but justified. In a system that uses oppression to enact its will you leave very little room for anything but violence to see justice.
@ I would not be able to explain why as succinctly as Matt did. You may want to watch the entire video again. I don't know that there is a single answer to this problem. I believe several changes need to be made in several places throughout our system.
"It was wrong to kill a guy who was wholesale slaughtering thousands of his customers by withholding healthcare they needed to save their lives and which they had already paid for, basically making him a serial killer who was targeting the weak poor and infirm," says a guy who is obviously healthy, wasn't born with any "pre-existing conditions" and can obviously easily afford health insurance. Consider your own biases here, Matt. I am a huge fan but I think we're going to be in disagreement on this one.
Matt get with the program, this status quo upholding whiny concern trolling behavior is so tiring. Revolutions are an act of self defense. Poor people are killed (look up "social murder") every day. Legally. By those in power. Just as war is sometimes justified to stop genocide, such as world war 2, sometimes revolution is justified to stop mass social murder.
I don't think it has clicked in Matt's head yet that the old world of Neo-liberalism is dying as Fascism is on the rise once again. Leading up to this video I thought that he was more left-leaning than a liberal, but I guess I was incorrect, he doesn't think the quiet violence of the wealthy enforces though the state is at all comparable to physical violence, or really "violence" at all outside of being "wrong".
I’m surprised to say this, but you’re using a lot of bad reasoning during this video. You make a lot of assumptions about Luigi and his motives and create a very overly simplistic narrative about the role insurance company’s play in our healthcare system. You place a large amount of blame on the insurance company. Yet there’s plenty of blame to go around, from the pharmaceutical companies who overcharge charge for their products and hospitals who often overcharge and much more. You cannot solely place our healthcare problems on the insurance company it is just overly simplistic and ignorant. Just because a claim is denied does not mean you cannot appeal that or you can pay out-of-pocket. Which does suck but saying they’re out here just solely exploiting people for money is just ignorant when they have to run a functioning business. You make the assertion that he did this for his mother poor health. I have not found anything to substantiate this and they are wealthy which means they would just have to pay out-of-pocket. Which sucks, but it’s doesn’t seem reasonable and is unlikely the reason that drove Luigi to murder this CEO. You say Luigi is otherwise “reasonable”yet he cut ties with his family and friends while showing every sign of deterring mental health. He also at one point wanted to use a bomb but didn’t want to get any “innocent” people hurt. We don’t know a lot of the information about his motives and we will know a lot more when the trial happens. Most of these assumptions that people are making now, are most likely going to be wrong when we learn more at the trial. The reason this murder should be condemned is first murder is wrong and secondly it serves no actual utility in reforming healthcare and further justifies vigilantes(which I’m not implying you’re doing), and third if the CEO was replaced not a damn thing would’ve changed in rejecting claims. Singling out a random employee even the head of an insurance company when the whole system is fucked is just stupid. I’m not here defending insurance companies for the shitty things they do. They do do shity things and it should change. But there are many other parts of the healthcare system that you’re leaving out that go into this equation. You also leave out the fact that many people don’t take care of themselves which puts them at higher risk for going to the hospital and receiving care which is one of the biggest factors in the amount of cost in our healthcare system. I’m just saying it’s just far more complicated than this simplistic narrative people trot out.
5:55 - There may be a process, but if it is functionally unusable and takes years to reach a resolution, if at all? What good is a process that is inaccessible to the vast majority of people? Yeah, no. You lost me at Jan. 6th. These are not equivalent incidents. On the one hand, we have someone profiting from the death and suffering of other people. On the other, we have a bunch of goons buying a lie and attacking an entire country. Not the same.
As someone who experienced extreme physical pain for months on end because i didn't have insurance or money to get the surgery i required. I can say it has definitely changed my view on the entire system as we know it. Not that i think what this guy did was right but i can understand why this happened.
Well if you didn't have any insurance then what do you expect? Its not insurnace companies fault that you don't have insurance. If you drive uninsured and crash into another car do you also get upset at car insurance companies that you weren't paying for? I mean healthcare is extremely expensive so did you think you should get a bunch of unlimited free healthcare of high quality and immediately? It sounds like your experience was your fault and your fault alone. There are plenty of very affordable care plans that come from Obama's healthcare marketplace. For certain families it might even be free if your income is low enough. So it sounds like you were just completely irresponsible.
@@ajr993 It is silly to expect a person to rot at work, think about personal relationships, keep up with the current situation while taking care of all the insurance and thinking through all the possible futures. That's what human help is for. Not all people are always to blame for their misfortune.
To strip things down to its basics: Killing is only morally justified in two instances: • Getting food, shelter & supplies in order to survive. • Self defence, including other people. This act was self defence after being harmed by a corporation, and wound up aiding countless innocents. If this act results in the US seeking universal healthcare as the public roared its support? It would have saved Brian Thompsons life if it existed.
My only surprise is that it took THIS long for someone to do something like that in a country so deeply swamped in gun culture. It really shows that the crushing majority of people do not condone murder, and don't see it as a solution. What would i do when pushed to the very edge, in a society that does NOT allow for a peaceful, humanistic solution for the biggest problems? Because all this talk of "working to solve the problem" has not worked in modern US. At this juncture, driven by a willful act towards suffering of those I love justified by an algorithm, what would we all do? I do not know. Finally, vigilante justice CAN be justice. It can be the fuse to lit revolutions. It cannot just be the standard of justice. There is a big, albeit subtle, difference there.
Society needed this. The rich are out of control and need to be reminded they they are mortal. But I agree with the point against vigilante justice because it is so hard to know the truth and so easy to become misguided. But since the world is on fire, society doesn't care about morality, we are celebrating the small chance of hope we have.
Ummmm, no. You can't say "there's a procedure to address these grievances" when all those procedures have been exhausted. One side owns all the wealth and weapons while writing laws that enrich themselves. The other side has nothing. Tell me, Matt, what other "legitimate" avenue must we pursue before the ruling class listens to us?
This isn't a left vs right issue, Matt. It's the poor and empathetic vs the rich and selfish. It's just that being rich and selfish is much more common among the politicians on the right. When e.g. Shapiro spoke about this and didn't show empathy towards people frustrated with the healthcare system, plenty of his viewers turned on him. The average voter on the right is struggling, and they've been convinced by misinformation, appeals to emotion and social pressure, that being republican is most likely to help them, even when it does the exact opposite.
Matt: I enjoy your work but I feel like you've got nothing here. Seems like you should think about this issue more and then come back with a better take. You're just regurgitating a bunch of common knowledge. I feel like you can do better than this man I'm asking you to think about this some more and then come back with some more on the subject Thank you for contributing. You're doing a lot more than most people and you deserve respect for that. Also thanks for the thought-provoking videos. Forgive me for being critical; it's hard not to be with someone whose opinion I value when they strike out like this. I hope you don't take this negatively or as mean-spirited: everybody has an off day and I wouldn't be writing this if I wasn't used to a higher standard coming from you
Implementing universal healthcare. You've had senators who introduced and cosponsored the bill. You either didn't vote for them, or didn't organize or educate other voters to do so. You could have organized strikes, boycotts, protests against officials who didn't support it, but you didn't do that. The left has absolutely failed in this country. People in this country have no idea how to do anything anymore. Read a fucking history book. How did the Civil Rights Act get passed? How did the New Deal get passed? How did immigration reform get passed? Nonviolent revolutions work, violent revolutions just lead to more violence. You failed to learn from history and now you will keep repeating it.
"In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. To pursue... natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment." -Frank Castle
This is the type of discourse that I always wish politics was like. Someone disagreeing with a popular opinion in a way that isn't stirring the pot or incendiary. Rather it's just simply making an appeal to reason and values. I wish we could all be a little more like this.
I'm not "liking" this video because I agree with everything Matt said. I'm "liking" it so the discussion surrounding LM and the health insurance industry doesn't stop or even slow down.
This is one of those venn diagrams. There is a circle that says I am opposed to vigilantism and that the murder should not have been committed. There is another circle that celebrates that the murder started a conversation and brought attention to something that needed attention.
So killing is only lawful if you do it by complex administrative means?
It feels like you're not grappling with the actual issue. It seems more like presuppositional apologetics in a way. By framing it as "Murder is wrong" you are presupposing the unjust aspect of it. The hidden premise of people celebrating it was that, ethically speaking, it's justifiable homicide. Not murder. Obviously it's not that legally speaking. But I don't think the folks celebrating it are making a legal claim. I'm also very skeptical of a claim like "vigilante justice is never justice". There's a pretty heavy burden on the never part of that sentence. For instance, John Brown comes to mind.
Vigilante justice is justice when no one else does anything
Revenge is justice denied by the system.
Ya, Murder is wrong, vigilante is also wrong... Only when you take a direct action approach, but when you are denying ppl their urgently needed healthcare that they have paid for it, and as a result they died... You are a successful CEO... How is that ever morally justified?
If you live in a society that is designed to allow for that and the majority of citizens is - obviously - ok with it, then it is justified.
Justifications are subjective. The CEOs and everyone who profit off of people like this do justify it to themselves but you would have to ask them how. You and I both seem to disagree with them and wouldn't treat people that way. Yay, us. Matt's point is that someone behaving reprehensibly does not justify taking reprehensible actions in revenge. Basically, two wrongs don't make a right. Mr CEO was a human, too; even if we wouldn't have liked him. If someone taking people away from their lives and families is wrong then it's wrong, and you must apply your standard evenly or be like the ones you hate.
@@finestPluginsAd populum isn't a humanist tool, it's a fallacy. The number of people in N Korea who think Un is great and does no wrong doesn't make it so.
@Wix_Mitwirth what I was trying to say is the US has long failed the ethic tests when they let private healthcare corporations took over the healthcare system, where they make their billions of profit via the suffering of the masses
@@finestPlugins If the majority elects Nazis in power who start committing genocide on a minority, and the majority even supports it, does it become justified or moral just from the fact that the majority supports it? The truth of something is not measured by the number of supporters.
What are these 'available processes' that you think would have adequately resolved Mangione's individual issue or the systemic problems with the US healthcare industry?
@@Grim_Beard lawsuits.... are you suggesting that murder is acceptable?
@SansDeity Lawsuits are clearly not adequately resolving the individual issues, and cannot resolve the systemic issues. Do you have something else to suggest?
Also, please avoid the Straw Man, you're better than that. Whether I condone or condemn Luigi Mangione's actions, 'there are no available processes' does not mean 'murder is acceptable'.
@@SansDeity have you heard of Steve Donziger or the numerous other individuals who have tried to sue these massive corporations? Are you familiar with the history of labor unions and abolitionism in this country? Not to mention the violence and brutality regularly meted out by the state and private sector that far exceeds anything that could be done by an individual. Those forms of violence are legal and deemed necessary and acceptable. Violence is a tool and its utilization isn't strictly negative. Just to be clear, I am not saying that what he did was right
I'm sure you're aware of the legal strategies these corporations tend to employ and how lawsuits against them usually go. All the while, people are forced into crippling debt, forced to ration medication, and often die or become disabled by these corporate practices. Fortunately for them, they happen to fall within the legal boundaries and have been continuously expanded due to major lobbying efforts and political donations. Our ability to resolve these issues is being eroded and I feel that should be taken into consideration when examining this complicated issue.
The world is complicated and we need systemic change. Historically and in relatively recent history, changes have been motivated by less than peaceful means.
@@SansDeity "Just sue the guys who pay millions to lobbyist each year to make sure what they are doing is considered legal"
Awesome.
@@SansDeity do you think the average person is on a level playing field when it comes to seeking justice through lawsuits? Who do you think has the upper hand in this incredibly expensive and time consuming endeavor? You cannot reason with starving wolves or tyranny.
*"If you celebrate Luigi Mangione being above the law... then you have to celebrate the people on January 6th"*
No. Celebrating Luigi Mangione and condemning January 6th does not make you a hypocrite.
Your point is that if you celebrate one person being above the law then you must celebrate others who acted above the law - but fails to account for this: the reaction is based on the content of the crime itself - rather than celebrating any and everybody who acts above the law.
The point is that man-made law is not infallible and should be resisted when it's wrong. You say "who decides?" as if to say nobody has that authority, but the idea that fraud and death for profit is wrong has already been decided by people en masse - and written into law.
However, the law here is failing to uphold that by not classifying Healthcare companies denying legitimate claims as fraud.
*"Companies have policies that you may or may not agree with... there's a system in place to deal with his grievances"*
Policies to extract money from people for decades only to deny their legitimate healthcare claims is not comparable to the "stupid company policies without good reason" you reference here. A closer comparison is open fraud, fraud that directly leads to death.
When the "system" in place (the law) both allows and assists this immorality after decades of peaceful letters and protests, it becomes void as a means of addressing the issue and is longer worth referencing as an option.
*"I'm concerned that people on the left have lost their morailty in celebrating Luigi Mangione"*
Because the CEOs actions were committed within the law, it creates a grey area where people are scolded for celebrating his death, by the same people who wouldn't complain if Ted Bundy's death was celebrated.
His actions are nowhere near Bundy's, but the principle remains that the death of someone who caused large scale death and suffering will be celebrated by even perfectly good people.
I also do not celebrate this murder (rather I just have no sympathy for the CEO) but I completely understand those who do celebrate and don't consider them immoral.
(I paraphrased your points and understand they're not word for word)
honestly what do u expect?
like do u expect people to just accept that their rights are being trampled and their livelihoods being made worse?
should we all just lie down? and when the government & the law protects these people
CEO & late stage capitalism are different to riots not accepting results to an election.
They're the ones making people desperate enough to consider this the only solution.
They proved that going high does not yield results.
in a way it's similar to Hamas being the main resistance to th occupation, they tried peaceful protesting etc and they got killed anyways.
His actions were not comparable to Bundy’s
He was (lol) responsible for far more deaths, far more suffering, and was a far greater direct threat to lives.
@@comradequestion4206I specifically said his actions were not on the level of Bundy's. The point is that when you commit evil within the bounds of law, people see it wrong to celebrate your death.
But would celebrate your death if you caused the same amount of suffering in a different way. It's a general point about how people are less comfortable to condemn a "legally" evil person.
No amount of fraud comes with a death sentence without due process of law at the hands of some guy. Even if they were indicted for fraud, insurance companies aren't going to be tied to any murders. The healthcare for profit system is the problem. Until it gets fixed or everyone in business decides money is less important than people, this is the struggle and the people will inevitably suffer for it. Each casualty of this is a tragedy and that's why it has to end; but making more tragedies doesn't help and shouldn't be lauded.
@@Wix_Mitwirth I never said fraud should carry a death sentence, or even that the CEO was a murderer.
When you unfairly contribute to people's death by frauding them for profit (even if you didn't murder them) you don't get to complain about their response to your killing.
Murder or not it still has the effect of contributing to untimely death and tearing up innocent families.
These people didn't pursue other health plans that could have saved them, because they were tricked into believing their company would actually cover them.
Does humanism support revolt? Are revolutions ever justified? Are peaceful revolutions actually successful, or does there come a time when violent revolution is the only ethical recourse by humanists? I don't imagine humanitarians promoting revolt, but I wonder if ethics can support it in certain circumstances. Is revolution just a synonym for war? I've never really had to consider it before, but your conversation has stimulated me to give it some serious thought at this point in time. It's always a pleasure to hear your thoughts.
I've been wondering the same. If the French revolution hadn't happened just the way it did would it have worked?
Not for nothing, but all the money was tangible then, so redistributing it only meant finding the room it was in. Today would be different. Not a mess I'd want to figure out. Tangent.
The real question is was it the right thing to do? I don't know.
My opinion is that humanism is all about weighing ethical pros and cons.
Violent revolution is a hell of a con. Lots of death, Lots of suffering. In order for me to consider it the ethical course the thing being overthrown would need to be even worse than the conflict, and there would need to be no other way to improve the situation more peacefully.
People often fall into the trap of missing other options because they think this must be dealt with right now. Time can be a tool.
Gradually working to steer politics over a lifetime away from bad policies and towards good ones is usually a more ethical approach than violent revolution. Though its slower it may be able to achieve the desired result without the bloodshed.
Never say never though. Humanism is a system of relative morality so one can always contrive an example where any traditionally evil act can be the lesser of two evils when it's presented as the only way to avoid some other even worse fate.
@TestTestGo You are correct.
"In order for me to consider it the ethical course the thing being overthrown would need to be even worse than the conflict, and there would need to be no other way to improve the situation more peacefully."
As some black people how bad it is.
Revolution comes exactly as you say. When the price of doing nothing is worse.
I think the issue comes down to long term vs short term. On a short term knee-jerk scale violent response seems justified. A population is victimized, there will not be sufficient progressive change within their lifetime, what do they have to lose by smashing the system? History tells us that every famous revolution had a period of misery, oppression, and death as all the other things we take for granted that allowed for functioning civilization were also removed. No more courts? Warlords become the final authority. No more constitution? Machiavelli becomes the final authority. Without any system it becomes a rat race power grab with nothing off limits and that gets ugly quickly.
At the end of the day humanistic morality is about what is healthiest for everyone in the long term. Is it healthiest in the long term for us to make exceptions about cold blooded murder for people who abuse a system to the point where they are utterly beyond regulation? In the short term yes, but in the long term it weakens the guard rails against worst case scenario conflict resolution strategies.
So the option any given generation is presented is slowly work within the system to make a better world you will not live to see, or smash it and create a horrifying reset that might make a better world you will never live to see. But at least you have the catharsis of revenge.
Humanism is an ambivalent and amorphous blob that means any number of things to different people. There are Marxist Humanists who support revolutionary political movements. That's one example of it being possible.
Luigi proved that 2 wrongs can make a right
"Vigilante justice is _never_ justice" is a big claim, Matt. I don't think you've said anything in this video to support such a strong claim. I'm not sure how you could prove the 'never' part.
The whole video boils down to: "I'm not saying this", "I'm not say that", and "there's a process" but "I'm not saying I have solutions". Criticizing is easy, everyone can do it. But if you have no solutions to offer, I don't know what the point of this video is.
Exactly!
Using this definition _a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate._ Vigilante justice _is_ justice. Just without proper authority. Though by this definition, it wasn't actually vigilante justice, because he wasn't doing law enforcement.
Which is neither here nor there with regards to what _should_ be done.
The people in charge are directly making sure there will never be a process for justice in these cases. There is only one solution to that. It sucks, but it has to be.
@@nitehawk86 that's the comment in this entire video that bugged the hell out of me the most - "there is a process". Matt said this with ZERO follow-up on what that process is, and why he thinks the process works, which is the obvious implication in that comment. So please Matt, Mr. Evidence, back up your assertion that the process that exists ACTUALLY WORKS because I think there is overwhelming evidence pointing in the opposite direction. That's the whole issue Matt - the process is fucking broken and has been for decades.
Matt, I appreciate your insights, but I feel there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the roots of revolution and why such drastic measures often become the only option for oppressed populations. Resistance and revolution don’t emerge in a vacuum-they are born out of prolonged exploitation, injustice, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.
When CEOs, founders, philanthropists, and oligarchs hoard resources, profit off the exploitation of workers, and perpetuate wars and suffering, they create the conditions for revolution. Wealth isn’t just a personal asset-it’s a form of power, and when that power is used to oppress, it becomes a moral imperative to take it back for the well-being of the people.
While you condone the killing of such figures, it’s worth reflecting on whether such resistance is inevitable when peaceful avenues for change are blocked. To condemn the revolutionaries without fully acknowledging the systemic violence and deaths caused by these oligarchs can come across as hypocritical. Where was the outrage when the exploited masses were suffering and dying under the heel of these systems?
In a true revolution, power must be decentralized and redistributed to the people. This isn’t about revenge-it’s about creating a world where exploitation and oppression are no longer possible. That’s the foundation of socialism and communism: shared power, shared resources, and true equality.
The question isn’t just whether revolution is justified-it’s whether we’re ready to build a society where such revolutions are no longer necessary.
The answer is not murder!
@@MrAtheistQueen Yes, yes it is.
Because THEY are already murdering us.
'Killing is wrong!' is the answer from privilege.
This is retribution.
This is fighting back.
@@MrAtheistQueen Thompson has stopped murdering people. Why were his tens of thousands of murders less worthy of condemnation than Luigi's (alleged) one murder?
@@MrAtheistQueenhow did we get rid of kings?
@ how is that relevant? How does that make it right?
Yes I agree, the system needs to change. Yet I noticed there’s no recommendation as to how to change it nor how long it will take. Years? Decades? All the while more and more people are becoming homeless, denied healthcare, and deprived of legal justice.
Violence is already happening, and people will push back. Best to point upwards where it will have an impact, rather than the violence be directed into a school or a grocery store.
The real humanism, in a society divided in classes, it's to stand with the oppressed
Matt had already said that he doesn’t think violence is justified “yet” which means he thinks there is a point in time which it’s justified. Luigi found his point in time, and Matt disagrees with the point in time. I dunno. I think killing is generally bad, but sometimes justified. If someone’s harming you, and there’s no system in place for justice, what else is there to do? Cry on UA-cam? Lot of good that’s done us.
He at least at one point believed violence was justified. You have to believe that to join the military. I know because that's what I felt when I joined.
Who did the ceo harm and How do you know it?
@@mariomario1462 The people whose health care was denied, and as a result died. It’s pretty 1 to 1.
@@CoreyJohnsonMusic so the ceo is in charge of all the denials? Insurance should accept all claims?? That's your take?
Once you learn the basics then come back. Stop talking about things you don't know
@@mariomario1462he’s literally the top of the hierarchy, sure there is a question where the buck stops, but at the very least it stops at the tippy top, right?
The bullies are in charge. How do we stop a bullies? What language do bullies understand?
jordan klepper.
Good question. I wish Ghandhi was around to answer that.
Since bullies don't feel empathy, they must understand the most basic thing: their own pain and suffering. We all know what language will result in pain and suffering: It is the language of violence. Ultimately in this world the strongest, the fastest, the physically most powerful will survive: We all must obey the law of the jungle.
What does the research say? Have you actually studied a third option, or is "be the bully" your only solution?
@@itsJPhere So you aren't smart enough to be more civilized than a chimp. Got it.
“Vigilante justice is never justice.” Tell that to the Haitians who slaughtered their slave masters. What a privileged unnuanced take.
"No-no-no, those slaves should have used legal means. Have they tried suing their owners? I think not!"
@ if only they used their master provided iPhone to contact the International Court. What were they thinking? 🥹
@@stiletteleray1326Idk. Given the results of the Haitian Revolution, and the results of more peaceful ends to slavery.
This is a pretty bad argument. The people living in St Lucia, St Vincent & The Grenadines, Aruba, St Kitts & Nevis and most of the Caribbean live way better lives than people in Haiti kinda makes it seem like violent revolution has worse ends than the other countries who went by "Go along to get along,"
@@AntoineVello so you’re going to full lipped say it would have been better for them to remain slaves longer so they wouldn’t be in as much poverty today…?
@@AntoineVellothe only reason Haiti turned out so bad because every other country that has a slave owners in there basically waged economic warfare and every time they get a leader that starts doing good the United States has caused a coup which outs the leader for another dictator
If what that CEO was doing was just business transactions including ones that indirectly resulted in people dying then all Luigi allegedly did was give customer feedback
@TheyCallMeGlitchDash ?
No, these are not the same, and the analogy is poor. Agreeing with this murder is the same as endorsing death penalty. Which isn't really humanism, most people would agree.
@BillHicks420 I love how you just said it's a poor analogy without actually doing the mental work to explain why 🤣. Is it humanism to just allow these people to profit off the death and suffering of tens of thousands of people? While doing absolutely nothing to stop it?
@@tannermclaughlin5001no, that's not humanism.
If you're claiming them as equivalent, then Luigi's action isn't humanist either.
@ I felt like I didn't have to, it was so obvious to me.
Why do you think this analogy holds water? You're equating "customer feedback" to murder.
"Is it humanism to just allow these people to profit off the death and suffering of tens of thousands of people?"
Should it be "humanism"? Can all human endeavors be classified into philosophical schools of thought?
Funny choice of word, "allow". Like it is up to murderers killing at will which endeavors should be "allowed", and to what degree. Recipe for chaos, moral confusion and a state of absolute lawlessness.
Okay, Matt, let's say that he should have worked within the system. What was he to do? Vote for candidates who oppose a for profit healthcare system? Good luck. Both parties are bought by the insurance industry. File criminal charges against the insurance company? They did nothing illegal. So, Luigi's only legal option was to write a strongly worded email/letter to UHC, which they would have discarded w/o reading.
This is how revolutions happen, folks.
The answer is not murder!
@@Charlotte_Martel healthcare insurance companies have a 5% profit margin approximately. It's pitifully small. So what exactly is your problem? It's not like they're taking a 100% profit cut from the poor. It's a very slim cut throat industry with a lot of regulations such that you can't simply deny claims.
Certainly shooting a CEO which does nothing isn't remotely justified and your comment is preposterous on all levels. Do you think Luigi's actions will have any meaningful change? No in fact healthcare will get slightly more expensive because now insurance companies need comprehensive security and higher salaries to justify the risk.
@@MrAtheistQueen Yes, yes it is.
Because THEY are already murdering us.
'Killing is wrong!' is the answer from privilege.
This is retribution.
This is fighting back.
Matt is giving Humanism's side, and he's right. You don't get to judge who gets to die because you want "revolutions to happen". If you allow that behavior for everyone, you end up in a state of chaos for all.
@@MrAtheistQueenThen the answer is to shut up and know your place, pleb. If Matt were honest about that, I would be fine with his choice. It is not my choice, and I refuse to pretend that there is a democratic solution when there clearly isn't in our oligarchy.
At least peasants under feudalism had heaven to look forward to while they endured being lower than dirt. What do we have?
When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. Thomas Jefferson.
Perhaps, he was following instructions from Mr. Jefferson. Are you saying Jefferson is wrong?
Are you suggesting there is a tyrannical health insurance company somewhere?
@@alexpersonius3646 I have a hard time thinking of one that *isn't*
@@alexpersonius3646Yes. All of them.
Think of a third opinion. When something is bad, you are saying the ONLY solution is to become that bad thing. Are you not smart enough to think of something that is NOT like what you say is bad?
@@alexpersonius3646 Literally yes. The American health insurance system, as it exists, is absolutely tyrannical. They exercise their power over their customers in a cruel and oppressive manner, denying necessary medical care which results in literal deaths, and/or financially ruins the lives of countless people.
What "available processes"?
“But there’s a process to address that claim…”
Matt, there isn’t a process to address that claim. The system of addressing grievances has been designed to prevent resolution. There is no peaceful, legal method to resolve it. The lobbying power of the industry is too strong to be influenced, and regardless of the fact the vast majority of the US population is against the healthcare system, change is not being made.
I guess you need to ask yourself, if suffering is being caused, and there is no peaceful means to prevent its continuation, what is the humanist response? To do nothing and allow human suffering to continue?
Matt there was NO worker, it was AI. That’s the point. I couldn’t disagree with you more on this
You used a mocking tone of voice right now when you said "He literally killed a serial killer, free Luigi"... But he did literally kill a serial killer. One who was operating in the open, and who had probably killed more people than I've even met. Was he could to get arrested sometime soon, after killing a few thousand more? It doesn't look like it. I would much prefer he had been stopped peacefully, but that wasn't going to happen. At least now he's been stopped, he won't kill anyone else. That IS worth celebrating, specifically as a humanist. There was nothing humanist about letting Thompson continue to murder the innocent for profit.
You just said that there's no evidence that anything unjust happened but the murder, but that isn't true. Thompson specifically set the policies that lead to United going from a normal evil health care company to one that denied far more than it's competitors. He was a mass murder that put Bin Laden to shame. I didn't cry for Bin Laden either.
Link the evidence that Thompson specifically set the policies. Also if he was the one just upholding the policies that were already made, that’s his job and he is tasked to hold that out, you can’t kill someone for doing their job 😭 I’ll be waiting for the link, NO MORE TEXTING, just evidence.
too much batman ... too much batman
Your moral compass is broken. What you stated is not in line with secular humanism.
@@northernlight8857 Yeah. not in line with secular humanism. Using the burden of proof video from Matt prove that his moral compass is broken! Good luck!
@@imquitz2730There were a couple of 1940s Germans who were also doing their job. They also did not set the policies of their leaders - but they carried them out.
I'm not directly comparing the two. Just pointing out that "doing your job" is no excuse, and it doesn't matter if you didn't set a policy - you become responsible when you help enforce it.
I'm old. I've worked hard. Raised a family. And am tired of waiting for better times. At this point, I advocate for a million Luigi's. Sorry if that hurts your humanity but the boots on all of our heads often obscures reality for some people. The boots don't come off our heads and necks when we just ask nicely.
@@JoeA1974 keep lying to yourself...
@SansDeity I respect your ability to debate but I do disagree with you rarely. This is one of those times.
@@SansDeity ok tool where's the lie?
@@SansDeity stop projecting
Lost all respect for you with this comment@@SansDeity
06:50 I thought we established a while back that 'just following orders' was not an acceptable defence?
Defense against what? Death penalty?
@BillHicks420 Defence as in the reason given for doing a bad thing.
@@Grim_Beard that doesn't change due process
@@SansDeity Not sure what you mean by that. What is the 'due process' for holding employees accountable for legal but massively harmful actions? (For context, the time stamp points at where you referred to the people actually refusing the claims as just doing their jobs.)
@@SansDeity "That doesn't change due process" Tell that to the slaves that rebelled against their masters. Tell that to the french proletariat when they rebelled against the monarchy. Tell that to our founding fathers when they did the same. Tell that to the Palestinians. And tell that to the younger version of yourself that joined the military.
It's ok to disobey a law if it's unjust. There are laws that allow CEOs to and institutions to commit murder on a mass scale. To disobey those unjust laws, we disallow what they allow. When the state disallows something it uses violence to enforce that decision. The state is not the only entity that can use violence. Isn't that like, one of the amendments?
If this video is what humanism leads to, no thanks.
The answer is not murder!
@@MrAtheistQueen Tell that to the Palestinians! Tell that to the slaves who've participated in revolts all around the world and thru history! Tell that to the people who fought in the american revolution! Tell that to the many slaves that fought for the union in the Civil war!
@@MrAtheistQueen Then what is? We have tried protest. We have tried voting. We have tried civic participation. Every avenue we perform that follows social agreements is dismissed and rendered ineffective. How do you deal with someone who is killing your family members and is not amenable to reason?
it is necessary to disobey unjust laws. it is your duty. they claim a monopoly on violence, it's just another one of many claims
@@billgraham861 what laws are you even talking about? If the CEO of the health insurance company is doing something that results in thousands of deaths, they're doing something illegal. They should be tried according to the law. That doesn't mean we become vigilantes and take the law into our own hands by killing people! Two wrongs don't make a right!
At what point does a rebellion or revolution become moral? I believe that people have the right to rebel against an unjust government, but I'm not sure where that point is. Is the US at a place where revolution is the right thing to do? And what means should we use?
I am a little disappointed that you seem to believe that "let them eat cake" should be taken as good policy
The answer is not murder!
@@MrAtheistQueen You're just posting the same copy-paste response under a bunch comments. Don't you think you'd make a better point by actually addressing what the commenters say? Instead, you're just repeating the same vaguery.
You think murder is not an answer. Answer to what? And why isn't it?
@@ghurcbghurcb you're right, I did post the same response under multiple comments. That's because it applies to each of those comments, which were attempting to justify murder. I wasn't suggesting I have all the answers to everyone's problems; I was suggesting all of those comments contain the same flaw. Matt goes into great detail about why. I suggest you watch the video again.
@@MrAtheistQueenThat is historically wrong. Violence is the unfortunate answer to so many of the biggest things in history.
@@MrAtheistQueenwhat murder?
This is where secular humanism has gotten us. We are dealing with a very dark administration, and we haven't evolved much from where we were 500 years ago. If we have to fight we should fight. Be a pacifist of you want, but they sure aren't on the other side.
Exactlyyyyyy. The anti-trans community aren't exactly known for being pacifists or secular humanists.
MATT SAID BETTER ANGELS SO THAT PROVES HE BELIEVES IN ANGELS!
We've achieved a ton in the last 500 years. Did you forget the time when women couldn't vote and people of other races were treated as property? That was less than 500 years ago.
We've been sliding backwards mostly for some part of the last decade, sure. That's a big problem, but it's certainly nowhere near a 500-year lack of progress.
But I'm not making any claim about how we should or shouldn't handle this.
@blueredingreen Remember when we fought a whole ass civil war to get rid of slavery? War doesn't seem very humanist to me. Remember the Nazis? Or what about the American revolution? Or the French? Or the Russian?
@@blueredingreen i meant our biology. I don't want to throw humanism out the window or anything. But I don't think it's a good idea to fight real threats this pacified.
Matt has an incredibly philosophical and logical brain. His huge flaw nowadays is that he's really cranky, but I still love listening to him in debates with theists. That said, I thought he made excellent points in this video. I like how he said our ethics of today comes out of older ethics, which came out of ethics before that, and so on down the line. In other words, our ethics have evolved to where they are today.
But there appears, to me, to be a flaw in his logic on the topic in this video, which is that those ethics work only in a democracy. America no longer is a democracy; that's no longer our form of government.
We are now the following:
AUTHORITARIAN OLIGARCHY KAKISTROCRACY KLEPTOCRACY
-- Oligarchy. (political campaigns financed by a handful of plutocrats, lobbyists writing legislation, candidates running around like string puppets operated by a cadre of the ultra wealthy.)
-- Kakistocracy. Kakistocracy, an autocratic government by the least qualified people. We've got leaders who struggle to read a briefing book. Trump's Presidential daily briefings when he was President the first time around was reduced to one-page with two- or three-bullet points and a picture.
-- Kleptocracy government. By those who seek status and personal gain, often at the expense of the governed. What Trump is seeking and what the people he's appointing plan to do is what's best for them, not what's best for the rest of us common folk.
So to Matt, I would have to ask him how the ethics he applies to his life fit in with this new version of America?
@Jim_L were not there yet.... but your hyperbole is noted and you can apologize after the next election... or i will.
@@SansDeity Deal. 😄
America is a capitalist country. In a capitalist society, companies are amoral. Their only goal is to satisfy profits or shareholders. To keep them in line, we have industry regulation.
UnitedHealthcare is not just going to give people money when they don't have to. If they did, they would not be profitable. It's not their job to do that, it is the job of regulations to ensure people have adequate coverage.
People angry at the CEOs are focusing their rage in the completely wrong direction. They should be focusing it on politicians and industry regulators.
Every company is the same. Many engineering companies know that their infrastructure will result in people dying. But regulations are in place to ensure that deaths are within a tolerable range. If your mother died in a car accident, would you kill the CEO of the company that constructed the road because they "put profits first" by not constructing an optional median barrier when one was not required according to the road safety regulations?
The problem is Capitalism.
@@Duchess_Van_Hoof I think Capitalism can work fine. As long as you realize that regulation is required to keep everything in check. I'm not American, but I'm from a Capitalist country. Many countries have no problems like this.
I am quite convinced that there is no real way to address the issue the way it is now. Money will always be first for these people.
The answer is not murder!
@@MrAtheistQueen for him it was… and for him it was not about the life of the CEO, but about trying to end the policies set by him. And no, a CEO is not just doing his job… he is setting every rule and policy for the company.
@@MrAtheistQueen Then what is? Doing nothing while we continue to die? None of you would be saying "murder isn't the answer" if you were in a mall with an active mass shooter but, when it comes to FAR greater threats than any mass shooter, as long as they kill us indirectly, your type is all "give peace a chance uwu."
@@MrAtheistQueenYou’re right the answer is isn’t murder. But when your gov’t doesn’t listen to peaceful protest, they don’t care about the people suffering, they know people are dying so they can maintain their wealth. How do you fight back when voting doesn’t work becuase our politician are doing the bidding of major corporations?
How do you combat that without violence? Again I agree that violence is wrong, but when the peaceful way isn’t working, and gets purposefully ignored, what are you supposed to do next?
@@CuriousAldo and the spoiled little rich kid had never been hurt by that ceo.
I love mat, yet i absolutely love the backlash under this video. I think that in some sence Mat should be proud that he accumulated such amount of thought-independent individuals, who don’t blindly follow the person, and can provide good argumentative discussions in the comment section!
The problem that Matt and many other people have on this issue is that they cannot see that evil often hides behind abstractions. Yes, the CEO never personally killed another human being in his life; the killings were abstracted behind a set of policies and laws. Hitler probably never murdered anyone in cold blood, but he created the policies and laws that allowed for the slaughter of millions. If humanism say that it would be immoral to murder Hitler if given the chance then I don't know if I would want to call myself a humanist. That just sounds like cowardice disguised as morality.
Our "better angels" got us Trump
There is another philosophy that applies here other than humanism, it is called "The living sword, the dying sword". The killing sword, is also the living sword, the sword that takes a life, as a result, also saves a life. Consider this philosophical gift from old Japan.
Old Japan. Yes, that horribly violent place where they ritualized both self, and other murder.
matt and his buddy aron ra doesn't care about that because it doesn't come out of the west and therefore 'correct' worldview
Those that say violence doesn't solve problems, has clearly never studied human history. It is pretty much how EVERY major problem has EVER gotten solved.
@@geelee1977 those that say it come from a very privileged place. If you don’t have a seat at the table there is no talking to be done bc no one is listening. Matt just completely ignore this truth.
Except 2 seconds of thought defeats that
What is solved now? Revenge?
It's how we became a country for fuck's sake.
So:
• Unilaterally killing CEOs is forbidden
• Normal channels don't work or don't exist
• Individual action is ruled out, but collective action is approved
You've just made the case for a mass uprising to overthrow, not just a specific corporation or government, but an economic system that crushes people to make profit.
Yes, we do have a word for that. But you stop short of naming the conclusion to your own thought process. Which means either Matt Dillahunty doesn't want to finish his own line of reasoning, or we've discovered the limits of secular humanism.
@StefanTravis gosh, I'm against murder. I like due process... I just be the bad guy.
@@SansDeityunironically yea
@@StefanTravis great comment and Matt’s response to it is lazy and fallacious
@@comradequestion4206 No, he is not. No one should be lectured by arm chair communists that absolutely detest the idea of doing any organizing or hard work electorally and just casually advocate for murder as the ultimate solution. I've not seen A SINGLE ONE of you take the streets or even offer a single comment of support when Joe Biden tried to massively expand medicare under the infrastuctre bill that Republicans shut down, and yet, you all are massively upvoting comments equating both parties on health care issue. You all do absolutely nothing to help while pretending that no one else does or ever did concrete actions to improve healthcare.The truth is that you just want an apparent easy solution that will magically improve healthcare without doing any kind of hard work or even mildly supporting people that actually do that.
secular humanism was created to make slave owners feel good about themselves so its not surprising it has nothing interesting to really say in the year 2025
How many lives have ended because of that CEO's policies? What law was broken with those policies that he can be held accountable for those deaths?
Theologians would argue that going back in time to kill Hitler is still murder.
We are such privileged people to even have this conversation. Perhaps if you personally where more threatened, your empathy might override your built in entitlement. I.e. white,male, educated, probably from a middle class background exc.
Would Matt sanction the revolutionary war that created America or would he “sympathize but not celebrate”?
Point of agreement with the Luigi supporter: If someone is going to throw their life away on murder, at least they’re not doing it at a grade school.
I'm sure that the system will fix itself, and the 1% will see that it's better to share the wealth with the little people. There is no process; they own most of the courts. The fact that it is bad and getting worse doesn't mean there is no process to fix it; it is just that they own the process, and they don't want to share. There will be more of this, because there is no alternative
The answer is not murder!
@@MrAtheistQueen It's *an* answer
@ The French revolution did the job. It is a horrible method, with a lot of death, but would the French have been better off waiting for a Louis to decide to share (hint; he never would)
Matt, I sent you an email a month ago asking for a channel shoutout to help because my wife was dying from cancer. It addressed SO MUCH of this exact topic and I have a lot more.
Since then she has died. Now we are facing eviction because her disability never came. They just waited her out until she died before they had to pay anything.
We had to miss 3 months income caring for her 24/7 because medicaid doesn't cover full time care. So I had to watch her slowly fall apart. And now we dont know what is gonna happen.
I never received a response to my email.
As a personality like Matt gets bigger, each individual listener gets smaller. Sorry for your loss and the injustice.
Sorry for your loss and the inhumane USA's medical system. The UK has the NHS and it has lots of issues especially poor funding for decades but I would never want it to become like the USA.
Sorry for your loss.
The system wont stop them, and they wont stop themselves. Give an option. Our friends and family are dying. You don't have a solution? Well action is needed so either come up with something that works or stop trying to pacify us while we all go bankrupt failing to keep our parents alive.
Thats why unions and workers councils are mandatory by Dutch law to improve businesses and policies. Similar in other Eiropean countries, Take notes Murica.
They can take a TON of notes from the Netherlands and other European countries. Healthcare, minimum wage, welfare, proper public transportation, government housing... (I could go on).
@HommusCyay. More statism. More centralized hierachal control!!! 2-m8q
@ this is projection. Americans are the most controlled citizens, they can't even go outside and move around without a government approved (insured and registered) vehicle, because they don't have any bike paths or good trains.
All of the policies I mentioned are standard in every developed country except the US.. it's the only country to not have these basic systems.
@@chrischandler889 this is projection. Americans are the most controlled citizens, they can't even go outside and move around without a government approved (insured and registered) vehicle, because they don't have any bike paths or good trains.
All of the policies I mentioned are standard in every developed country except the US.. it's the only country to not have these basic systems.
@@chrischandler889 Americans are the most controlled citizens. You can't even go outside and move anywhere without your government approved (insured and registered) vehicle, because you don't have any bike paths or decent trains.
All the systems I mentioned are standard in any other developed country, its frankly an oddity that the US doesn't have government services at a decent level. Unfortunately for you Americans, your government is a dystopian corrupt oligarchy that is entirely controlled by billionaires and big money, all because of lobbying. That's the explanation for why you don't have good infrastructure or govt services.
Thankyou for approaching this topic. Just starting now, but it's a very timely and important conversation.
Vigilante justice, and justice, often overlap. The 2 sets are not always disjoint.
I think you finally made a video the majority of your audience has to say we disagree with. There's no due process for this. You said you have no solution. The whole US government couldnt take down one man in 4 years for causing a insurrection. The system is broken. Who can fix it? Certainly not the voters or people hoping a company accepts their healthcare claim.
@zachgamr99 the fact that you talk about due process while sanctioning a murder without due process as a viable solution... you guys just rebut yourselves. I'm against murder. Sorry you're not.
Matt you equating Jan sixers with Luigi is just factually inaccurate. Jan six was about seizing power in an unjust mob. Luigi’s actions were about giving a voice to the abused. One was a violent mob bent on more suffering. The other was violence driven by a desire for less suffering. You can disagree but saying they are the same is just stupidly wrong. Sorry but I can’t support this take even though it’s well presented.
I wonder if humanism might be impotent in the face of the evil we're all going to be/ currently are having inflicted on us. I find humanist ideals to be virtuous but I can't help but think maybe humanism isn't going to save us from the hole we're in and it might just be an ideal for the "good times".
Unfortunately, as someone who is a communicator and always looking for common ground, I'm worried our society is passed having reasonable discussions. Just "opposing" unjust laws has failed us. We are in a fight for life. We're sadly past the point of discourse.
Really toxic and unethical rhetoric. We are not in a fight for our lives whatsoever. An annual study from JD power associates showed that health care plans scored an average of 719/1000 points which is pretty good overall. Most people are happy with their health insurance. I know I am. its saved my butt several times personally. You just don't hear everyone who had a great experience with their health insurance, you only hear about the complaints.
Saying that we're past the point of discourse is preposterous--discourse and debate is the foundation of democracy. Just because republicans won in politics this round doesn't mean we're past the point of discourse nor does the current state of insurance companies suggest we're past the point of discourse.
@@ajr993 You have set your standards too low out of habituation: for most of the world, the idea of having to pay the amounts Americans pay for the health care they receive is unacceptable. Also, America has never evolved to the point of being a proper democracy, and alt-right movements have already undermined it completely.
I think most people can still find common ground nowadays. It's not that bad yet lol at least not in most of the West. It's just that social media just makes everything seem toxic sometimes because like-minded people can share their opinions everywhere.
@@ajr993Just a reminder that Trump pardoned J6 insurrectionists, including the ones that hurt and killed police officers
@@ajr993"Most people are happy" is not good enough when people are spending decades paying for insurance only to be denied legitimate health claims when they need it - and this is directly leading to death.
Quoting percentages and high numbers also means nothing; a company could save 5 billion customer lives, but if even 200 people are wrongly denied the coverage they paid for and die, that company is automatically corrupt.
You make it sound like a drop in the ocean compared to so many happy customers, but the truth is that the problem is deliberate, systematic, continuous and causing mass suffering. It's not marginal at all.
You don't negotiate with fascists and oligarchs.
I mostly agree with you, but am surprised at a big misconstrued point here: the bean counter deciding who lives or dies is not "just a worker," not even a real person, but an algorithm. I'm pretty sure the CEO had a hand in the algorithm policy that led to the denial @ 6:30.
Even from a humanist perspective, I don't think there's an easy answer. If the murder results in changed policies, either by insurance companies or by regulators (which I don't see happening soon), resulting in more people surviving, then I think from a humanist perspective the murder was justified. Sadly, with Tangerine Palpatine back in office, and billionaires pulling the strings, acts like this are quickly becoming our only recourse, but that could also make things much worse.
Again, there's no easy answer.
Bad take here, Matt.
What about what he said was a bad take?
@@min_tea_ then leave
@@SansDeityso you put out the video, leave the comments open. And aren’t interested in peoples opinions?
@@SansDeityaight man this was a childish response. All he did was voice his opinion on your take. Why would you want people to leave for that?
@@thedopaminestop2355maybe because saying "bad take" doesn't do anything useful to further the conversation... No explanation no further context. Just "you're wrong" it doesn't warrant response.
This is exactly the same argument I hear from racists and anti-trans and homophobes, elitist bigots in general; "it's not acceptable to work outside the system that's harming you. You could harm the billionaires that are harming you and THAT is immortal ".
He is not saying that at all. Stop being so limited in your thinking. So are you telling me that you can't come up with a better solution than a Chimp?
Great job and a very important discussion. As a secular humanist myself, I struggle with the same things. On one hand when a bully pushes you and continues pushing you there does come a time where you have to push back hard. But when to do that is becoming blurred.
I do not condone violence, but there are some people whose deaths I will not mourn. When you have a healthcare system that treats health and well-being like a commodity, like something to be bought and sold and slapped on a lunchbox....there is eventually going to be a problem.
At some point, a situation becomes critical mass. At some point, talking does nothing. Policy does nothing. When you've reached the end of the line, there really isn't any other choice. Tyrannies are overthrown when good people have finally had enough. I wish it wasn't violence, but at this point we're beyond the point of talking and policy isn't doing enough.
You may place the blame, (for Luigi’s anger) on the guy who implemented the AI algorithm that denied her and thousands of other’s insurance claims.
Can someone tell me what this has to do with his mother? I've read his manifesto, watched many videos and read many articles about this, and not one mentions his mother. He was having severe back pain, and denied coverage is all I've heard. He had also been estranged from his extremely wealthy family for over a year and acting "strangely".
I really thought you knew about the algorithm that United Health created under that CEO that apparently has an error rate of 90%.
And the fact that UHC's denial rate was 2x the industry's average. This CEO didn't earn over 20 million/yr because he looked cute in his sweater vest.
@@Charlotte_Martel Blood money. We bump off people in international conflicts everyday over less and nobody bats a fucking eye about it. But because it's a white guy in a sweater vest everybody is hand wringing.
You said yourself that the status quo civility politics haven't worked. The democrats have prided themselves on upholding procedure and decorum, and it hasn't worked. Why are you prioritizing moral virtue over material results now, but you didn't when it came to protesting what was going on in Gaza by refusing to give support to either of the two major political parties here in the US during the last presidential election?
That's why England has the National Health Service
No, that's not why. The reason every civil country (and I intend every, as USA hasn't been a civil country for decades) has a national health service, is because of dignity of every person.
For all its faults (and it does have some) the UK system of national healthcare largely deals with this problem.
We still have people that decide if a particular treatment or drug can be provided on economic terms. (The service doesn't have infinite resources afterall, those tough choices have to be made.) But those people don't stand to gain anything by limiting provision more than absolutely necessary. They don't get a share of the profit because there is no profit to divide. They make the decisions based on cost vs benefit of the proposed medical treatment.
Also, once a treatment has been approved, its available to anyone in a condition that warrants its use. Noone needs to check how much money you have been contributing into the pot. If you need it, you get it. Everyone has to contribute through taxes proportional to their ability to pay. (And yes, that does mean some people contribute nothing because they have little to give. These people still recieve treatment though because, and I can't stress this enough, THEY ARE PEOPLE)
Due to its huge size, complexity, long history and inconsistent prioritisation in government policy it does have issues that need to be worked on, but its important to remember that the foundations are really well thought out to encourage ethical decision making. It could serve as an inspiration to a country like the US if they one day decide to build their own organisation to provide universal healthcare.
NHS is shit if you need real medical assistance more complicated than a flu/vaccine shot.
Most developed democratic countries have a healthcare system, gun regulation, STEM education, women liberation - because they elected governments that implemented these. US Americans never vote for these because they don't want these things.
@TestTestGo From an economic point of view, even if they cannot contribute financially to society, the British system works that they still support to society by working in low paid jobs that still needs to be done. As you point out "proportional to their ability to pay", this is the most significant point of the British way. Now there are people taking advantage, but I think our system of raising the standard of life of the lowest in society brings us all up. And I hate the fact that the USA capitalisation of our society is slowly taking over. Those on the right need to think carefully about how much more wealth they really need, because there is always the threat that the peasants might end up revolting if pushed too far. Or society collapsing, and those with most to lose will be at the top and likely to be the first to fall. All the money in the world isn't going to help you in a society that devolves into bartering for goods
Matt Dillahunty: The system needs to be fixed.
No, the system isn't broken. It doesnt need "fixing". It's working AS INTENDED.
We need a NEW system.☭☭☭
The new system would still be called a healthcare system ❤
@hansj5846 Thank you, Captain Obvious!
@denizen7even 😂❤️👍🤞
I hope the comments aren't too harsh toward Matt. We need people like him after, but right now this is basically like trying to speak ethical consistency to black people during a slave revolt. Corporations are the government sanctioned massas of our times.
I'm not convinced justice has any relevance here - when parties can't agree on what's "just" in the first place (as is likely the case with the powerful vs powerless), and if the environment is crafted such that the currently powerful hold all the cards, then the only recourse to this is some sort of shift in power. The question is, what happens when peaceful methods are ineffectual - It seems to be the case that the powerful are perfectly willing to ignore protests when they pose no actual threat. It also seems to be the case that not nearly enough people are willing to (potentially) sacrifice their own position to push for change, thus remaining a willing (albeit reluctantly) prisoner of the situation.
I'm not advocating for any sort of violence, but It's not difficult to understand why some are willing to resort to it.
The problem here is that we have unjust laws, allowing for the indirect killing of thousands. But changing the system to get rid of those laws is also impossible. The companies responsible for the killings are also the ones who help set the policies. What do you do when there is no meaningful recourse, or the amount of money required to use the "lawful" methods is beyond your means?
Our system prioritizes money and property over people. It is little wonder that people without money or property take the law into their own hands. It is the only choice they can make.
Hey Matt, I agree with pretty much all you said except you may have committed a fallacy in there, I'm not sure what the name of it would be but you said something along the lines of "if you're right, it should be easy to convince others", you yourself know that's not true, you've done these call in shows about God for years and it shows it isn't easy to convince people you're right, you're right and very few callers admit that, it's not an easy thing, anyways love your work, keep it up
"I don't know what to do, but not murder!" I think the point is we don't all agree that it was a murder. A person was killed by another, sure. But to call it murder I think misses huge swaths of the important context for this moment in history.
Is there an amount of harm a person could cause by inaction that would in your opinion justify. Violence against him? Is there a system where you would see the actions at a ceo that put profits over life as criminal ? Would it be possible for the people to enact a system where in they could hold the ultra wealthy accountable ? Does that system exist now? I think you are smart enough to therefore understand why the actions take by Luigi might be by some considered not only just but justified. In a system that uses oppression to enact its will you leave very little room for anything but violence to see justice.
The answer is not murder!
@@MrAtheistQueen why is it not the answer? And would you happen to know what the answer is?
@ I would not be able to explain why as succinctly as Matt did. You may want to watch the entire video again. I don't know that there is a single answer to this problem. I believe several changes need to be made in several places throughout our system.
@@MrAtheistQueen and if the system cannot be changed? What do you suggest we do, then?
@@bowdennthani732 Breathe. We are not there yet. The system CAN be changed.
It was self-defense. Luigi for President!
I'm sad i have to throw a dislike your way, but here it is, and it's deserved.
"It was wrong to kill a guy who was wholesale slaughtering thousands of his customers by withholding healthcare they needed to save their lives and which they had already paid for, basically making him a serial killer who was targeting the weak poor and infirm," says a guy who is obviously healthy, wasn't born with any "pre-existing conditions" and can obviously easily afford health insurance. Consider your own biases here, Matt. I am a huge fan but I think we're going to be in disagreement on this one.
Matt get with the program, this status quo upholding whiny concern trolling behavior is so tiring.
Revolutions are an act of self defense. Poor people are killed (look up "social murder") every day. Legally. By those in power. Just as war is sometimes justified to stop genocide, such as world war 2, sometimes revolution is justified to stop mass social murder.
I don't think it has clicked in Matt's head yet that the old world of Neo-liberalism is dying as Fascism is on the rise once again. Leading up to this video I thought that he was more left-leaning than a liberal, but I guess I was incorrect, he doesn't think the quiet violence of the wealthy enforces though the state is at all comparable to physical violence, or really "violence" at all outside of being "wrong".
"'When they go low, we go high' didn't work."
What a revealing statement. As if "going high" is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
I think this a pretty good take, but the comments are fascinating.
I’m surprised to say this, but you’re using a lot of bad reasoning during this video. You make a lot of assumptions about Luigi and his motives and create a very overly simplistic narrative about the role insurance company’s play in our healthcare system. You place a large amount of blame on the insurance company. Yet there’s plenty of blame to go around, from the pharmaceutical companies who overcharge charge for their products and hospitals who often overcharge and much more. You cannot solely place our healthcare problems on the insurance company it is just overly simplistic and ignorant. Just because a claim is denied does not mean you cannot appeal that or you can pay out-of-pocket. Which does suck but saying they’re out here just solely exploiting people for money is just ignorant when they have to run a functioning business. You make the assertion that he did this for his mother poor health. I have not found anything to substantiate this and they are wealthy which means they would just have to pay out-of-pocket. Which sucks, but it’s doesn’t seem reasonable and is unlikely the reason that drove Luigi to murder this CEO. You say Luigi is otherwise “reasonable”yet he cut ties with his family and friends while showing every sign of deterring mental health. He also at one point wanted to use a bomb but didn’t want to get any “innocent” people hurt. We don’t know a lot of the information about his motives and we will know a lot more when the trial happens. Most of these assumptions that people are making now, are most likely going to be wrong when we learn more at the trial. The reason this murder should be condemned is first murder is wrong and secondly it serves no actual utility in reforming healthcare and further justifies vigilantes(which I’m not implying you’re doing), and third if the CEO was replaced not a damn thing would’ve changed in rejecting claims. Singling out a random employee even the head of an insurance company when the whole system is fucked is just stupid. I’m not here defending insurance companies for the shitty things they do. They do do shity things and it should change. But there are many other parts of the healthcare system that you’re leaving out that go into this equation. You also leave out the fact that many people don’t take care of themselves which puts them at higher risk for going to the hospital and receiving care which is one of the biggest factors in the amount of cost in our healthcare system. I’m just saying it’s just far more complicated than this simplistic narrative people trot out.
5:55 - There may be a process, but if it is functionally unusable and takes years to reach a resolution, if at all? What good is a process that is inaccessible to the vast majority of people?
Yeah, no. You lost me at Jan. 6th. These are not equivalent incidents. On the one hand, we have someone profiting from the death and suffering of other people. On the other, we have a bunch of goons buying a lie and attacking an entire country. Not the same.
This really needed to be said out loud! The death penalty is not right when the government does it, it is also not right when people do it.
give us a break, matt. Do you still believe in the "social Contract"?
As someone who experienced extreme physical pain for months on end because i didn't have insurance or money to get the surgery i required. I can say it has definitely changed my view on the entire system as we know it. Not that i think what this guy did was right but i can understand why this happened.
Well if you didn't have any insurance then what do you expect? Its not insurnace companies fault that you don't have insurance. If you drive uninsured and crash into another car do you also get upset at car insurance companies that you weren't paying for?
I mean healthcare is extremely expensive so did you think you should get a bunch of unlimited free healthcare of high quality and immediately? It sounds like your experience was your fault and your fault alone. There are plenty of very affordable care plans that come from Obama's healthcare marketplace. For certain families it might even be free if your income is low enough. So it sounds like you were just completely irresponsible.
@@ajr993 I'm glad you seem to know more about my situation than i do. Thanks for the reply.
@@ajr993fed
@@ajr993 It is silly to expect a person to rot at work, think about personal relationships, keep up with the current situation while taking care of all the insurance and thinking through all the possible futures. That's what human help is for. Not all people are always to blame for their misfortune.
Thank you for your insights Matt. They always make me think. For profit healthcare should be outlawed.
To strip things down to its basics:
Killing is only morally justified in two instances:
• Getting food, shelter & supplies in order to survive.
• Self defence, including other people.
This act was self defence after being harmed by a corporation, and wound up aiding countless innocents.
If this act results in the US seeking universal healthcare as the public roared its support?
It would have saved Brian Thompsons life if it existed.
Free Luigi!
Matt referring to Lugi as an otherwise reasonable person demonstrates Matts just here to make sounds, not be serious
My only surprise is that it took THIS long for someone to do something like that in a country so deeply swamped in gun culture.
It really shows that the crushing majority of people do not condone murder, and don't see it as a solution.
What would i do when pushed to the very edge, in a society that does NOT allow for a peaceful, humanistic solution for the biggest problems? Because all this talk of "working to solve the problem" has not worked in modern US. At this juncture, driven by a willful act towards suffering of those I love justified by an algorithm, what would we all do?
I do not know.
Finally, vigilante justice CAN be justice. It can be the fuse to lit revolutions. It cannot just be the standard of justice. There is a big, albeit subtle, difference there.
How did the French Revolution start? Is it murder if you feel you are at war?
Society needed this. The rich are out of control and need to be reminded they they are mortal. But I agree with the point against vigilante justice because it is so hard to know the truth and so easy to become misguided. But since the world is on fire, society doesn't care about morality, we are celebrating the small chance of hope we have.
Ummmm, no. You can't say "there's a procedure to address these grievances" when all those procedures have been exhausted. One side owns all the wealth and weapons while writing laws that enrich themselves. The other side has nothing. Tell me, Matt, what other "legitimate" avenue must we pursue before the ruling class listens to us?
This isn't a left vs right issue, Matt. It's the poor and empathetic vs the rich and selfish.
It's just that being rich and selfish is much more common among the politicians on the right.
When e.g. Shapiro spoke about this and didn't show empathy towards people frustrated with the healthcare system, plenty of his viewers turned on him. The average voter on the right is struggling, and they've been convinced by misinformation, appeals to emotion and social pressure, that being republican is most likely to help them, even when it does the exact opposite.
Matt: I enjoy your work but I feel like you've got nothing here. Seems like you should think about this issue more and then come back with a better take. You're just regurgitating a bunch of common knowledge.
I feel like you can do better than this man
I'm asking you to think about this some more and then come back with some more on the subject
Thank you for contributing. You're doing a lot more than most people and you deserve respect for that. Also thanks for the thought-provoking videos. Forgive me for being critical; it's hard not to be with someone whose opinion I value when they strike out like this. I hope you don't take this negatively or as mean-spirited: everybody has an off day and I wouldn't be writing this if I wasn't used to a higher standard coming from you
Sometimes fighting is better then suffering.
There was "a process to address that claim"? Really? Oh please do tell us more. What exactly IS that process?
Implementing universal healthcare. You've had senators who introduced and cosponsored the bill. You either didn't vote for them, or didn't organize or educate other voters to do so. You could have organized strikes, boycotts, protests against officials who didn't support it, but you didn't do that. The left has absolutely failed in this country. People in this country have no idea how to do anything anymore. Read a fucking history book. How did the Civil Rights Act get passed? How did the New Deal get passed? How did immigration reform get passed? Nonviolent revolutions work, violent revolutions just lead to more violence. You failed to learn from history and now you will keep repeating it.
"In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law. To pursue... natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment." -Frank Castle
This is the type of discourse that I always wish politics was like. Someone disagreeing with a popular opinion in a way that isn't stirring the pot or incendiary. Rather it's just simply making an appeal to reason and values. I wish we could all be a little more like this.
I'm not "liking" this video because I agree with everything Matt said. I'm "liking" it so the discussion surrounding LM and the health insurance industry doesn't stop or even slow down.
From Andrew Copson's definition of humanism: "Humanists engage in practical action to improve personal and social conditions."
I am happy to see that your take is actually that the system is fucked because it isn't able to change and so the inevitable violence is occuring.
Free Luigi! No pity for billionaire!
This is one of those venn diagrams. There is a circle that says I am opposed to vigilantism and that the murder should not have been committed. There is another circle that celebrates that the murder started a conversation and brought attention to something that needed attention.