Yes. That is correct in many cases. It isn't new, it isn't a revolutionary statement, it isn't cheering assassinations. It touches on an larger issue.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5034916-populist-rage-inequality-discourse/ The pitchforks are here: Populist rage and the rise of moral absolutism BY JUSTIN WILLIAMSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 12/12/24 10:30 AM ET In 2014, billionaire Nick Hanauer warned in Politico that "The Pitchforks Are Coming ... For Us Plutocrats." He argued that extreme inequality inevitably leads to revolution, comparing it to bankruptcy — it happens slowly, then all at once. A single act of violence, he cautioned, could ignite years of simmering frustration into an inferno of uncontrolled fury. When combined with a generation taught that disagreement itself constitutes harm, that warning seems perilously prophetic in the wake of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s murder. Immediately following his assassination, something disturbing emerged. With breathtaking speed, celebration became the predominant response. Within hours, social media erupted not with horror or condemnation, but with declarations of justice served — some thinly veiled and others brazen in their glee. His title alone was enough to warrant death in mind of some, with no pause to examine his actual record or consider the human cost — including the conversation his wife would have with their teenage sons. These weren't just scattered trolls or fringe activists. The approval came from suburban parents, office workers, writers, influencers, teachers and professors — the very people shaping future generations' understanding of discourse and disagreement. Some of these same voices who argue that challenging their ideas constitutes violence were now celebrating actual violence without hesitation. This isn't occurring in isolation. The Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, the 2020 racial justice protests that at times escalated into riots, and the approval some expressed for attempted political assassinations each reveal a society where disagreement has become synonymous with evil. The Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel were even met with applause in more than a few quarters, including most absurdly on the campuses of our most elite universities, driven by a simplistic narrative that casts complex geopolitical conflicts in absolute terms of oppressor versus oppressed. As Hanauer pointed out, the stratification of wealth and inequality set the stage, and the numbers behind our current populist rage are staggering. The wealthiest 1 percent now hold more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, while wages for the average worker have stagnated for decades. For millions, the cost of basic necessities — healthcare, housing and education — has become crippling. But equally staggering are developments in our schools and universities, where students whine that challenging their views is a form of harm, that intellectual discomfort is trauma, that disagreement invalidates their personhood. This dehumanizing impulse revealed itself during the pandemic as well. Just as Thompson was reduced to his corporate title, neighbors were reduced to either “responsible citizens” or “selfish murderers” based on single observed moments. Scientific debate was recast as violence against the vulnerable. In hindsight, we know some restrictions weren't necessary and indeed harmful, but that debate was suppressed not just under the guise of protecting public health, but because we'd forgotten how to debate at all. We've seen this pattern evolve through cancel culture, where complex individuals were reduced to their worst moment or most controversial statement. Digitally vilified and drawn-and-quartered. Critics warned that teaching people to respond to disagreement with demands for punishment and banishment rather than engagement would lead to darker places. They were dismissed as alarmist. But the speed and consensus with which Thompson was deemed deserving of death — without any examination of his actual views or actions — shows how completely this mindset has taken hold. Many Americans still insist revolutionary unrest "could never happen here" — perhaps the most dangerous delusion of all. Skeptics often point to 1968 as a modern analog — the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, the riots at the Democratic Convention, the war protests and the violent police response — as evidence that America has weathered worse without collapsing. But that ignores two crucial distinctions. First, 1968 fell during one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in U.S. history. Second, it was an era where political opponents could engage in substantive debate without being branded as existential threats. Back then, young idealistic revolutionaries might have taken to the streets and even turned to violence, but many ultimately receded into conventional society, thanks to a strong middle class and genuine upward mobility. That economic engine, coupled with a belief in the power of dialogue to effect change, provided an escape valve that simply doesn't exist today. The rise of this moral absolutism — wherein debate is violence and disagreement is erasure — combined with unprecedented economic stratification, creates perfect conditions for actual violence to flourish. When you teach people that words constitute violence while simultaneously stripping away paths to economic dignity, physical violence becomes not just self-defense but inevitable. When you insist that challenging ideas invalidates personhood while concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands, eliminating ideological opponents becomes a moral imperative. The pitchforks aren't just here — they're being forged in our classrooms, sharpened on social media, and wielded by those we have taught that words are violence and debate is oppression. Is it already too late? Perhaps. But averting the worst requires reclaiming abandoned principles. We must restore not just economic opportunity, but the very possibility of good-faith disagreement. We must teach the next generation that challenging ideas isn't violence — it's how societies progress. We must embrace complexity and reject the false comfort of moral absolutes. Economic inequality must be addressed — not as a favor to the poor, but as a necessity for societal stability. The warning signs are flashing red. Whether we heed them will determine not just America's fate, but whether we can ever return to a society capable of solving problems through discourse rather than destruction. Justin Williamson, a former Wall Street litigator and international dispute resolution professional with extensive experience in global advisory services, now works as a writer and strategic consultant based in Louisville, Ky.
I agree with most of this. But at the same time trying to solve the problems that are at the root of that frustration would do more to fix the situation than using the reaction to ignore and distract from those problems while also crafting propaganda portraits of the CEO in order to attack political enemies.
The killing of Brian Thomas is a tricky question for me. Would I be upset if the Syrians/Kurds started executing ISIS fighters stewing in their prisons en masse? Na. Would I be upset if an aggrieved person gunned down Bernie Madoff [or someone like him (I know Bernie is dead)]? Na. Would I be upset if an aggrieved person gunned down the CEO of Herbalife? Na. I hold a minority position in the D&D in that I don't renounce capital punishment. How much blood is on the Brian Thomas' hands? How much human suffering? I don't really know the answer to that ^ but there is indicia there may be quite a bit. Whether something is technically legal or not doesn't effect me much. The legal system is an imperfect one. Laws change. That's not a particularly convincing argument to me.
Most people don't seem to be too upset, on a personal level, that this CEO was gunned down. Which is a sad thing for his family and friends and coworkers. I sympathize with them, and I don't actually have a problem with the haliography I'm seeing on social media as a counterweight to all the negative stuff being said about him. Respect for the dead and all that. There should be a strong stance against using violence as a means for correcting societal ills. I am very much a conservative (in the true sense of that word) when it comes to that. The path of violence, ultimately, will put more power in the hands of those who have the most means to wield and inflict violence on their enemies.
I'm not saying you're saying this but I do see a lot of this surrounding this issue where people say, "this was a man with a family." I don't find that appeal very convincing for anyone. 99.9% of people who have ever caused great suffering have been people with families. It doesn't make me anymore sympathetic to Adolf Eichmann, El Chapo or anyone else. I disagree with you about capital punishment though. I support it under the right circumstances. There are several examples I can think of off the top of my head. But I don't want to take the thread too far astray.
I had a penchant for subversive movies like Fight Club or American Psycho when I was 20 years younger. I suppose it fed into all that energy of wanting to change the world. Post GFC, V for Vendetta was also a cult favorite, you'd see Guy Fawkes costumes and avatars from time to time. The creator wanted people to watch the movie and exit the theaters clamoring for revolution. The revolution or "pitchforks against bankers" never came. Maybe it was because we had a "visionary" president in Obama who shut down Occupy Wall Street and bailed out Wall Street, but the rioting was comparatively low under him despite the toughest economic times since the Depression. Author might be connecting the dots on the previous rise of secular violence under Trump. It took a covid lockdown to trigger it, but there were also points of outrage like MeToo that bubbled up under his admin. It's an issue because Trump is an unapologetic magnet to draw in that ire, which he also weaponizes to distract and rally his own followers. The bigger issue is wealth inequality that grew even worse under Biden. It's become generational. Any schmoe can point to wage increases for da poors under Biden, but with asset prices overpacing inflation and a economy transitioning to a winner takes all in tech, there's no doubt the top 5% are winners in any presidency. Violence is bad? Sure...good luck to the next president's skill in making every group feels like they're heard.
My understanding is LE had no idea who the shooter was or where he was when they got the tip. I'd be interested to hear more on that topic though.
NEW: Florida woman breaks down in tears after she became the first Luigi Mangione copycat to be arrested. Briana Boston, a 42-year-old mother of three, was arrested for making threats to BlueCross BlueShield over a rejected medical claim. The woman, who is now facing up to 15 years in prison, allegedly quoted Mangione, saying, "Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next." This was a similar message that Mangione left on his bullet casings. The woman told investigators that "healthcare companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil," adding that she was inspired by the recent news cycle. Boston was charged with threats to conduct a mass sh**ting or act of terrorism. Her bond was set at $100,000. She faces up to 15 years behind bars. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/manhatta...ceo-killing-insured-unitedhealthcare/6064863/ …NYPD said there is "no indication" he ever was a client of UnitedHealthcare. In an exclusive interview with NBC New York, NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny said that Luigi Mangione may have targeted Brian Thompson the morning of Dec. 4 simply due to the size of the company and because he knew there was a conference taking place at the hotel that day. "We have no indication that he was ever a client of United Healthcare, but he does make mention that it is the fifth largest corporation in America, which would make it the largest healthcare organization in America. So that's possibly why he targeted that that company," said Kenny. "He had prior knowledge that the conference was taking place on that date, at that location." In his alleged writings, Mangione wrote about wanting to use a gun to target a CEO of a big corporation, like UnitedHeathcare, at a conference. “What do you do? You wack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention. It’s targeted, precise, and doesn’t risk innocents," writings inside a notebook believed to belong to him stated. Kenny detailed more about the back injury and surgery Mangione went through. "It seems that he had an accident that caused him to go to the emergency room back in July of 2023, and that it was a life-changing injury," said Kenny. "He posted X-rays of screws being inserted into his spine. So the injury that he suffered was, was a life-changing, life-altering injury, and that's what may have put him on this path." Police have also learned more about the timeline of events for Mangione leading up to and after the deadly shooting, including new information about where he went in the immediate aftermath and how he got out of the city. Kenny said that his family had filed a missing persons report with San Francisco authorities in November. Mangione arrived in New York City's Port Authority Bus Terminal on Nov. 24 aboard a bus that originated in Atlanta. Police are not sure when or where he boarded that bus, however. After arriving in the city, Mangione got a taxi and "immediately goes to a McDonald's in the vicinity of the Hilton hotel," said Kenny. From there, he went to the hostel where he was staying until the day of the shooting he stands accused of. Kenny said Mangione "was coming and going on a regular basis" from the hostel, and was seen on security camera footage with an e-bike battery. Some time shortly after he allegedly shot Thompson, Mangione took a cab up to Washington Heights, near the George Washington Port Authority Bus Terminal, according to Kenny. "From there we have him. We believe he may have taken the subway back to Penn Station and then made his way to Philadelphia from there," the NYPD chief told NBC New York. He may have been aboard an A or C train to get down to the midtown transit hub. How Mangione got to Pittsburgh and then Altoona is still not known, but police know how he may have paid for his travels. "As far as how he was getting by when he was arrested, he had a substantial amount of cash on him. He was getting money from an ATM, everything he did he was paying for in cash," Kenny said, noting it was "one large withdrawal from the bank itself." Mangione had more than $5,000 in cash on him at the time of his arrest, all in $100 bills, according to Kenny. Where the withdrawal took place was still being investigated.
Up to 15 years?!?!? As a semi-serious side question, when do the first amendment protections fade for a statement like this, and it instead becomes a crime?
