zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
I was just at a conference today where one of the presenters referenced the "Trust barometer": https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer

According to that study, 23% approved of the statement "I approve hostile activism to drive change by threatening or committing violence". It's even higher if you only focus on 18-34 year olds.

Full report here: https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2025-0...

>>ipytho+BD
"threatening or committing violence" could mean almost anything. It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.

I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.

>>autoex+xE
Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare?

Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant.

> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.

I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.

>>zdragn+wH
If a mafia boss orders a hit, he is no less guilty than the one who pulls the trigger. If a CEO orders vital funds to be withheld from those who are entitled to them, knowing many will die, he is similarly guilty of murder. The mafia boss can be sent to jail, the CEO won't. The corporate veil may keep you pristine inside the cynical circles of power, but all the people see is impunity. When murderers act with impunity, what redress is there but counter-violence?

It is unfortunate, but many people have lost hope the system can change, so revolution is getting more likely, and revolutions are seldom peaceful.

>>lores+3K1
The CEO of a healthcare insurer is not involved in "withholding" funds. At best, he sets up policies that distribute a limited amount of funds among millions of claimants who are all in need of help to some degree, but he does that job poorly. If this juvenile logic is applied further, aren't you guilty of the same crime? There are people in need of life-saving drugs and treatments, yet you're just sitting behind your computer withholding funds.

>>DecoyS+FX1
1/ There is no "distribute a limited amount of funds". There is even less a "distribute a limited amount of funds after shareholder profit and massive executive paychecks". Customers have bought coverage; if the company overissued policies, they make a loss, or they go bankrupt and their own insurers cover the existing claims. Anything else is privatised profit and socialised losses, which even a callous teenager just blown away by their first glimpse at Ayn Rand should find objectionable.

2/ I carefully said "entitled to" to avoid a debate about personal responsibility and limit the conversation to "paid for a life-saving service they did not receive", which everyone will agree is wrong.

3/ If you think the CEO did not issue orders to make it as difficult to claim as possible, and drag the process as much as possible, you are a fool.

Denying help to a human is one thing. Denying them help after they paid for the help so you can buy a yacht another thing entirely.