The real story with this assassination is how broadly popular it is across political, race, sex and even class lines, and how the MSM is completely ignoring that angle.
This is clearly and obviously false, and using an acronym like "MSM" (which is so slippery as to be meaningless) suggests you don't actually care whether it's false. I hate that the internet encourages ideologically-motivated lying.
It feels like living through the 2019 Joker movie, everyone's lost a sense of what's decent and what's not. At the risk of derailing the conversation, people are even arguing whether dropping bombs on women and children is humane or not, and far too many are finding excuses to say it's fine.
Meanwhile the assassin needs a name.. the Midtown Hilton Shooter? The 3D Killer? (since there were 3 bullets found with D-words written on them).
Don't be greedy, or The 3D-Killer will go after you next!
Well I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but it begs the question of whether 'celebrating' (or, perhaps, simply not mourning) the death of some individuals is actually wrong? This would be different than encouraging/celebrating the murder itself.
I also think it bears consideration what 'public response' means here. Obviously I am just one person, but nobody I know (personally, or in the communities I'm in) has celebrated this in any capacity, let alone applauded the murderer. Are we basing public perception mostly on social media comments, which are a selective representation of public opinion at best, and blatantly fraudulent at worst?
> BTW thinking the comments of people outside of your bubble to be fraudulent seems... elitist.
Well I didn't say that, and I even noted that I recognize my bias in the matter, but ignoring the widespread use of bots to shape narratives online for various purposes and taking social media comments at face value to indicate actual public perception in 2024 seems... naive.
>>When your business is cost control on human life, it's not surprising that decency goes out the door.
Bingo!
Not sure why many people are missing this point. Beneath all this. The healthcare industry, doctors, pharma companies and all connected infrastructure has a simple equation. Their profits co-relate directly with human suffering. That is, the more you suffer, the more they get rich. And for some people in the chain, their very survival, like making a living depends on this.
You can't have a decent, even bearable conversation when somebody begins an argument on this premise. Notice how you refusing to suffer might appear indecent to them. I have known some doctors get angry on patients here in India for asking questions on alternate lines of treatments. Sometimes they have commissions from insurance, diagnostics and even suppliers, and they find it unfair that the patients think about their own good and not about the doctors. So you mean to say you are not willing to suffer to help me make money? So cruel of you!
There are lots of industries like these. Weapons manufacturing and Armed forces is another one. Im sure the thought of absence of wars, and some long term peace would be deeply disturbing to people in that ecosystem.
Notice how this is different compared to something like hospitality business, where profits co-relate directly with customer joy and inversely with customer dissatisfaction.
The real issue with the health care industry is their profits lie in hurting people, not helping them.
I am reminded of the right-wing cop in Oregon who burned a ballot box and added some "free Gaza" vandalism. Specifically, this is a compelling argument that the shooter likely wasn't an outside vigilante:
The thing that struck me was the fact that [the shooter] knew where [Thompson] was going to be and when he was going to be there. Generally, you get that information by observing the individual. You find their schedule and their routine, and then you intercept them somewhere along the line on their routine. This was obviously not a routine setting. So he had to have some reason to believe that Thompson was going to be coming out of that door at an approximate time to be able to lay in wait. Because it’s Manhattan, standing around waiting risks the likelihood of being challenged by a cop or security guard coming by, which suggests that he had reason to know when the guy was going to be coming out. It suggests some sort of inside information.
There must have been, but also - Thompson was in town for the Investor Conference at a hotel nearby. I'm sure UHC had hotel rooms blocked for it. Call hotels nearby, and look has no rooms available for the duration of the conference, as a starting point (if I recall correctly, people on Reddit used it to call BS on a last minute music concert/festival cancellation in Vegas. "We've just found out about this today", "So why did you release the block of rooms you were holding at the hotel last week?").
The salient point is that the shooter was hanging around early in the morning, and he probably didn’t loiter for too long because that would have drawn attention. It suggests he knew Thompson would be leaving the hotel around 6:30am, and it’s difficult to see how an outsider could have obtained that info.
Someone loitering on the street? In NYC? It's questionable how much attention that would draw.
Also, and not saying this in this case: "Annual Investor Conference Day 1 Agenda, 8am Open Breakfast". Not hard to believe someone would be leaving their hotel nearby at 6.30, 7 for that. It's not staking the place out for hours.
Apparently knowing which door Mr. Thompson planned to use, the shooter arrived outside the hotel about 10 minutes before his intended target and ignored passers-by as he lay in wait.
Yeah. Depending upon the level of prior research by the shooter, the CEO may have shown a reliable pattern before hand attending other conferences too.
I'm not exaggerating for hyperbole: literally every single time I've ever seen a comment online of the form "why isn't the MSM talking about X", I've clicked over to the homepage of the New York Times and seen X right there.
Yeah it's unfortunate that we're in this place culturally but seems like just using the phrase suggests a lack of engagement with it so I guess it makes sense in some wacky way.
I do assume his strict rules, in the healthcare company, he was the ceo of, which rejected 61% of claims, has caused numerous deaths, directly and indirectly.
Americans are learning the hard way that universal morality only works when you are utterly unchallenged in your strength. Once things start going south people who profess to believe whatever moral things won't feel a shred of sadness if hurting you benefits them and their family.
I think it is frankly insulting to compare someone being sued for maliciously denying lifesaving healthcare and causing a vast amount of wrongful suffering to innocent children being blown up.
that is most definitely nowhere near the "real story" - it is not even in the top-1000 of the "real story" not just because it is not true but because it is not a story :)
