Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
from Wikipedia. --"Unlike most large American magazines, Newsweek has not used fact-checkers since 1996." I haven't heard anyone not supporting Luigi except the talking heads. It's almost like the propaganda machine wants us to side with the ceo. hmmm
Why not say 2/5ths??
Why not say 40%?
because Americans are stupid and 4/10ths sounds like more
I'm too hungry for a small 1/3 lbs burger. I better order the big 1/4 lbs one
the other six say that it was fantastic. would have been a 10/10 if not getting caught.
It's actually the majority in this age range:
41% acceptable, 40% unacceptable, 19% neutral.
Source: https://emersoncollegepolling.com/december-2024-national-poll-young-voters-diverge-from-majority-on-crypto-tiktok-and-ceo-assassination/
These are the people who have basically lived their lives going through active shooter drills and know they have more than a zero percent chance of being shot at or killed at school.
People dying and the threat of people dying to the younger generation is normalized at least this one time it wasn't them ... Maybe hoping something will bring change.
That's just my opinion though from someone who didn't grow up afraid of being shot at school.
I grew up with that fear and don't think it was acceptable. I understand why others do, and I won't invalidate the feelings behind why. I live with chronic health issues that I don't have insurance or money to see a doctor for, and I desperately want change for everyone else suffering, as well. I don't think compounding that through vigilante justice is the answer. I can't change that it happened or that others sympathize with it, but I can continue to listen and advocate for systemic change moving forward where and when I can.
if violence is not acceptable, all healthcare ceos must be in prison for life. they're not, so it is.
in reality, there's a desperate attempt at drilling the idea into our minds that violence against the powerful isn't acceptable. this obsessive coverage of how people don't condemn this shooting is happening literally at the same time that someone who murdered a homeless person was allowed to walk. is there outrage in the media about how this is unacceptable?
not really. you kill a homeless person, you walk. you kill a CEO who's responsible for thousands of deaths, you get charged with terrorism.
the ceo's violence is acceptable. killing homeless people is acceptable. the police killing practically anyone is acceptable. but if you just threaten a CEO, you get 15 years in prison.
this is bullshit. what they want is for you to only count one particular kind of violence unacceptable. the kind that might lead to liberation. it happened with women, black people and lgbtq. they can't allow the liberation of the lower economic classes too. that would be terrible.
What I don't understand about this viewpoint is: What systematic change are you talking about? The DNC has completely betrayed the working class, the GOP is the GOP and nobody seems interested in pushing third parties. I haven't heard of a single protest, let alone a strike or other effective political action (which peotests aren't, to be clear) against this issue specifically or the capitalist capture of America in general.
Where is "should be encouraged" on this survey. Won't catch the real mood without it.
given that it was murder, the people who found it somewhat unacceptable should be separated from those who found it completely unacceptable.
They’re young, most haven’t had to deal with health problems, give them time.
It was not acceptable but it was very much understandable.
And honestly I don't think it's Thompson's fault. He's just doing what's expected of him as the CEO of a profit-oriented company. The one at fault are the Legislators that let this happend and the laws/conventions of the stock market that prioritize revenue and growth above all.
If anything, Legislators and Investors should have been shot, not Thompson.
If murder of a minority group was legalized and someone decided to murder their innocent neighbors and steal their stuff to make a buck, would all of the responsibility really fall on the legislator and none on the murderer?
Imo an immoral act stays immoral whether or not it's encouraged or discouraged by the government or social environment. I find it somewhat more understandable how people can carry out something cruel if it's legal and completely normalized, but "It's not their fault" is much more apologetic than I'm comfortable with. Especially when they make millions off the suffering and deaths of other people (due to inadequate medical care).
I have to disagree here. We all have a moral responsibility to not be evil, murderous dickheads. I'd even go so far as to say that we all have a moral obligation to at least attempt to help our fellow people when we can.
Just because nobody stopped him from doing evil doesn't mean that it's not his fault for doing evil shit. Others may be complicit, but he sure as fuck was guilty the evil he committed.
Yeah personally I've never bought into the "but everyone else was doing it" excuse.
It was acceptable. It's not like poor Brian Thompson had no other choice. He was making fat stacks at that position, and I'm sure he had other career opportunities.
It also feels kinda on point of what CEOs are sometimes supposed to be. I am not sure where I got this image from, but how I often viewed CEOs for companies where the CEO is not also the founder, is that those CEOs are the figureheads for what the company is doing, take on the responsibility of all the good and bad that is happening.
Like, usually those CEOs are shackled by the boards decision, so they are the face and "risking their neck and reputation". At least I heard that explanation used to explain why CEOs get so much money.
Yeah, that's how I have come to understand it as well. They are the public figure of a company, and are paid "insurance money" to take the fall if needed.
It can be totally unacceptable and totally justified at the same time.
Okay but it's totally acceptable
How many is that out of 12? No reason whatsoever, just for divisibility I guess
It is indeed more than one out of twelve. Idk why i thought that might be of interest, just a fun fact
4.8/12. Multiplied both numbery by 1.2
I agree but how is the bottom image so deep fried that the white text has become yellowed by being left in the sun
wow highest approval ratings since Hitler.
