Authorities Sunday arrested 57-year-old Vance Boelter following the largest manhunt in state history. He's charged in the targeted fatal shootings of Minnesota House DFL leader Melissa Hortman and her spouse, and the shooting of state Sen. John Hoffman and his spouse.
This kind of comment is a hallmark of a 2-dimensional mind, a linear thinking system that doesn’t look at outcomes, people, lives or anything other than what group you belong to and how accepted you are in that group.
I can rip your logic to shreds if you want to dance. If you really, truly, actually think you have a point and moral, ethical framework to make some kind of argument, I can dismantle it and make you very frustrated. Just say the word and I’ll make you painfully aware that you’re not just ill-informed, but a victim of media you choose to consume and as a result are incapable of juggling more than one idea in your head at a time and this is why you’re miserable.
Sure, let’s go. But if your argument is as strong as you seem to think it is, you shouldn’t need to wrap it in this condescension and chest-thumping. I’m always open for an debate - but if the tone stays at “let me enlighten your dumb little mind,” I’ll check out rather quick. I’m here to discuss ideas, not trade insults.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit my original comment was intentionally provocative but I stand by the underlying point: I oppose vigilante violence across the board, regardless of who the target is. And if someone cheered for Luigi’s killing but condemns this one, I think that’s morally inconsistent. That’s what I was calling out - a double standard that, to me atleast, reeks of tribalism more than principle.
I don’t have an argument, I a response to whatever your argument is, so that’s where i will get clarity. Warning though, this takes actual reading so if you bemoan reading more than a paragraph this won’t be fun for either of us. I say that ahead of time because the vast majority of internet discussions about contentious topics are ending with “I ain’t reading all that” or “just put it in the bag” and other short-attention span, brain rot from every side of every political spectrum, which is why people don’t talk anymore and why divisions are widening.
So to make sure I have your stance right: You see a lot of people “cheering” for Luigi Mangione, and no sympathy towards his victim, and you now see another killer getting mass condemnation and sympathy for his victims, and you see inconsistency in how people are treating these incidents because of which side of the political spectrum the individuals seem to represent, is that correct?
It’s not unclear to me why people feel differently toward the victims - what I’m pointing out is the inconsistency in how people react to vigilante violence itself. I’m not asking anyone to mourn a murdered healthcare CEO - though I do question the celebration of it. And likewise, I feel sympathy for the recently murdered politicians.
What I’m criticizing is the double standard in how the shooters are treated.
And it’s not really about political leanings specifically, even if there’s overlap. It’s more about the broader “us vs. them” mentality - where people’s moral judgment flips depending on which side they perceive someone to be on.
Okay this went a totally different direction than how you made it sound at outset, which you presented like an “our guy versus your guy” argument and why you’re reaping downvotes and people willing to challenge you.
what I’m pointing out is the inconsistency in how people react to vigilante violence itself
So then is this what your actual problem is, that there is any celebration of vigilantism at all?
I have a tendency to present my views in a provocative way, so I don’t exactly fault people for misreading me or my intentions.
that there is any celebration of vigilantism at all?
Pretty much, yeah. I think violence should, for the most part, only ever be a response to immediate violence - not a tool for political or ideological expression. I believe in due process, reason, and honest discourse as the means to influence those we oppose - not bullets, or even fists. So when people cheer for acts of vigilante violence, even against those they despise, I see that as both morally bankrupt and strategically self-defeating. It undermines the claim to the moral high ground and reinforces the very hostility many claim to oppose. We should hold ourselves to the same standards as we do others.
This kind of comment is a hallmark of a 2-dimensional mind, a linear thinking system that doesn’t look at outcomes, people, lives or anything other than what group you belong to and how accepted you are in that group.
I can rip your logic to shreds if you want to dance. If you really, truly, actually think you have a point and moral, ethical framework to make some kind of argument, I can dismantle it and make you very frustrated. Just say the word and I’ll make you painfully aware that you’re not just ill-informed, but a victim of media you choose to consume and as a result are incapable of juggling more than one idea in your head at a time and this is why you’re miserable.
Sure, let’s go. But if your argument is as strong as you seem to think it is, you shouldn’t need to wrap it in this condescension and chest-thumping. I’m always open for an debate - but if the tone stays at “let me enlighten your dumb little mind,” I’ll check out rather quick. I’m here to discuss ideas, not trade insults.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit my original comment was intentionally provocative but I stand by the underlying point: I oppose vigilante violence across the board, regardless of who the target is. And if someone cheered for Luigi’s killing but condemns this one, I think that’s morally inconsistent. That’s what I was calling out - a double standard that, to me atleast, reeks of tribalism more than principle.
I don’t have an argument, I a response to whatever your argument is, so that’s where i will get clarity. Warning though, this takes actual reading so if you bemoan reading more than a paragraph this won’t be fun for either of us. I say that ahead of time because the vast majority of internet discussions about contentious topics are ending with “I ain’t reading all that” or “just put it in the bag” and other short-attention span, brain rot from every side of every political spectrum, which is why people don’t talk anymore and why divisions are widening.
So to make sure I have your stance right: You see a lot of people “cheering” for Luigi Mangione, and no sympathy towards his victim, and you now see another killer getting mass condemnation and sympathy for his victims, and you see inconsistency in how people are treating these incidents because of which side of the political spectrum the individuals seem to represent, is that correct?
Mostly yeah.
It’s not unclear to me why people feel differently toward the victims - what I’m pointing out is the inconsistency in how people react to vigilante violence itself. I’m not asking anyone to mourn a murdered healthcare CEO - though I do question the celebration of it. And likewise, I feel sympathy for the recently murdered politicians.
What I’m criticizing is the double standard in how the shooters are treated.
And it’s not really about political leanings specifically, even if there’s overlap. It’s more about the broader “us vs. them” mentality - where people’s moral judgment flips depending on which side they perceive someone to be on.
Okay this went a totally different direction than how you made it sound at outset, which you presented like an “our guy versus your guy” argument and why you’re reaping downvotes and people willing to challenge you.
So then is this what your actual problem is, that there is any celebration of vigilantism at all?
I have a tendency to present my views in a provocative way, so I don’t exactly fault people for misreading me or my intentions.
Pretty much, yeah. I think violence should, for the most part, only ever be a response to immediate violence - not a tool for political or ideological expression. I believe in due process, reason, and honest discourse as the means to influence those we oppose - not bullets, or even fists. So when people cheer for acts of vigilante violence, even against those they despise, I see that as both morally bankrupt and strategically self-defeating. It undermines the claim to the moral high ground and reinforces the very hostility many claim to oppose. We should hold ourselves to the same standards as we do others.