0
Hey is Sharing Luigi’s Manifesto on Social Media Actually "Glorifying Violence"? Because Reddit Said So 😭
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
No Stupid Questions
36129 readers
134 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes it is. It's the same reason we don't share school shooter manifestos.
The only question here is do you agree with this violence? If you do then carry on.
The difference is no one is cheering on school shooters. Luigi did what he did for a good reason. He is not crazy, or evil like a school shooter
I'm saddened there haven't been copycats yet. Hopefully that means people are just taking their time in planning like Luigi did.
People can learn from his mistakes and maybe the next one will get away.
So it's okay because you like it?
No because it was warranted and deserved. Take a look around, this is not an edgy opinion. The majority of Americans feel the way I do, why is that?
I am one of the most non-violent people. I've never struck a person in 35 years of life.
The only time violence is warranted is when it is a response to violence. Social murder warrants actual murder. Tens of thousands dead vs one CEO dead. You are crying about the wrong death
You're confusing 60 percent support for healthcare reform with 60 percent support for murder. Off the internet this is a highly contentious act.
You cannot be non-violent and pro-murder. That's incompatible.
I haven't once said the murder was a bad thing. You've just been assuming that because I'm out here challenging your ideas about yourself. You need a better internal guide than, that felt good unless you're really lying to yourself and you're hoping for mob violence. You need a strict guide as to when it's permissible. The first step to doing that is to admit that you are glorifying a violent act.
Just because you can't tell the difference between this guy and a school shooter doesn't mean other people can't, or that the distinction is arbitrary. This guy killed more Americans than Bin Laden and his death was celebrated.
Fucking team politics. Just because I'm challenging how you view the world does not mean I'm on the other team.
You challenged nothing. This:
is bullshit. His killing is morally justifiable since he himself caused many more deaths (literally more than Bin Laden) and the legal and political system was powerless to stop him. Is there danger in vigilante justice? Sure. If you want to make that case then make it with some clarity. This particular case is completely cut and dry, though. He very obviously deserved to die. If your response to his killing being celebrated is to regress all the way to "well doesn't this mean anyone can kill anyone" then you're not even really engaging in the conversation, let alone challenging anyone's world view.
That was a serious question. If things are okay just because we like them and not okay just because we don't then what kind of morals are acting on? Yeah it came because I was frustrated that people can't seem to get off trying to evade the idea of glorification. But it's still serious, if your knee jerk reaction is to say it's not a glorification because it's justified then you run a real risk that vigilantism is only part of. Authoritarian states work the same way.
That's not the situation, nor what anyone is asserting. Who are you talking to?
I see that all over this thread and this issue.
See better.
From just above. Literally the person who made me ask that question. And sure enough it's a call to mob violence while maintaining they are non violent. This is how this shit gets out of hand.
None of that amounts to this:
The reasons this was justifiable have been explained to you ad nauseum. You insist on pretending like its an arbitrary whim despite that. Do you cry every time a drug cartel kingpin gets shot?
They literally appealed to the band wagon and a nebulous concept of "social murder".
You absolutely suck at articulating a point. Here, let me do it for you: the problem with vigilante justice is that the lack of a process around who gets got means that eventually someone is going to kill someone who didn't deserve it. While Brian Thompson was a worthless parasite who literally thrived based on how much he could increase human suffering, the answer is to reform the systems that allow him to exist, rather than calling for random people to take matters entirely into their own hands and kill whomever they deem unworthy of life. The answer is to bring genuine health care reform into the democratic realm and get to a point where health insurance companies that have a direct profit-motive to deny as many claims as possible either do not exist, or are regulated to within an inch of their lives.
I understand what you're saying. The answer is yes, we choose when violence is justified.
Lemmy doesn't do well with nuanced discussion. The communication dilemma present is the lack of the bridge between where one party in the discussion wants to continue narrowing the parameters of discussion until we are left with a binary choice (the quantum side of discussion) and the other party wants to keep the discussion broad and cognizant of all the variables (the general relativity side of discussion).
Both sides have valid reasons for existing. Usually you do have to narrow parameters in order to actually come up with a solution or action to implement. Similarly to how in a valid experiment you attempt to control all variables except what you're testing. But you also have to be aware of all the variables in the first place to adequately control them.
And from what I've seen, narrowing it to glorifying violence is nothing more than an attempt to terminate the discussion altogether.
Yeah, that may be true. Some people have their minds made up and they somehow think any further discussion is somehow a weakening of their position or something like that.
I like to think that any fear of discussion simply means you're afraid your reasons aren't sound and you don't want to question the reality that you may be acting on emotions rather than reason. I think you can definitely have this discussion rationally and still end up supporting what happened.
Is it okay to support Ukraine shooting Russians?
Violence is inherent in our systems. Violence is inherent in politics. States are literally founded and upheld through violence (the military and the police). Believing anything else is just closing your eyes to the violence that happens every single day, and making you powerless against injustice.
I'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that we choose when it's okay to glorify violence. Denying that this glorifies violence denies that we choose when it's legitimate. It covers that choice up with a screen that says this is violence and that's not violence.
I might be inferring the wrong thing here, but do you believe that human rights exist?
Yes, it's not an incompatible theory. The Harm principle for example is all about balancing one person's rights with another. Or put another way, choosing when violence is legitimate.
I think there's a difference. School shootings are an atrocity, and, for the most part, we all agree on that. Sharing the manifesto lends a kind of legitimacy to the shooter and their reasons, and, on balance, we'd rather turn our back on them and condemn the violence.
With this CEO murder, many of us agree there's such life-destroying abuse in the American healthcare commerce - of which this CEO was directly part, whether or not he's to blame - that the problem is a serious topic of public conversation. The manifesto, and the events associated with it, are a relevant part of that conversation, whether we support them or not.
That's my point. You see one as an atrocity but not the other. So you don't have a problem glorifying it. But it's still doing exactly that.
Discussing is certainly not the same as glorifying. And yes, I did label one and not the other as an atrocity, but I hope you understand that's a simplification.
I do think in this case it's an important question to be asked: why did the killer commit this murder; and why are so many people supporting it. And in this case, I don't think it does justice, nor does society good, to wave it away with, "they're a bad person who did a bad thing". Perhaps in all murder cases some discussion, by some people, is necessary. But here, on balance, it seems particularly important and public.
Then discussing Osama Bin Laden's manifesto, the Unabomber's, McVeigh's, or a school shooter's isn't glorifying either.
This isn't a situation where you can say one is glorifying and the other isn't. That's just thought terminating propaganda which is really dangerous around acts of violence.
I'm not saying that discussing their motive is a bad thing. I'm saying sharing the manifesto either is or is not a glorification of their violence. There's no gray area where it's not glorification because you believe it was good or interesting. We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals. So the mere act of glorification isn't bad in and of itself.
I think that's probably the biggest problem people are having here. They think if they're glorifying violence it's automatically bad, or radical. But watching cool training videos for the Army is glorifying violence. Celebrating battlefield wins for Ukraine is glorifying violence. But so is saber rattling at Iran and proudly announcing the sweep of homeless encampments.
If we're not asking the right questions then we can't get the right answers. Especially when we use loaded questions that turn it into a team sport. This entire thread has shown that there is a thought terminating line of argument out there, "Glorifying Violence is bad, ergo sharing the manifesto is bad" and people assume they need to argue whether it's actually glorifying violence. But that's where conservatives want the argument because they can easily just hand waive it away. He literally shot and killed someone, his manifesto is obviously connected to violence. Instead the argument they need to be making is why discussing that manifesto is as good and proper as the discussion on whether we should invade Iraq in 2002.
I agree, I don't think it is. Nor is publishing Mein Kampf glorifying Nazism. Sharing the manifestos can be part of glorifying the actions, but also doesn't need to be. But sharing them does suggest some relevancy of the actions, which to some people suggests you should consider agreeing with them. So there's a balance of when it's appropriate, especially if some people are using that to glorify the actions - as, indeed, is very much the case here.
We do, but I'm not sure it's quite right. Maybe when we simultaneously say, "glorifying violence is bad," we recognise the tension and perhaps our own cognitive dissonance. And maybe what we really want, is to glorify the stopping of evil, and accept (perhaps) the use of violence to achieve that. The glory of the politician going after criminals is of stopping the criminals, not of the superiority in violence used to achieve that. But the school shooter? Is there any glory there to be had, adjacent to the violence?
Which brings us back to this CEO shooting. Even if we say violence per se is a bad thing, or if we say only judicially sanctioned violence is acceptable, still the abuses this CEO represents are evil, and we might glorify the opposition to those abuses. That leaves us with a tension. Glorify the principle of opposition, but not the method applied. In that context, the manifesto is relevant.
And it leaves us with a discussion. Do we really say all violence is wrong? Is this healthcare system really as abusive or illegitimate as people think? Does the CEO have responsibility in that? What is a right attitude, and means, toward this in the future? All these we can discuss - and consider the manifesto part of that - without a priori ascribing glory (or condemnation) to the killing.
It is true many people are glorifying Luigi, and whether that's right is a separate question. For similar reasons we censor sharing all sorts of things, like Mein Kampf, or like dumping Bin Laden's body in the sea. But those things don't, of themselves, need to be glorifying what they represent; it is the opinionated balance of social factors that makes us censor those things. In the case of the school shooting, I probably agree: censor the manifesto. (Actually, I'd say let it be public for those who wish to know, but not widely shared.) But in this case here, I think the balance is in favour of publishing Luigi's (apparent) manifesto.
I think it's tied to why you're seeing the manifesto. If you're seeing it to discuss motivations and learn that's not glorification. But let's not lie to ourselves. Mangione's manifesto is being shared with a wink and a smile on social media. That is 100 percent glorification. For the purposes of figuring out if what he did was the right thing it's far better to look at facts and statistics. But let's go back to Mein Kampf. The only people sharing that on social media with a wink and a smile are Neo Nazis. I don't know what group sharing Mangione's manifesto aligns with but it's a similar situation. That's not a call to rational discussion, that's a call to approval.
Agreed. Lemmy especially is all for glorifying both manifesto and actions. Yes, it's being shared for that glorification.
But so is his mugshot. For likewise reason we sometimes avoid sharing the name or photo of certain criminals.
Maybe... maybe you're right. Maybe I'm also supporting a point of view because it gives me an outcome I want: the outcome of the manifesto being public, without a priori judging the actions. But I feel there's something I'm missing. I think it's to do with censorship. The other rhetoric, apart from this glorification, seems to be that there's nothing to be said here except to lament and condemn the murder, and move on. Even the BBC report on why social media are supporting Mangione, felt like it was subtly shifting the perspective to make sensible people shrug the support off as irrational hype largely from Mangione's good looks. That perspective then leverages the "glorification of violence is bad" argument to avoid or censor other discussion, including sharing the manifesto: this bothers me. So that even if the manifesto is being shared mostly only by those who seek to glorify Mangione, and I don't wish to glorify his action, I would like it shared.
I despise murder. Outside of fiction, I do not wish to glorify vigilante executions. And yet, I have a deep anger at injustices such as from certain members of the US healthcare system. Something must be done: and when the response to this something is to erase discussion, that feels wrong. Your answer, if I understood right, is that it's right to glorify certain violence, including this: and therefore sharing the manifesto is good. Mine, I think, is that it's right to fully and frankly consider all that's going on, including this manifesto: and if that gets mired in people glorifying the shooting, I'm willing to put up with that. The manifesto is being shared to glorify the shooting; but sharing it is still important if not glorifying the shooting.
Well, something like that.
Well, advocating for common decency doesn't work in the US. USians only understand arguments that use bullets.
Lmao, that's not true but it did tickle me.
That's how it's perceived in the rest of the world, and USians are doing a lousy job of showing that the perception is wrong, so...