But... a lot of his social media history (which is not impossible to fake but...) kind of suggests he was very mentally unwell.
What are you referring to here? I'm not scouring the internet for all the information I can find but everything I've seen so far paints the picture of a perfectly sane person who was fed up with a broken system. I see similar sentiments all over the internet literally every day.
Maybe not in the technical sense, but if the jury is on board they could absolutely use that as justification to implement jury nullification of a guilty verdict.
Even US free speech arguments don't apply here. That refers to what the US government can restrict US citizens from talking about. A private computer system, especially one located in and operated out of a foreign country, has never fallen under this umbrella.
I think it would be easier to convince a few people to take out more CEOs than it would be to convince all the progressives in America that the DNC is worth investing more energy in.
It's not going to amount to anything if he's the only one taking action. If we've all just been waiting for things to get started then where is everyone now? I've seen tons of "I've got my pitchfork ready for when things get started" posts over the last few years but now that it's supposedly here I only see the one pitchfork.
Obviously I'm not doing anything either but the question I'm getting at is, is it fair to say the public has been galvanized if it's just one guy doing one thing while a bunch of people watch?
That's a true statement but it's also true that in the entirety of human history no society has managed to wrest power away from the rich for more than a few generations. They may lie dormant for a while but they always come back. Self destructive greed is in our nature.
shitty AI voice that sounds like David Attenborough
The foul, uncultured masses had developed a taste for blood. In their ignorance they had mistaken their benevolent, job creating overseers to be the source of their troubles. With violent fervor they created propaganda espousing their murderous intent, as the piece shown here exemplifies. These horrendous works of art were called memes, pronounced "may-mays", and were spread amongst the mob primarily through mobile communications devices.
Also, I keep seeing people quoting stuff outside of the bible like biblical truth, like The Rapture, and stuff from Dante's Inferno which is, at best, Bible fan-fic.
So much of the average person's understanding of Christianity comes from sources other than the Bible. That is true for Christians and non-Christians alike. It is a really interesting phenomenon. So many arguments over things that are essentially unrelated to the actual debate people think they are having.
They don't have to do this. They're choosing to. It's not like these guys can just walk into the unemployment office and say "I'd like one CEO job please". There's more people interested in executive positions than there are positions available. Why is it only acceptable to use that knowledge to negotiate lower wages for lower ranking positions?
Judging from the response of the internet, which of course could be wildly different from the public as a whole, it doesn't seem like a crazy idea that at least 1/12 jurors would refuse to convict the real shooter. Seems like a possibility of mistaken identity only increases those odds.
It's not hyperbole to say that this is exactly why the 2nd Amendment exists. It's been bastardized and misrepresented for a long time now but this is explicitly the kind of tyranny the founding fathers envisioned we would need protection from. In their time the people with the power to extract wealth at the cost of human suffering were mostly monarchs and other governmental bodies and in our time massive corporations have joined those ranks but that doesn't change what's happening at a fundamental level.
48 hours is only for regular cases with one or two cops assigned. High profile stuff like this gets considerably more attention and resources for a longer period of time
I think we've already established that the list you made was a pretty good one so the suggestion that a list of those most responsible can't be made is pretty odd to me.
Let's say I agree with you that violence is never the answer, what's your alternate suggestion? Your thinking seems to be that oppressed people need to reason with their oppressors but what happens when they don't listen? How long are people supposed to suffer before alternate methods are morally justified? What sort of escalation path exists within your moral framework? It seems to me that your reasoning ends with "just wait longer and hope justice prevails" but at some point that becomes untenable.
Again, that may or may not be what's going on here but clearly some people think it is so the discussion is worth having.
I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society.
Being intentionally obtuse doesn't add anything to the discussion. Your average person, especially those in other countries, don't view themselves as responsible for healthcare costs in America. Whether or not that is technically true is irrelevant as their contribution is not nearly as important as the others on your list. Take away the line about voters and maybe the doctors and nurses, though some would likely disagree with that part, and you've got a pretty accurate list of the people most responsible for the situation. They oversee these systems and are therefore seen to be responsible for associated outcomes.
There's any number of ways to make a difference that are better than shooting a man in the middle of the street.
Are they really? How many people have been doing those things for decades with very little to show for it? How much campaigning can a parent paying for cancer treatment for their kid be reasonably expected to do? How many generic responses from representatives not listening to the concerns of their constituents should we trudge through?
Whether or not this shooter was motivated by the reasons we're all assuming is pretty irrelevant at this point. The simple fact that we're having this discussion at this scale demonstrates that people do not believe that the things you mentioned will improve things, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the situation we find ourselves in. Maybe vigilante action is not the answer but I think it's pretty clear that the usual responses you're giving are not resonating with people. Decision makers need to change that perception if they want to prevent people from looking outside the system for answers.
Who would win?
2700 soft nerds with at least one billion small pieces of paper each
VS
300 million chimps with access to the internet and Mountain Dew™