Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 1)

[benji]

Murder debates, trans debates. Some of us just want to grill for God's sake!

Grill what? Meat? With what? A fossil fuel? 

[Boredfrom]

Come on, dude. You don’t believe stuff like this:

Does that outweigh the countless lives he's responsible for saving by insuring the company stays in business?

Is a U.S. Health insurance.

See, you, like the bloodthirsty at ResetERA.com or on Twitter are under the impression that scarcity does not exist and this somehow justifies murder of any person that exists. Meanwhile, I understand that it does and therefore murder is not justified.

 

For the record, yes, murder is wrong.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

Edit:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/december-5-2024-nbc-news-exclusive-new-progressive-caucus-chair-democrats-must-refocus-on-workers-and-wages-to-combat-trumps-culture-wars.1053321/page-2#post-132532698

as a trans person: please stop talking about us. focus on workers rights and pay/cost of living. this dude is right

[benji]

For the record, yes, murder is wrong.

Look, I'll explain it since you aren't the only one. As a pacifist I understand that most people do not default to the position that all violence must be justified morally at minimum.

For me, the following two groups are understandable:
1. The murderer himself. He felt aggrieved and deluded himself into believing this man had wronged him.
2. ResetERA.com and the various on Twitter. They're bloodthirsty and amoral and will take any excuse to call for or celebrate the murder of innocents as they desperately need "meaning" in the lives they deliberately choose to give none to.

For anyone else I do not find it understandable. I only give it a pass because I assume they aren't choosing to give it much thought, which is why I'll explain.

If you attempt to justify this man's murder because of a claim that he denied people payment for their medical needs then you are choosing to be ignorant:
1. Since scarcity exists, this man not denying any specific case will mean the denial of others, as we cannot know that any one choice will not lead to the denial of more others we cannot argue that his personal intervention in any specific case would not lead to more suffering than the current reality. This eliminates his personal actions as a justification.
2. We can reject his complicity on the grounds of denying anyone because if he does not either the company will fail (unlikely because of my second part of this, but the consequence of this logic if taken seriously in good faith) or he will be replaced by the board for failing at his duty to the shareholders. The person who replaces him will deny, in the highly unlikely best case scenario this man's defiance of the board will save only a few temporarily as his successor will deny even more actively than he did.
3. We can also reject his complicity by "taking the position of CEO" because this would either justify the murder of every single person on Earth or mandate the denial of all persons insurance coverage.

Any actual thought leaves it clear: no justification, no grounds for celebration. No "understanding" those who do, they simply are either ignorant or amoral. 
For those who wish to not ignore, the choice is also clear: defense of the innocent against those trying to justify his murder.

Corollary conclusions:
1. "Well he could enact universal healthcare instead" this is not in his power so would at minimum justify the murder of any American.
2. "Well we should have universal healthcare" would also justify murder of any person on Earth because universal healthcare does not eliminate scarcity and thus does not eliminate that someone somewhere will have to decide to deny someone.
3. "Well under universal health we're all complicit in the denial which makes it moral" I reject on the grounds that it is also justification for deliberate state mass murder as moral. (As well as ultimately is a justification for a single corporate monopoly over everything, a position I am required to inherently reject as illiberal and non-democratic beyond the murder stuff.)

[benji]

"Abolish Identity"

"Queer strategies"

They mean the bad kind of identity.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

1. Since scarcity exists, this man not denying any specific case will mean the denial of others, as we cannot know that any one choice will not lead to the denial of more others we cannot argue that his personal intervention in any specific case would not lead to more suffering than the current reality. This eliminates his personal actions as a justification.

1. Denials are based on monetary reasons, not scarcity of materials.

3. We can also reject his complicity by "taking the position of CEO" because this would either justify the murder of every single person on Earth or mandate the denial of all persons insurance coverage.

3. The guy in charge is responsible. The rest doesn't follow.

[benji]

Oh my god I'm glad I liberated this book, the first blurb even mentions organizing:



Oof. Yikes. Upholding systems of oppression here.

[benji]

1. Denials are based on monetary reasons, not scarcity of materials.

You're smarter than this.

3. The guy in charge is responsible. The rest doesn't follow.

He's not in charge. He serves at the pleasure of the board.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

1. Denials are based on monetary reasons, not scarcity of materials.

You're smarter than this.

The hospitals are the ones making decisions about resources.

[benji]

The hospitals are the ones making decisions about resources.

Again, you're smarter than this. Stop attempting to pretend that resources are not scarce.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

1. Denials are based on monetary reasons, not scarcity of materials.

You're smarter than this.

3. The guy in charge is responsible. The rest doesn't follow.

He's not in charge. He serves at the pleasure of the board.

Yes, they appoint him to be in charge.

[benji]

Yes, they appoint him to be in charge.

Which means that the only way to justify not being murdered is for every person on Earth to reject being appointed.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

The hospitals are the ones making decisions about resources.

Again, you're smarter than this. Stop attempting to pretend that resources are not scarce.

I'm not. I'm saying the decisions of a for-profit business are motivated by profit.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

Yes, they appoint him to be in charge.

Which means that the only way to justify not being murdered is for every person on Earth to reject being appointed.

Yes, I will accept that. Low bar to clear. I'm also not arguing about the legal case.

[benji]

I'm not. I'm saying the decisions of a for-profit business are motivated by profit.

Look, if you're not going to actually explain why you think scarcity doesn't exist then this is a useless conversation. I'm not going to convince you that murder of anyone you want is unjustified.

[benji]

[Hap Shaughnessy]

I'm not. I'm saying the decisions of a for-profit business are motivated by profit.

Look, if you're not going to actually explain why you think scarcity doesn't exist then this is a useless conversation. I'm not going to convince you that murder of anyone you want is unjustified.

Perhaps you should explain how the insurance company is making decisions based on scarcity instead of profit.

[benji]

Perhaps you should explain how the insurance company is making decisions based on scarcity.

Perhaps you should explain how they're not so we can all have infinite resources.

Perhaps you should explain how the insurance company is making decisions based on scarcity instead of profit.

It's the same exact thing. Profit is the left overs of good decision making about scare resources. All entities do this or cease to exist.

[killamajig]

Would you two just fuck and get it over with

[BIONIC]

Fellxs, can we meet in the middle and just agree that all yts deserve to die?

[nachobro]

For the record, yes, murder is wrong.

Look, I'll explain it since you aren't the only one. As a pacifist I understand that most people do not default to the position that all violence must be justified morally at minimum.

For me, the following two groups are understandable:
1. The murderer himself. He felt aggrieved and deluded himself into believing this man had wronged him.
2. ResetERA.com and the various on Twitter. They're bloodthirsty and amoral and will take any excuse to call for or celebrate the murder of innocents as they desperately need "meaning" in the lives they deliberately choose to give none to.

For anyone else I do not find it understandable. I only give it a pass because I assume they aren't choosing to give it much thought, which is why I'll explain.

If you attempt to justify this man's murder because of a claim that he denied people payment for their medical needs then you are choosing to be ignorant:
1. Since scarcity exists, this man not denying any specific case will mean the denial of others, as we cannot know that any one choice will not lead to the denial of more others we cannot argue that his personal intervention in any specific case would not lead to more suffering than the current reality. This eliminates his personal actions as a justification.
2. We can reject his complicity on the grounds of denying anyone because if he does not either the company will fail (unlikely because of my second part of this, but the consequence of this logic if taken seriously in good faith) or he will be replaced by the board for failing at his duty to the shareholders. The person who replaces him will deny, in the highly unlikely best case scenario this man's defiance of the board will save only a few temporarily as his successor will deny even more actively than he did.
3. We can also reject his complicity by "taking the position of CEO" because this would either justify the murder of every single person on Earth or mandate the denial of all persons insurance coverage.

Any actual thought leaves it clear: no justification, no grounds for celebration. No "understanding" those who do, they simply are either ignorant or amoral. 
For those who wish to not ignore, the choice is also clear: defense of the innocent against those trying to justify his murder.

Corollary conclusions:
1. "Well he could enact universal healthcare instead" this is not in his power so would at minimum justify the murder of any American.
2. "Well we should have universal healthcare" would also justify murder of any person on Earth because universal healthcare does not eliminate scarcity and thus does not eliminate that someone somewhere will have to decide to deny someone.
3. "Well under universal health we're all complicit in the denial which makes it moral" I reject on the grounds that it is also justification for deliberate state mass murder as moral. (As well as ultimately is a justification for a single corporate monopoly over everything, a position I am required to inherently reject as illiberal and non-democratic beyond the murder stuff.)

health insurance companies make everyone's blood boil murder is wrong but also i don't feel bad or anything for the dude

[benji]

Fellxs, can we meet in the middle and just agree that all yts deserve to die? 

[nachobro]

if biden died tomorrow (in minecraft) i wouldn't feel bad either. cause then our black queen could take her place on top

[benji]

health insurance companies make everyone's blood boil murder is wrong but also i don't feel bad or anything for the dude

Again, I said I understand that many people are ignorant. I was explaining to Boredfrom who did not understand why there are people who may not celebrate the murder of innocents.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

Perhaps you should explain how the insurance company is making decisions based on scarcity.

Perhaps you should explain how they're not so we can all have infinite resources.

Perhaps you should explain how the insurance company is making decisions based on scarcity instead of profit.

It's the same exact thing. Profit is the left overs of good decision making about scare resources. All entities do this or cease to exist.

The scarce resources then would the insurers because that's where the money is coming from.

[benita]

I don't give an actual shit what you dorks have to say about trans people. It's just something I'm a dork about myself. Carry on.

[benji]

murder is wrong but also i don't feel bad or anything for the dude

if biden died tomorrow (in minecraft) i wouldn't feel bad either.

I don't feel bad or anything, I'm simply explaining to those confused why I don't find murder to be justified or to be celebrated simply because the victim is an innocent we've decided to hate out of ignorance.

I think if you feel emotional either way about this you're closer to the type of people who emotionally invest in media than you are a rational individual.

[nachobro]

personally i feel a lil judged and unsafe right now after this confrontational response from staff and purposely leaving out my tribute to kamala, the real president elect whose election was stolen by the coward donald trump

[benji]

Well, you should feel judged because Kamala is pro-genocide.

[nachobro]