Hello comrades. In the interest of upholding our code of conduct - specifically, rule 1 (providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all) - we felt it appropriate to make a statement regarding the lionization of Luigi Mangione, the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter, also known as "The Adjuster."
In the day or so since the alleged shooter's identity became known to the public, the whole world has had the chance to dig though his personal social media accounts and attempt to decipher his political ideology and motives. What we have learned may shock you. He is not one of us. He is a "typical" American with largely incoherent, and in many cases reactionary politics. For the most part, what is remarkable about the man himself is that he chose to take out his anger on a genuine enemy of the proletariat, instead of an elementary school.
This is a situation where the art must be separated from the artist. We do not condemn the attack, but as a role model, Luigi Mangione falls short. We do not expect perfection from revolutionary figures either, but we expect a modicum of revolutionary discipline. We expect them not simply to identify an unpopular element of society , but to clearly illuminate the causes of oppression and the means by which they are overcome. When we canonize revolutionary figures, we are holding them up as an example to be followed.
This is where things come back to rule 1. Mangione has a long social media history bearing a spectrum of reactionary viewpoints, and interacting positively with many powerful reactionary figures. While some commenters have referred to this as "nothing malicious," by lionizing this man we effectively deem this behavior acceptable, or at the very least, safe to ignore. This is the type of tailism which opens the door to making a space unsafe for marginalized people.
We're going to be more strict on moderating posts which do little more than lionize the shooter. There is plenty to be said about the unfolding events, the remarkably positive public reaction, how public reactions to "propaganda of the deed" may have changed since the historical epoch of its conception (and how the strategic hazards might not have), and many other aspects of the news without canonizing this man specifically. We can still dance on the graves of our enemies and celebrate their rediscovered fear and vulnerability without the vulgar revisionism needed to pretend this man is some sort of example of Marxist or Anarchist practice.
I dunno how much I believe it when somebody let one of the most disrespectful chief waterbearers slip a 3-day because things were able to 'be hashed out privately'; especially not with reports that said chief waterbearer returned to someone she was going after's DMs after the fact. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it.
The user's ban was restored and upgraded to 7 days, we're still figuring out what happened there and who she had this nebulous "private conversation" with. The ban never should have been reversed, we're sincerely sorry for that.
It's not the private conversation in question, but I also had a private conversation with her and she gave my permission to share the contents of this conversation publicly. Should I share this conversation publicly, and if I do, where, and should I redact her username?
Sent from Mdewakanton Dakota lands / Sept. 29 1837
Treaty with the Sioux of September 29th, 1837
"We Will Talk of Nothing Else": Dakota Interpretations of the Treaty of 1837
Well, I did say I'd believe it when I saw it; and the prompt resolution was unexpected. It just kept sticking in my craw that we've had a couple he/hims in the past year fuck up, get banned, get unbanned, then go to somebody's DMs to keep the bullshit going so I'm just here like "where's the consistency?"
i noticed this too, i didn't wanna stir shit by making a whole post about it but it is interesting seeing a power user get preferential treatment after being very wrong and then spewing so much vitriol in response to critique. very reddit thing to happen on the site.
edit i see the user has caught a 7 day because of DM harassment. maybe we just shouldn't let br*tish people on here.
Power users have always seemed to have a lot more leeway, I don’t think it’s anything new.
They should’ve just upheld the 3 day tho imo, not like it was a perma or something.
sure. i agree, the user was acting completely out of line and should be touching grass rn instead of still posting about this.