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.
Because all those other people do is post?
Edit: like, do you really not see a difference between a guy who shot a health insurance CEO and a bunch of D-tier internet personalities who use politics to support their media careers or (in the case of MAGA communists) start cults?
Edit 2: to be clear I agree with the rest of your post.
He shot one CEO. He didn't somehow take down an entire industry. We may have seen some temporary reprive for the people that have been affected by it (reversal on certain policy, less claim denials). And its too early to say what happens in the long run, but knowing how America is I'm not holding my breath for long term change.
And again, I'm not saying that there was anything wrong with what he did (and yes that act is more impactful than whatever media personalities do) but why is it that we're also supposed to ignore his reactionary views? How is it that you don't see the problem in that? I think you've lived in America long enough to know that leftist language is coopted by the right and its extremely dangerous for marginalized Americans because they'll be the ones who bear the brunt of whatever solution the right proposes to "solve" the issues of the working class.
Edit:I saw your edit just now. I know the comparison is a bit extreme, but its relevant because it straddles the same line of thought. Those internet personalities, even if all they are doing is being extremely online and not affecting anything, will still talk about material issues that people face and it resonates to an extent. Yes their followings are cultish. Yes most people IRL will not ever hear about these people. But we are currently online and the best comparison I have is an online one because we all recognize it to an extent.
I guess what I'm asking is, when we talk about him, what is the thing we emphasize? I don't think we should ignore any one thing about him- I myself made a post making fun of one of his reactionary posts. But what is most important thing in his story? He had reactionary views because he had the same confused false consciousness as most other Americans. We don't have to condone that, but I really don't think we have to take the view that it's a stain on his soul that we have to be sure condemn in every post about him.
And I find it weird that it's such a shock that he has a mixture of good and reactionary views that we even need to talk about this in the first place. It was obvious that that would be the case before we knew who he was. Most people who have rage at the system are just like him.
This is such a bizarre thing to say. How many industries have YOU taken down???
The fact that he targeted (a member of) the bourgeoisie imo. Fucking everyone has been clowning on the dead guy, he got an ok answer from bad math but what we can do is extrapolate that answer backwards into the good math and better answers.
Because you have people here talking about how we should ignore his reactionary view. Straight up. I'm not saying anyone who is talking about him is in the wrong and if you have pointed out that his reactionary views are wrong, good.
But there are people saying that galvanizing him uncritically is the way the left can make gains in the propaganda battle. Its not. If you have fools going out IRL and talking to people and saying, "yeah he had shit views, so what" then you are doing more harm than good and letting the right capture the minds of people.
And no of course I haven't taken down any industries, wtf. Do I need to in order to point out that an act of adventurism shouldn't absolve someone of their shit views?
Okay, I can agree with you there. But I have to ask what we mean when we say "critical?" To me, it doesn't always mean making a moral condemnation when we talk about critically supporting someone, but more in the sense of making a critical analysis, and treating someone or something as a complicated subject. I don't agree with Luigi Mansion's more reactionary views, but I view it as a part of him, and not the defining whole. He's an imperfect person who spawned from the same reactionary firmament that we all do.
I'm also wondering how many of his reactionary posts were made before his apparent back injury. I don't know if we have a clear idea of what he thinks now.
(I'm also not even 100% sure the cops have the right guy, but that's another discussion altogether)
Well, I just find it strange that you would say "He shot one CEO. He didn't somehow take down an entire industry" as if he needed to to take down an entire industry to be valuable.
I think even if you are adding the context of the society he is a part of and thinking about him as a complex subject you still have to be careful with how you are approaching him. I recognize not everything can be black and white, but there are people who have lived in this reactionary society we live in that have emerged with views that are not reactionary and for me a lot hinges on what you mentioned here
I pointed out much the same in this post.
If his lived experiences were a catalyst for change and he has moved on from the views he held before he went mostly offline then that's a sign of growth and I would for sure wholeheartrdly support him because I think that shows a clear path for people who hold reactionary views to move away from them.
I see a lot of people saying that the calculus of the act doesn't matter because the act itself was correct. The problem is that will only lead people to continue to hold onto those beliefs as long as their ends are seen as righteous.
I think I went about writing that poorly. But while the act has spurned a conversation we need to wait and see what the long term impact of it is going to be as I had mentioned in a previous response. Universal healthcare has long been a popular policy proposal, but time and again it has failed to come as the healthcare industry's exploitation of the working class has worsened. Not only that but we've had conversations around increased class consciousness, yet in spite of that fascism has increased its stranglehold of the American people all while using that class consciousness as a disguise.
Do I hope that the CEO's liquidation actually bring positive change, of course. But I just don't feel like we are in the right moment in history for that to happen. We'll see though. Perhaps I'm being too much of a doomer.
To me, that kind of thinking tends to slip into moralism that I don't think is very helpful. Like, so what if you lived in the same society and emerged out of it with less reactionary views than him? We're not in a Good Person contest here.
Is it just moralism though? Is it just a good person contest?
I'm not here judging everyone in the same way. Like I recognize there are reactionary elements in socialist and liberation movements around the world and I critically support them for much in the we line of thinking you put for in so far as the complexity of individuals and within the context of the social and historical moment those movements have taken place in.
But again I think there is a disconnect between where this person is coming from and the historical moment we are living in in this country and the act. There isn't a strong and present revolutionary movement afoot in the United States. And as I've said I don't feel like the long term impact of it makes it so that I can see Luigi as worthy of being galvanized in the way that I'm seeing him galvanized.