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 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.