*Soon. It’s a name. Needs a capital letter.

Mangione’s manifesto is being shared with a wink and a smile on social media.

Agreed. Lemmy especially is all for glorifying both manifesto and actions. Yes, it’s being shared for that glorification.

But so is his mugshot. For likewise reason we sometimes avoid sharing the name or photo of certain criminals.

Maybe… maybe you’re right. Maybe I’m also supporting a point of view because it gives me an outcome I want: the outcome of the manifesto being public, without a priori judging the actions. But I feel there’s something I’m missing. I think it’s to do with censorship. The other rhetoric, apart from this glorification, seems to be that there’s nothing to be said here except to lament and condemn the murder, and move on. Even the BBC report on why social media are supporting Mangione, felt like it was subtly shifting the perspective to make sensible people shrug the support off as irrational hype largely from Mangione’s good looks. That perspective then leverages the “glorification of violence is bad” argument to avoid or censor other discussion, including sharing the manifesto: this bothers me. So that even if the manifesto is being shared mostly only by those who seek to glorify Mangione, and I don’t wish to glorify his action, I would like it shared.

I despise murder. Outside of fiction, I do not wish to glorify vigilante executions. And yet, I have a deep anger at injustices such as from certain members of the US healthcare system. Something must be done: and when the response to this something is to erase discussion, that feels wrong. Your answer, if I understood right, is that it’s right to glorify certain violence, including this: and therefore sharing the manifesto is good. Mine, I think, is that it’s right to fully and frankly consider all that’s going on, including this manifesto: and if that gets mired in people glorifying the shooting, I’m willing to put up with that. The manifesto is being shared to glorify the shooting; but sharing it is still important if not glorifying the shooting.

Well, something like that.

Then discussing Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto, the Unabomber’s, McVeigh’s, or a school shooter’s isn’t glorifying either

I agree, I don’t think it is. Nor is publishing Mein Kampf glorifying Nazism. Sharing the manifestos can be part of glorifying the actions, but also doesn’t need to be. But sharing them does suggest some relevancy of the actions, which to some people suggests you should consider agreeing with them. So there’s a balance of when it’s appropriate, especially if some people are using that to glorify the actions - as, indeed, is very much the case here.

We accept that some glorification of violence is good, such as a politician talking about going after criminals

We do, but I’m not sure it’s quite right. Maybe when we simultaneously say, “glorifying violence is bad,” we recognise the tension and perhaps our own cognitive dissonance. And maybe what we really want, is to glorify the stopping of evil, and accept (perhaps) the use of violence to achieve that. The glory of the politician going after criminals is of stopping the criminals, not of the superiority in violence used to achieve that. But the school shooter? Is there any glory there to be had, adjacent to the violence?

Which brings us back to this CEO shooting. Even if we say violence per se is a bad thing, or if we say only judicially sanctioned violence is acceptable, still the abuses this CEO represents are evil, and we might glorify the opposition to those abuses. That leaves us with a tension. Glorify the principle of opposition, but not the method applied. In that context, the manifesto is relevant.

And it leaves us with a discussion. Do we really say all violence is wrong? Is this healthcare system really as abusive or illegitimate as people think? Does the CEO have responsibility in that? What is a right attitude, and means, toward this in the future? All these we can discuss - and consider the manifesto part of that - without a priori ascribing glory (or condemnation) to the killing.

It is true many people are glorifying Luigi, and whether that’s right is a separate question. For similar reasons we censor sharing all sorts of things, like Mein Kampf, or like dumping Bin Laden’s body in the sea. But those things don’t, of themselves, need to be glorifying what they represent; it is the opinionated balance of social factors that makes us censor those things. In the case of the school shooting, I probably agree: censor the manifesto. (Actually, I’d say let it be public for those who wish to know, but not widely shared.) But in this case here, I think the balance is in favour of publishing Luigi’s (apparent) manifesto.

Discussing is certainly not the same as glorifying. And yes, I did label one and not the other as an atrocity, but I hope you understand that’s a simplification.

I do think in this case it’s an important question to be asked: why did the killer commit this murder; and why are so many people supporting it. And in this case, I don’t think it does justice, nor does society good, to wave it away with, “they’re a bad person who did a bad thing”. Perhaps in all murder cases some discussion, by some people, is necessary. But here, on balance, it seems particularly important and public.

I think there’s a difference. School shootings are an atrocity, and, for the most part, we all agree on that. Sharing the manifesto lends a kind of legitimacy to the shooter and their reasons, and, on balance, we’d rather turn our back on them and condemn the violence.

With this CEO murder, many of us agree there’s such life-destroying abuse in the American healthcare commerce - of which this CEO was directly part, whether or not he’s to blame - that the problem is a serious topic of public conversation. The manifesto, and the events associated with it, are a relevant part of that conversation, whether we support them or not.

You know, not everybody likes onions.

Cakes! Everybody likes cakes! Cakes have layers.

Why can’t software be like cakes?

DM: The dragon turns on the rest of the party.

Party, who are made up of bards: Wait! I think I know what the dragon wants…

New quest dropped: learn rock and roll, and the dragon will join your band.

Pour a cup of java and write it down in javascript.

“We noticed you’re good at solutions when things are mixed up - so we’d like to offer you a job in a warehouse.”

Of course not. Sysadmin skills are good for pouring the drinks, not managing the restaurant.

I only dabble, but I really like Julia. Has several language and architecture features I really like compared to python. Also looks like the libraries have been getting really good since last I used it much.

[audience looks around] ‘What just happened?’ ‘There must be some context we’re missing.’

Or, to put it another way, (unprofessional academic linguist here), a word has meanings by what you mean by it, and what the listener understands it to mean.

In a sense, it can mean anything you want it to. In another sense, it can mean anything the listener/reader interprets it as. Most useful though is when you mean the same meaning that the listener understands.

And for “accepted/official meaning”, that’s just a community all agreeing on a meaning. Optionally with a recognised group (e.g. dictionary writer) affirming certain meanings as accepted in the community.

Again, which party is it giving the mega wealthy tax breaks?

But that’s rather the point here, isn’t it? So much Democrat rhetoric and support comes across as, “they’re worse so you have to like us.” Not exactly inspiring to people whose livelihoods are struggling.

where you differ from a whildly unpopular president… and you answer “nowhere”.

I watched the beginning of the Trump-Harris debate. When Harris was asked why she and Biden kept Trump’s trade tariffs (after just saying how bad new ones would be), she gave no answer and went back to bashing Trump.

And your points on the economy are essentially, the economy is booming…

I felt a lot of disconnect between the “Biden is the greatest” and “America is suffering” rhetoric in the lead up to the election.

the worry some have about fascism taking over is not believed by many… politicians say a lot…

Not American here, but I still have much hope that the fate of America is in the hands of her people. My biggest fear at Trump’s election is if it inspires more of the nation to hate and anger - because the president is your leader in that way.

But you see, Trump won because a lot of people voted for him. If the American people can find a new love for the poor, for fairness between worker and manager, for people who look and act differently: then I have great hope for the nation’s recovery.

One particular thing I noticed, is on the one hand was the rhetoric that Biden was the saviour of the economy and the working class, the antithesis to corporate greed, and all problems are from COVID and leftovers from Trump; and on the other hand, that prices are rising, people are poorer, while corporations post record profits.

If I were an American, that dissonance would give me a little skepticism about all the pro-democratic rhetoric I’ve been hearing.

Again, not that that really answers the questions, but it does shift the impressions one gets.

I saw something like that pop up on my android (Lineage) the other day.

Hey I studied chemistry.

That looks like a catalist.

Now I wonder which algorithm you use to sort into an ordered catalist?

I think the ‘functional’ programmers next door used to deal in infinite catalists.

I still hear the refrains from the music department nearby,

As someday it may happen
That a tin roof must be bound,
I’ve got a catalist…

Logitech ‘pebble’ with an AA battery.

I always drop breadcrumbs on my mousemat for this purpose.