In the wake of the killing, widespread public animosity towards health insurers ― and UnitedHealthcare specifically ― may explain why the company quickly limited who could comment on their tribute to Thompson.

Still, people still found a way to express how they felt ― to the tune of more than 90,000 laughing reactions as of Friday.

    • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Because I already was, albeit temporarily

      “Seems like justice was served” was all I commented to be banned

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      Posting about it is one thing.

      Specifically calling for violence is against LW’s TOS, and they seem to be ban happy when the violence is directed at the owning class.

      As for people calling for violence being posted, I’ve seen very few comments more than 30 minutes old on LW doing that, but plenty on other servers. I’m not sure how LW is handling other instance comments though.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      45
      ·
      16 days ago

      Because extremist rhetoric is banned in any decent space.

        • Disaster@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          16 days ago

          In the pearl-clutching liberal world where people still can’t understand why she lost when it was her turn

        • Chozo@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          16 days ago

          Advocating for anybody’s killing is extremist. It’s literally the most extreme thing you could inflict upon somebody.

          Revenge and justice aren’t the same thing.

          • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            16 days ago

            No, you’re right. It’s fine that these executives go into meetings and enact plans that harm and kill sick people, while they profit. They should be allowed to do that without consequence. The fact that this one man killed only one person, and without personal profit, is abhorrent.

          • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            They actually sometimes are the same thing.

            Would any sane person advocate against Hitler’s death after learning what he did?

            The difference is that our government sanctioned that target ~80 years ago, but this one was against the law. Both people brought large numbers of innocent people to early graves in this world.

          • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            16 days ago

            When patients are denied necessary care, they suffer. I would argue that this was not an act of revenge, because that would have been much more gruesome.