Satire: Maybe We're Going to Need A List

[MineralMan]

Based on the varying opinions here on DU, I think we're going to need a list soon of who is and is not a valid "Shoot on Sight" target. There seems to be some controversy on that subject, and it's alarming.

So, if someone would come up with a list of those people whom it's OK to kill at any time, that would clarify things considerably. I wouldn't be competent to make such a list, though. I have a very strong bias against killing people, so I'm disqualified from such list-making.

[Dennis Donovan]

1. I voted not to hide.

FYI.

[JohnSJ]

3. Same here, especially with the sarcasm tag, though it actually makes a very important point about tunnel vision.

[Silent Type]

6. +1. Wasn't alert worthy to start with.

[NoRethugFriends]

27. Thank you

[Iggo]

2. Nazis and zombies.

And we’re fresh out of zombies.

[Ocelot II]

4. This will require some careful thought!

First of all, is shooting limited only to CEOs, or are other officers/directors on the list? Does their corporation have to be publicly traded, or are officials or majority shareholders of privately-held corporations fair game, too? Is there a limit to the size of the corporation? Does it have to be a corporation that is universally hated or do only a majority of Americans have to hate it? What if the corporation or the targeted human donates generously to charities? How well-compensated does the target have to be in order to make the list, or is that important? Can we shoot members of their families, too, since they also profit from the corporation's evil activities? If so, are we limited to spouses, or are children OK? Minor children, too; maybe parents or siblings, if the targeted person supports them? If family members are to be included, wouldn't it be more efficient just to bomb or set fire to their homes?

Damn, that slope sure is slippery...

(Also )

[MineralMan]

5. It all seems so complicated.

I'm going to stick with the "Don't kill anybody" rule, personally.

[Ocelot II]

7. Works for me.

[Silent Type]

8. Exactly. Howsabout the people who accept paychecks signed by these targets?

[lame54]

11. I suggested it was wrong...

To shoot someone in the back
I got a lot of push back on that
No emoji's involved

[MineralMan]

12. Yes. I did the same and had a similar

reaction from some. And that led to my sarcastic post. I'm troubled by the reaction I've seen regarding this whole thing. Very troubled.

[LAS14]

19. Shocked, I say. Shocked!! nt

[GusBob]

13. More sarc

The kid read a book about insurance companies that grated his cheese

Should the family of the victim kill the author?

/sarc/

[Maeve]

14. I agree that there should be a static rule that NO ONE is on the "valid to shoot" list...however...

There could easily be a list of "understandable if shot" (most of whom seem to be becoming part of the next mis-administration.)

Understanding does not mean approval, it simply means that, being liberals, we can see other people's POVs and realize why some might choose violence.

[LAS14]

18. Yes. The less black and white I see here the happier I'll be. nt

[Beringia]

15. Romans 12:17-19

Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

I don't think the Luigi Mangione followed any peaceful philosophers on how to walk through life

[MineralMan]

29. There are similar writings in other scriptures from other places.

Recognizing the value of not seeking revenge appears to be fairly common.

[NoRethugFriends]

30. Why should anyone care what the bible says?

[Beringia]

43. It is valuable to me, as a teaching

Just as other religious and spiritual teachings, Gandhi, buddhists. My Godmother is Dorothy Day and my father was a kind of radical catholic, so it means something to me

[Iggo]

45. Yeah, but what does Gandalf have to say about it?

[mcar]

16. Yes, it would be helpful

[LAS14]

17. The problem with your satire is....

... is that the implication is that this applies at all times and in all places. If we confine ourselves to the U.S., which is still, although some may disagree, a country ruled by laws, then your satire holds.

But what about Syria of a month ago. I'd be happy to put Assad and his henchmen at the top of it.

[MineralMan]

20. I disagree. For me, it holds everywhere.

I do not see any political or economic situation where any individual can make the decision to take another person's life. Period. I would extend it beyond that, to, eliminate capital punishment as well.

My satire is based on my personal ethics, and those alone. Yours might differ.

As for Assad, he is now out of the picture in Syria. That has the same effect, really.

[LAS14]

21. How is this relevant?

"As for Assad, he is now out of the picture in Syria. That has the same effect, really."

How is this relevant as a response to my observation that things that are morally abhorent in a society governed by laws would not be abhorent in a society not goverened by laws??? Like Syria a month ago? It's irrelevant what Syria is like now.

[MineralMan]

23. Assad is not in Syria because his behavior was morally abhorent.

He fled because he no longer was able to continue that behavior without consequences.

What I wrote is relevant. Syria is what it is like now, at least temporarily, because the people rejected Assad's behavior at long last. It remains to be seen what will replace Assad, though.

[LAS14]

31. I suspect that the revolutionaries killed a pretty large number of soldiers. nt

[MineralMan]

32. No doubt they did.

It's a violent place.

[LAS14]

33. So you think Assad should have remained in power?

"I do not see any political or economic situation where any individual can make the decision to take another person's life. Period."

[MineralMan]

37. I said nothing of the sort.

Assad is no longer in Syria, but is still alive. So my case is made, no?

[LAS14]

38. You certainly implied that the revolutionaries should not have killed Syrian soldiers. nt

[MineralMan]

40. I have zero sway over revolutionaries.

Obviously. That is not my topic at all. I could write about that, but didn't. It's irrelevant to this thread.

[LAS14]

41. I don't understand this at all, but I'm willing to let it drop here. nt

[MineralMan]

47. LOL!

[LAS14]

39. "Assad is no longer in Syria, but is still alive. So my case is made, no?"

Your case is made if people in power count, but foot soldiers don't.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

44. I believe you have said you served in the military?

Sorry if I'm wrong on that. But if you did, did you ever think about being a conscientious objector?

[MineralMan]

46. Nope.

I became a Russian linguist and analyst.

[edhopper]

22. How about a list

Of who we don't give a fuck about if they get shot!

Because that's what is really happening.

[MineralMan]

26. My satire; My choice.

Go write your own. Thanks.

[edhopper]

28. I think

I just did.

I am just a more succinct writer.

[sarisataka]

24. You are a prophet

New York police warn US healthcare executives about online 'hitlist'

[MineralMan]

25. Oh, Crap!

[Kaleva]

34. Those who can't recognize satire should be on the list

[MineralMan]

35. Well, in this case,

I made very sure to identify the post as satire. Impossible to miss.

[hunter]

42. In a runaway trolley situation I'll usually aim for the billionaire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[paulkienitz]

48. Killing a CEO is not going to change the policy of that company.

But you know what might? Seeing how horrifyingly gleeful the public reaction was. That might be the part that actually gets through to them -- which lets them know they're not noble soldiers in a battle to bring affordable healthcare to a competitive market, but pillaging bandits who have made bitter and remorseless enemies of the people they supposedly serve. That might get them to dial it back more than the killing on its own ever would.