While it’s very unlikely that someone has a definitive answer, this question popped into my head after the assassination of the UHC CEO and it’s been bothering me that I can’t shake off this feeling that more is likely to happen (maybe not in higher frequency but potential).

Usually I could provide counter-arguments to myself in a realism/(should I buy apples or oranges comparison) kind-of sense but this one I feel more unsure about.

I wish I had more diverse exp in systems analysis as these kinds of questions that linger in my head really irritates my OCD brain as I just want to know what’s the most likely answer.

  • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Feels too good to be true. It’s only one shooting.

    Now if some second evil CEO were unfortunately victimized, I might be tempted to call it a trend…

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      5 days ago

      two is just a mere coincidence; but three would be the start a pattern or trend.

        • FindME@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Are there even five evil ceos out there? Come on, be real.

          spoiler

          /insert_meme_about_making_question_too_easy

      • palordrolap@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Well, there was that guy who took a pot shot at Trump, so if you count that, we’re already at two…

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

          You make it sound like he didn’t successfully shoot him. Honestly if trump wasn’t so goddamn fidgety on stage I think he would be dead right now.

          • palordrolap@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            successful

            Even your second sentence implies that he wasn’t. Not in his goal anyway.

      • sbv@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        Skimming through Wikipedia, most of the attacks seemed to focus on politicians, police, and (disproportionately) members of the public.

        A lot of the glee about the CEO murder is that his company’s actions are indefensible, and, as CEO he is responsible for them. It’s very difficult to say the same of the victims of the Years of Lead - many seem to be police, random members of the public, or other members of the same group. With the possible exception of some politicians, it’s hard to see how the victims were responsible for much.

        • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Absolutely right. The aim at large was to free the masses from the grip of modern capitalism. The actual targets were mostly unlucky blokes.

    • Sabin10@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 days ago

      I feel like victimized is the wrong word for someone reaching the find out part of fucking around.

    • vinnymac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      But is it? This same year a kid was an inch or two away from making a bullet enter Trumps brain.

      He’s not the CEO of a healthcare company, but he’s certainly at the helm of many companies, and will soon be president of the states.

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      Honestly, even if 100 CEOs or similar were mowed down I don’t know that I would think that meant we were headed any particular direction as a society, if they’re all done by a single person or group. Now, if many different unaffiliated people start making billionaire swiss cheese, even if it’s only 3 or 4, then I think we start to see a pattern at a societal level.

      Of course, if that were to happen, they’ll take all the guns and start throwing people in reeducation camps and probably publicly executing sympathizers. Remember, the police exist with the main purpose of protecting that class. Any kind of class war is going to be met with overwhelming force that would rival any military conflict, and that’s before they start bringing in actual military if it got to that point.

      Y’know, this comment started off trying to be playfully optimistic, and now I’m sad :(

      • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 days ago

        You also have to keep in mind that both the police and military are “outsiders” to capitalists. They are often poor, and can side with the public. Capitalists rely on total obedience of the military and police, if that breaks, they’re done.

        The whole “seizing guns” thing is a red herring. One general strike and no amount of guns will matter, capitalists need constant, increasing wealth. To not just lower their money but stop incoming money is death to them. Imagine every port, airport, train station, service industry business, etc, all with no workers.

        They can call all the cops and infantry they want, those same people will constantly be asked to kill friends and family. The ones willing to do so will decrease in number until the inevitable toppling of the governing body.

        A (former) leader of Japan was killed with a makeshift weapon. Imagine CEOs trying to dine out when any person in the kitchen staff could poison them.