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.
Mods this is totally fair but I must say I have already named my new Path of Exile character Mario__Mangione. Who’s gonna
me?I think this is more reasonable than nuking the dunking comms.
Obviously nothing materially changed from last week. We were praising a reactionary last week. He didn’t suddenly become reactionary when he was identified. Our awareness of it changed. That’s what we’re really reacting to here, is the change in our awareness, not who he really is. The community isn’t more unsafe than last week. However it might be more annoying and uncouth because it’s bad to praise bigots. The clear answer is to not praise him for being a bigot. Was he being a bigot when he shot a cis white CEO? Nope. So you can praise him for shooting all you want. Just don’t praise him for being a bigot. Or pretend like him being a bigot is completely unrelated to his politics or who he was/is. That’s not a big ask.
I think people are taking this as “Don’t talk about the shooting anymore and do a personal growth because you’re problematic” which isn’t it at all.
He walked the walk without talking the talk.
Anybody on this site thinking we need to adopt this guy is just impatient. There will be plenty of time to co-opt more resentment against billionaires. That’s like… the entire ideological basis of Marxism. Relax. This dude sucks and the fact that he doesn’t maximally suck is a decent talking point for fomenting fervor in the meantime, but that’s it. Bad guy did a good thing. Highly critical support. Not very complex, it’s really just
I just wanted to use this time to remeber Brian Thomas , the CEO of United Health
A Man so Brilliant he made it the 8th most Profitable company in the World ! The World ! all whily beeing unable to expand outsite of the USA , he extraxted so much wealth! from only America , what a genius and Briliant Buisnessleader we have Lost . All because this Scum and enemy of the Workingclass, this persona that has “wrong thought” Killed him. A Father , A Husband … A Health Provider … Children! , why would you want to Associate or Celebrate such Heinous and Uncivil Acts agains the Perfect status Qou.
Dont you see that it is All Is Provided For ?
Ligie had wrongthought (“Non-violence keeps the system working at full speed ahead” for example .)
And there are Many People Like him in America ! , Heros like Brian Thomsen Protect you from them , dont you see ?
Without Legs , they can not hunt you …
Without Glasses , they can not see you
without Teeth they can not eat you …
so please , do not disrupt the natural order of things , and do not let this filth and sin of these unwashed Masses infect your pure thoughts of being “better than this”.
You dont want to end up like Luigi , do you ?
Luigi isnt happy now … do you understand ? And be became this unhappy because he had wrongthink. When you celebrate such heinous acts , you may be inspiring others to become unhappy as well…
the cycles between mod overreach backlash keep getting shorter and shorter
Good post. While we are at it, we should ban lionizing Stalin for his reactionary viewpoints next.
ELITE bit
I’m not gonna lie, this feels incredibly deft to me. Please call me out if I’m wrong but he’s not a nazi. He seems to have fairly average 20 year old white Yale graduate politics and all the baggage that comes with that. Of course he’s not a principal end communist and of course he has reactionary takes because he’s a white guy from middle America. Why shouldn’t we critically support him? These are the fucking things that they divide us over.
but he’s not a nazi. He seems to have fairly average 20 year old white Yale graduate politics and all the baggage that comes with that.
Why shouldn’t we critically support him? These are the fucking things that they divide us over.
Critical support isn’t meant for white failsons yankee adventurist escapades (if he even is the actual culprit). Critical support is meant for comrades and should only be reserved for comrades. I don’t know why critical support is being thrown around for, as you said, fairly average white men.
A lot of people are piling on you but what you said is 100% correct for reasons that no one here is acknowledging: we shouldn’t support this guy because we can’t support this guy. WTF would it even mean to “support” him? Send him nice letters? Legal defense? No one is doing that. It’s like asking if we ought to support Iran. What does that mean? Are we gonna give them money? Missiles? There’s nothing we can do. It’s all just rhetoric and memes.
The same way disapproving of his views on a niche website viewed by very little people is “the left blowing this chance”. Vibes.
You’re assuming too much? What people are defending is critical support, ultimately it just means admitting yes he did a cool good and necessary thing and no we don’t particularly care about him as an idol or figure.
The context here is entirely on social interactions between ourselves and likely libs and others, if someone IRL asks you about this guy, the issue is entirely on how you handle this answer. Are you willing to call yourself a communist and say yes you like what he did to your friend or someone politicaly engaged etc?
Of course we’re not his legal team, we’re not even a movement or org, that seems like a strawman.
Also the other user’s argument is basically “this is a bad look” which is hilariously out of touch anyway.
Ok but that’s not support, that’s just saying you approve of his action. The discussion isn’t whether or not we approve of his action, the discussion is if we’re gonna “support” this guy or not which I argue is a meaningless thing to argue about because we’re materially decoupled from him. If my lib friend asks me what I think of this guy I’ll just say the truth, “what he did was great but he wasn’t doing it with a coherent ideology or plan, we need a vanguard party that can guide these kinds of people with the right idea to carry out actions with more impact and a coherent plan.” I don’t see what else there is to debate.
WTF would it even mean to “support” him?
I have observed that when westerners say this they mean it in the same way that they support a sports team
Sending good vibes, thoughts and prayers even, to the axis of resistance.
Critical support is definitely not just for comrades. There have been situations where groups have to make difficult decisions and partnerships with groups that are not ideologically communist let alone perfect for the sake of the advancement of some particular goal.
I don’t claim to know his whole situation maybe he’s a lot worse, but I assume based on what I’ve seen he’s a ding dong 26 year old with coworker politics not a straight up alt right Nick Fuentes follower. If that’s the case then fine I can adjust accordingly, but seems like a lot of people who normally are fine with larger groups, countries, and people (certain historical figure) not being ideologically perfect all of a sudden wanna act like it’s this big betrayal to be at least like “nice, they killed the right type of guy for once.”
We honestly don’t know how this is gonna shake out yet but at the very least we’re talking about health care again after it was complete ignored during the entire presidential campaign.
larger groups, countries, and people (certain historical figure) not being ideologically perfect all of a sudden wanna act like it’s this big betrayal to be at least like “nice, they killed the right type of guy for once.”
It’s not a matter of betrayal but blowing things out of proportion and cheapening language. The term critical support should be used sparingly and not slapped on the latest USAmerican flavor of the week. I mean, we’ve already seen that most people are in the “nice they killed the right guy” camp. It’s parading him around I have an issue with and claiming that the mods are doing “overreach” on their precious shitposting comm.
Where did you obtain this definition of “critical support?” What makes someone a “comrade?” And who gets to decide?
I’m saying that placing this man in the same category of critical support as other figures is a bad look and is uncomfortable for me and others as well. I don’t like having a struggle session over whether a well-off ivy league white chud with seemingly incomprehensible politics with a blood feud should be given a pedestal or not.
I don’t disagree with anyone seeing his actions as heroic or trying to decipher his motivations, but things like the fundraising post are over the line and deserve to be moderated.
Should Putin receive critical support? Hamas? Hezbollah? Ansarallah? The IRGC?
The answer to all of these is pretty clearly a resounding yes, right?
I don’t think these groups are comparable at all to luigi. They’re doing active prolonged resistance to imperialism. One of them is fighting for their very own existence.
Critical support is meant for comrades and should only be reserved for comrades.
I didn’t say that? Even so saying the guy is just like a palestinian fighting against the zionist entity actually is an incredibly unserious thing to say.
I agree that we shouldn’t pedestal a chud but I was also under the impression that critical support of an individual does not equal “pedestaling” them.
He isn’t fairly average. He did a thing. He is close enough to right that his crash out was good for the world. That is something to admire. Did he do the thing? No. However we gotta respect someone taking a step down the right path even if they don’t have everything figured out.
fairly average 20 year old white Yale graduate politics
we have pretty much always dunked on this exact person. doesn’t mean he didn’t do a cool thing but cmon
If he is 27 now how old was he when he was making these tweets? Are we seriously gonna pretend like we had clear view of politics at 23 or smt?
“just some adolescent bigotry” jfc not everyone was an entitled white boy racist transphobe at age 23
Yeah man, you all were completely enlightened at 24. No shit views in any aspect whatsoever. Born well-read, class-aware and a radical leftist at 23 coming from a rich family. Come on.
In fact, none of your worldviews have changed since you were 24 and you did not grow as a person since then. Because you of course did not need to learn and grow, you reached peak leftist enlightment at 23 and then never changed a bit.
he was 24 lol i don’t buy this line of defence at all. 2 years out of college is hardly a baby, yeah actually something is wrong if you’re still a right wing culture warrior at that point in your life. if he was 19 or something i could take it as some level of excuse but come on.
Some times you do have to give it to them
I think you meant daft?
This is why I wish he wasn’t caught. During the time he was on the run the focus was all on what a terrible person Brian Thompson is and how deeply evil the Amerikkkan “healthcare” industry is. Now all people want to do is talk about the guy who did it and not the ghoul who was killed.
Unfortunately it is in the best interest of the empire to exalt him, instead of being a catalyst for change - he becomes a celebrity, an icon and the cause of his actions become secondary to the person itself.
Given the absurdity of reaaons given for removing my comments and the style of this post, it seems like there is still a need for the mod team to do some self-crit around community management. No discussions, no explanations in light of mild criticism, just dropping the hammer from on high. Both of my comments were removed using bad faith assumptions that are inaccurate and zero people have talked to me about it.
I was already too embarrassed of this site’s trigger-happy flippant modding and mod-driven struggle sessions to recommend it to anyone else anymore. I thought even my irl trans commie friends would dislike it, and lo and behold, when they found it themselves, they did (though it was during the TC69 return). I contributed materially to the site quite a bit in the early years (not comments/posts) so I felt a bit invested.
But things are not going in the right direction and I have no confidence in the admin/mod team.
I’ll see some of you in other spaces.
As a newer user on this site, I couldn’t agree more. I mod a large-ish leftist subreddit so I do get the challenges of moderating effectively but seems like the mod team here just removes anything that vaguely hurts someone’s feelings.
There is a difference between feeling unsafe and being unsafe. There is a difference between feeling unsafe and feeling uncomfortable. A lot of people don’t seem to understand these differences.
We should do a Book Club of “Conflict Is Not Abuse”.
I really wonder if you guys are significantly younger than me, because this style of moderation is entirely a “thing” in leftist spaces. The original ShitRedditSays was moderated this same way, and you kinda just take the good with the bad. The general posting style is entirely the same too.
At 40, I am probably considerably older than most users on this site. I’m not familiar with ShitRedditSays.
I guess the reason the paternalistic moderation practices here are surprising to me is that the person who persuaded me to join said this was a better alternative to Reddit. One of the reasons he gave was the ability to post the type of shit you can’t post on Reddit. I mod a couple leftist subreddits and I basically have to mod off anything that could be construed as condoning violence or illegal activity. If I don’t, I risk the whole subreddit being banned. I was told this was the type of place where you could post shit like “Killing CEOs is good, actually,” without it being modded off.
I did not anticipate heavy-handed moderation of viewpoints that the mods and their friends don’t like, but in retrospect that was probably naive of me.
It used to be better around here. There were always struggle sessions, but they were usually productive and helped the site figure out what it wanted to be. In the last six months or so, it just seems like the site is eating itself.
I think the evolution of social media forms like “reddit” has really lead to people putting on “airs” as to what being “part of the community” is.
You’re never going to have consistent amazing in depth theory discussions here or on the internet at large. Being part of the community on every site is the same you either are prolific at posting memes other people go haha at and give updoots to, or you’re doing jannie shit.
The idea that it’s anything more is an entirely individualistic social media marketing ideal sold to you by social media companies. The only way to get beyond the posting memes or doing jannie shit, is to have an extremely small curated site that’s only browsed by knowledgeable individuals, or by only having a site with your IRL friends on it. Hexbear is neither of those.
It’s a disappointing day for sure/:
And I was riding so high this week :(
Great post, thank you. I had to express my displeasure toward a friend recently who asked me about getting a Luigi (nintendo) flag in response to this.
Fascists also hate big bankers would we praise a nazi for shooting a bank CEO?
I wouldn’t, even if I’d laugh at pictures of the dead CEO as a boo from Mario.
The people who can’t see why this is an issue come off as people who want this website to be just for them and not a space for all people to feel safe.
Fascists also hate big bankers would we praise a nazi for shooting a bank CEO?
We would not, because they are a Nazi
I’ve seen no evidence of Luigi being a Nazi. He’a a douchebag tech bro who has some vaguely left views and some problematic reactionary views. I do think that distinction is important.
not reading all that
are we getting luigi emojis or not, thats all i need to know
we do have a bunch of zizek emojis, seems about as reactionary
if we’re gonna have pure ideology.png, we may as well have no ideology.png
zizek might as well be a fascist
fair lol
True, he did went of the deep end. Brainworms are strong in lower austria.
to clarify i did in fact read all that. i am a communist, there is nothing better than a wordy struggle session
Seriously disappointed by what I’m seeing here and in a few other places on hexbear. Do I support the action? Of course. Do I see it as an opportunity to increase class conciousness? Yes. Am I going to uncritically support Luigi just because of that? No.
If all it takes is a single act and the use of some vaguely class concious language to absolve someone of thier reactionary views then why don’t we just start uncritically supporting MAGA communists, Vaush, and any other public figures who hold vaguely leftist views? When I see people saying “don’t criticize Luigi” I see people saying that they don’t give a fuck about their comrades who are marginalized because they belong to a minority group who is affected by reactionary views.
If we are going to use this as an opportunity to build class conciousness, let us do so intelligently. I’ve been talking to people IRL about this and emphasizing the material conditions which brought about this act. But if someone were to point out that he believed that part of the problem that Americans are facing is woke/DEI or immigrants then I’m going to call him out on that. And if anyone here who keeps on harping about “letting perfect be the enemy of good” then just fucking stop and think for one second. You’re opening the door for the right to capture the people who are awakening to their class conciousness. And hell its not as if it isn’t already happening. THe populist Trump right uses woking class language all the time to justify heinous shit. And if you are willing to let Luigi’s shit views slide then you may as well start supporting right wing populaists just because they are “building” class conciousness.
Also seeing people whine about how this is being moderated and it being “worse” than reddit are being incredibly daft. I still see plenty of Luigi memes that haven’t been deleted by the mod team. If you think that posts and comments lionizing or otherwise uncritically supporting Luigi then you are being
brained.If all it takes is a single act and the use of some vaguely class concious language to absolve someone of thier reactionary views then why don’t we just start uncritically supporting MAGA communists, Vaush, and any other public figures who hold vaguely leftist views?
Because all those other people do is post?
Edit: like, do you really not see a difference between a guy who shot a health insurance CEO and a bunch of D-tier internet personalities who use politics to support their media careers or (in the case of MAGA communists) start cults?
Edit 2: to be clear I agree with the rest of your post.
He shot one CEO. He didn’t somehow take down an entire industry. We may have seen some temporary reprive for the people that have been affected by it (reversal on certain policy, less claim denials). And its too early to say what happens in the long run, but knowing how America is I’m not holding my breath for long term change.
And again, I’m not saying that there was anything wrong with what he did (and yes that act is more impactful than whatever media personalities do) but why is it that we’re also supposed to ignore his reactionary views? How is it that you don’t see the problem in that? I think you’ve lived in America long enough to know that leftist language is coopted by the right and its extremely dangerous for marginalized Americans because they’ll be the ones who bear the brunt of whatever solution the right proposes to “solve” the issues of the working class.
Edit:I saw your edit just now. I know the comparison is a bit extreme, but its relevant because it straddles the same line of thought. Those internet personalities, even if all they are doing is being extremely online and not affecting anything, will still talk about material issues that people face and it resonates to an extent. Yes their followings are cultish. Yes most people IRL will not ever hear about these people. But we are currently online and the best comparison I have is an online one because we all recognize it to an extent.
I guess what I’m asking is, when we talk about him, what is the thing we emphasize? I don’t think we should ignore any one thing about him- I myself made a post making fun of one of his reactionary posts. But what is most important thing in his story? He had reactionary views because he had the same confused false consciousness as most other Americans. We don’t have to condone that, but I really don’t think we have to take the view that it’s a stain on his soul that we have to be sure condemn in every post about him.
And I find it weird that it’s such a shock that he has a mixture of good and reactionary views that we even need to talk about this in the first place. It was obvious that that would be the case before we knew who he was. Most people who have rage at the system are just like him.
He shot one CEO. He didn’t somehow take down an entire industry.
This is such a bizarre thing to say. How many industries have YOU taken down???
But what is most important thing in his story?
The fact that he targeted (a member of) the bourgeoisie imo. Fucking everyone has been clowning on the dead guy, he got an ok answer from bad math but what we can do is extrapolate that answer backwards into the good math and better answers.
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?
But there are people saying that galvanizing him uncritically is the way the left can make gains in the propaganda battle. Its not
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)
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?
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.
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 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’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 pointed out much the same in this post.
Yeah, its a bit awkward to say the least. Like, sure he could have changed his views in the 2 or so years since he went mostly offline, but until I see more concrete evidence I’m not gonna be celebrating him [largely] uncritically like I see some people doing.
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.
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 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.
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 reactionarynd for me a lot hinges on what you mentioned here
To me, that kind of thinking tends to slip into moralism that I don’t think is very helpful. Like, so what if you lived in the same society and emerged out of it with less reactionary views than him? We’re not in a Good Person contest here.
This is the one all the crackers itt need to read and internalizegood post!
From the jump I was hoping in the back of my mind this guy wouldn’t get caught for no other reason than he’s a white, probably cishet, American man with incoherent politics, and for that reason his views outside of CEO killing were never going to be something we’d condone.
I called him our guy while he was still anonymous because he hadn’t been caught yet and honestly was looking like he wasn’t going to be. In that situation claiming him was the best course of action for the left, but now with his capture he’s a real person and not a folk hero. And that’s his fucking fault too, because he clearly decided to get caught to cash in on the fame and clout of being the CEO killer.
He did one good thing, it’ll be based if it inspires others to realize we are ruled by parasites and killing them is just self defense, but he’s not a communist and still likely has some despicable things to say about other marginalized groups and we can’t just ignore that. This is why we say we critically support him offing the CEO and teaching the public that these parasites aren’t immortal, not full support for him personally as some type of comrade.
Good post. I also hoped he wouldn’t be caught for a variety of reasons, one of which was that I knew The Adjuster would be a better symbol of a movement than any human could ever be.
