You must log in or register to comment.
110% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
I wonder how the terrorism charge affects things. Are people going to stop saying they support him out of fear or disgust? Will other people (and/or the government) go after people that say they support him because they can claim they’re supporting a terrorist? Will people become less affected by the word “terrorist” because it’s being applied in this way?
Only 41%?
Seems low. Like if they polled exclusively young conservatives or something.
Same, this number seems way too low. Even from my skewed perspective of a “old guy” - fastly nearing 40.
A further 19% were neutral.
I don’t think I’d be considered “young” anymore, but I don’t know if I’d say I support it.
Is the world better off without him? Yes.
Did he deserve to die? Yeah, probably.
Do I want to support vigilantism? Probably not.
Would it have been better if he had to deal with some terrible incurable and deadly disease? Yeah, if karma was real.
I’m almost 40. And I support it.
All other avenues are closed. All the proper and acceptable forms of redress are either coopted or outright captured. Civil, political, or otherwise. Peaceful Protest is universally ignored because it lacks the implicit threat of violence that makes it effective elsewhere in the world.
“When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” ~ Jean Jacques Rousseau
Many of these polls are written in way to ellicit a biased response.
Others have already covered how this works, but I’ll add to it anyway.
If you ask a question like “do you condemn violence against healthcare CEOs?” A lot of people are going to say yes, because they view themselves as people against violence and respond mostly to that first part.
If you ask "did brian thompson deserve to die for his crimes? Many of the same people will say yes to that too, because people have an innate desire for justice.
Polls do this all the time. It’s part of social engineering and plays on the phenomenon that the Asch Conformity Experiments analyzed. Around 35% of people will change their opinions to fit everyone else’s even if the answer or opinion is very obviously incorrect.
Don’t let them take the narrative back.
“Do you think your house is too small”, vs “would you like a bigger house” … >> x% of people happy with size of their house
“Do you condemn hummus?”
More than that I bet. Much more.
That’s actually a lower number than expected
only?
Room for improvement. Modest.
That is shocking. Get your shit together, 59%!
America is still too rich imo.
I think economic collapse is near, next 10 years.
That’s when we would have a chance to recalibrate this country
It’s a wake up call, but it’s not really going to change anything. You want universal healthcare? We need a general strike. Shut everything down for a month and demand it.
That low?
There’s a teensy bit of data massaging to make the approval rating appear lower… in my opinion of course.
The respondents were asked to rank “acceptability of the killers actions” on a scale of 1 to 5.
Assumin’the average “young voter” views gunning strangers down as:
[1.very unfavorable]
(You would, if asked about murder, say it was bad As a rule. right? I would too. Ya know, unless it was justified.)
Looking at it that way, the same data looks a lot different suddenly.
33% young voters still think the killer is completely unjustified.
7% think there was some justification
19% are undecided if the CEO deserved to die for what he did
24% think the killer was mostly justified… But have reservations
17% believe he was 100% in the right
I got a little free with the interpretations but you get the idea, You could decide to frame the data this way too. there’s a saying: statistics don’t lie but statisticians do. Here’s my 100% true alternate title using the data but presented with the story I want to tell:
67% of Young Voters at Least Partly Approve of Killers Actions
“Don’t completely disapprove” might be better phrasing
Selective selection of selected data by billionaire controlled media still can’t get below 41%
It’s awesome how willfully they exclude or manipulate in attempt to soften the information.
Yeah that’s the shocking point for me
I’m of two minds about it. Half the time, I want to build a statue of Luigi
The other half of the time, I’m feeling the Tolkien quote, “many that live deserve death, and many that die deserve life. Will you give it to them?”
In other words, at no point do I feel that Brian Robert Thompson didn’t objectively deserve to die. He is objectively doing more good for the world as worm food than he did as a living man. My only question is on the ethics of anyone actually killing him. On one hand, no one should have a right to make that call on their own. On the other, it’s not like he was ever going to face justice any other way.
I wonder if this dilemma is reflected in this poll. You can believe that killing the CEO was unacceptable, while also believing he absolutely deserved it.
Well said.
I don’t usually wish cancer on people, but if I had to choose, I’d probably have wanted him to go this way than by vigilante justice.
I’ve been trying to tell you guys this is an echo chamber on the issue.
It’s shocking in the sense young people are the ones least effected by our shit Healthcare system since they tend to be the most healthy, and have less interaction with it.
You’d expect the middle aged and older with chronic illnesses would be the most supportive of Luigi, but they have Stockholm syndrome from living under this shitty system their whole life. This is also reinforced by the cable news they watch telling them how tragic it was that a man with a wife and kids was murdered.
Meanwhile, young people are just laughing at memes and tiktoks of how hot and based he is.
I think if my mother’s heart condition gets worse and she needs some kind of treatment that gets denied by insurance and thus she decides not to go through with it and dies because of it that you could consider that me having interaction with the system.
A lot of times for younger people, it isn’t direct personal experience that radicalizes us, but the effect a system has on people we care about.
This article doesn’t speak to any other age demographic, just under 30s and their political affiliation. I haven’t seen any numbers on different age groups.
The article didn’t specifically show other age groups but it did give the overall number which shows more disapproval, implying that older age groups found it less acceptable. It also links to the survey that shows the different ages’ break down:
The survey from Emerson College Polling found 68 percent of all respondents found the actions of the person who shot and killed Thompson unacceptable.
It’s not shocking if you’ve had to deal with any sort of healthcare in this god forsaken shithole of a country.
Most young voters haven’t had to deal with it yet.
They have parents who have.
Are many young people (25 or younger) actually involved in their parents finances? How many parents would actually speak to their younger kids about their medical/health care issues?
20+ year olds helping their parents navigate the healthcare hellscape is something that is actually fairly common. My mother-in-law is a hospital social worker.
You should hope you never have to experience a parent suffer the health care system… mentally or physically. Assuming you’re not a monster you’d likely have a different opinion right now. It’s stupid to assume it’s like a parent telling a toddler how they file taxes…
I saw my mother constantly get denied health care because her insurance wouldn’t cover her arthritis which was considered a “pre-existing condition”.
I saw her suffer trying to get medication for migraines every month while Merck said nope.
I saw democrats get rid of preexisting conditions with passage of ACA. I saw republicans lie about ACA claiming it’s economic demise…
Demise never happened and republicans never once proposed anything better…
So naturally…
I saw my mom deny that any of this ever happened a few years later, that democrats never helped anyone and then she advocated for trump. I’ve seen her and others say democrats are the problem.
I’ve seen a lot of weird shit…
Shocked its so low
I’m genuinely shocked… Maybe they didn’t want to go on record saying it because they were concerned about backlash.
People aren’t exactly gonna tell a random stranger and probable Fed that they support murder even if it’s really based
It’s not illegal to say you believe Brian Robert Thompson deserved to die. Hell, you could, perfectly legally, file paperwork to hold a parade in Luigi’s honor, right through the heart of DC. It’s illegal to make death threats, but it’s perfectly legal to express support for someone being killed.
With the incoming administration, I don’t want to be on record as saying that.
And yet… You just went on record saying it on a federated platform.
Why not? Feds support murder, certainly. Heck, the Constitution supports murder: it establishes an Army.
When they do it, not us peasants.
after the Nov 5th display of oligarch worshipping, maybe not as surprising it isn’t higher
Shit was rigged, you know they made the question something insane to get more people to not agree with the killing.
Do you think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO are acceptable or unacceptable?
I’ve seen worse phrasing for survey questions.
Exactly. The question should have been, “did the CEO deserve to die?” It was likely, “was the killing acceptable?” It’s perfectly possible to believe the bastard had it coming without thinking one person has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Americans have been trained to wish on the CEO the negative things that those CEOs have caused.
Game CEO cancels or ruins an anticipated game? Wish on to them that something they value gets canceled.
Car company CEO makes cars more expensive? Wish upon them financial trouble.
Social media CEO invades your privacy? Wish on them someone to track their plane wherever it flies.
But there exists a subset of companies where death is the outcome of a bad CEO, and the end consequence of encouraging an eye for an eye is what we just saw. Perhaps if a company can decide whether you live or die, the government should play some role in it. Then at least voters will at least have a stake in the governance.
