• pixelscript@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Charging at them directly where they want you to charge, their designated fall guys, sounds like a superbly inefficient strategy. You are pinching a huge amount of bystanders caught in the middle to for a proportionally negligible effect.

    Yes, if someone who is desperately asking for a proverbial (maybe literal?) bullet in their head puts a hostage between you and them, can you still plow right through the hostage and get them that way? Exhaust everyone they can possibly field to eventually break through to them? Sure, in principle. That can balloon to an absurdly high casualty count, though. Is it really all worth it?

    It’s a lot more efficient to, wherever possible, sidestep around the hostage, get behind them and strike directly at the problem. That’s exactly what Luigi Mangione did, and its effectiveness is exactly what’s being applauded.

    If your rebuttal is that what Luigi did is far more of a risky path to take, you don’t wish to take a risk like that, and you’d rather faff about kicking low level grunts instead because that’s an easier, lower-consequence option for you that theoretically makes progress, okay, I guess. I personally think you’re just wasting your time and energy pissing off only the wrong people. Only big stunts are gonna move the needle, in my opinion.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Killing one CEO has changed nothing, so perhaps both strategies seem fruitless. Of course one involves taking someone’s life and the other just making a logical statement considering the circumstances.

      I am intrigued by your big stunts although I am not sure murder is the best way to go about it.