I’ve been deeply upset about an article going around about the UHC shooter, which suggests Luigi Mangioni was radicalized by pain. The article gives no evidence, and makes no convincing argument. It expects you to look at the negative space: because Luigi “had options”, and “could have been almost anything he wanted to be”, you are expected to believe that he turned to murder because of pain. He had a degree and a “promising early employment history”, showing yet again how society believes the only valuable thing a person can do is grind for capitalism.
To argue that the shooter is not motivated by pain, because the author is not motivated to do anything at all, is worse than the people who say the motivation was pain. Both are making assumptions… unnecessarily so, since the man wrote a friken manifesto. This comes off as pain~splaining. And ultimately the healthcare companies are chiefly to blame for all his points. And the law makers who perpetuate health for profit. So why say anything at all?
To argue that the shooter is not motivated by pain, because the author is not motivated to do anything at all, is worse than the people who say the motivation was pain. Both are making assumptions… unnecessarily so, since the man wrote a friken manifesto. This comes off as pain~splaining. And ultimately the healthcare companies are chiefly to blame for all his points. And the law makers who perpetuate health for profit. So why say anything at all?