Pharma CEO assasinated!!

[Raggendecanton]

I'm going to be honest too, as always. IDGAF about your opinion of me, so you might just as well keep it to yourself.

It’s not about my opinion of you personally; it’s about engaging with your perspective on this topic in a civil manner. I simply have a different stance on the matter, and since this is a public forum, we’re all here to exchange opinions on various subjects—just as you frequently do. That’s the purpose of discussions like these.

 

[Raggendecanton]

I get a lotta kumbaja vibes from this.

Violence has always been a way to force people to change things. I do NOT condone Violence, but I do think if you suppress people, they'll gonna revolt.

Before ever knowing who dude was I was 99% sure it had to do something with being a victim directly or indirectly.

We all are here typing because our predecessors used and survived violence. Its deeply ingrained in our system. That's why he gets so much sympathy : more and more people cam relate to this kinda behaviour. The only way to stop this is by giving people a fair chance to build something.

So basically this murder needed to happen to set an example. Yes that may sound "sick" to a person living in a "peaceful bubble ". You'll see more and more of this. In poor regions like Africa and South America ( where my roots are) this is completely normal tbh. Suppress people long enough and they will act on behalf of themselves or as in this case on behalf of their loved ones.

In my home country the rich will live in compounds, sheltered from the "peasants " who are constantly trying to invade, like a zombie apocalyptic movie. The discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots is getting out of hand and eventually NATURE will find ways to even the score. May sound harsh, but it better be a warning to people who believe they are safe inside their ivory towers ; they are never really safe.

This has nothing to do with kumba ja vibes.

You claim violence has always been a tool for change, and while that’s historically true in some cases, it doesn’t make it ethical or effective in today’s context. Violent revolts often lead to more suffering and instability for those who are already marginalized. The cycles of oppression and retaliation rarely resolve underlying issues—instead, they create new ones. What actually builds lasting change are movements driven by collective action, diplomacy, and long-term strategies, not acts of individual violence masquerading as justice.

The sympathy this killer receives isn’t necessarily because people think he was right—it’s because his story taps into broader frustrations with systemic inequality. But let’s be clear: romanticizing this act as something “necessary” risks normalizing such behavior, which is deeply dangerous. If we start accepting murder as a form of protest, where do we draw the line? How do we distinguish a “just cause” from personal vendettas or extremist ideologies? Comparing this to the struggles in poorer regions doesn’t hold up either. The systemic violence in places like Africa or South America isn’t a model for change—it’s a reflection of ongoing dysfunction that most people would work to overcome, not emulate.

Your point about the growing divide between the wealthy and the poor is valid, but framing this murder as a "necessary warning" reinforces the very divisions you criticize. Real warnings to the powerful come from organized action and societal reform, not sporadic acts of desperation. Claiming that “nature will find ways to even the score” strips away the human agency we need to fix these issues. Change doesn’t come from waiting for chaos to erupt—it comes from ensuring people have access to opportunities and building systems that work for everyone.

Ultimately, reducing this murder to a symbolic act does nothing to address the structural problems you’re talking about. It doesn’t create fairness or equality; it just perpetuates harm. Rather than using violence to “even the score,” we should focus on collective efforts to give people the means for true change... Even though that takes a long time in this system.

 

[Raggendecanton]

True. Through history, leaders have known that as long as most people are comfortable, revolution will be forestalled. Unfortunately as more elites drink from the trough they lose sight of the discomfort of the masses. Violent revolutions often come as a surprise to the deposed but not to the plebes. The downside is it is more an expression of anger than a well thought plan, and the cycle usually repeats itself.

You’re right that inequality and elite detachment can lead to revolts, but the issue with violent uprisings is that they rarely result in meaningful, lasting change. Anger-driven revolutions often replace one flawed system with another, perpetuating the same problems. History shows that real progress comes from organized, strategic movements—not chaotic violence. By focusing on anger rather than solutions, these cycles keep repeating, leaving the masses worse off. Change doesn’t come from destruction.

 

[Sega Genesis]

There is so much buzz about this, I wonder if a jury would ever find him guilty? His lawyers could use "defense of others" as his defense; I could actually see this working.

The insurance companies denying the claims are the true murderers.

See below. I actually felt sick to my stomach reading this.

Mathew said that UnitedHealthcare denies one in three claims, a trend he says is symptomatic of a broader industry problem. The company reported $281 billion in revenue last year.

I mean how *** greedy can you be?

Doctor calls out claim denials amid UnitedHealthcare CEO shooting

The killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO has sparked widespread outrage at the U.S. health care system.

www.google.com

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

It’s not about my opinion of you personally; it’s about engaging with your perspective on this topic in a civil manner.

Then don't act like you know me based on whatever you think about Amsterdam and the Netherlands. I'm neither typically Dutch nor typically Amsterdammer.

Everything about this case is pure speculation. I'm not calling LM a hero or a villain, I'm posting his manifesto is this thread, but that doesn't mean I agree with anything. I had my frustrations with Dutch healthcare, but the American system is so callous and greedy that this act of violence had been a long time coming (I imagined domestic anti-greed terrorist bombing UHC's HQ, but this was also enjoyable). American society/culture is a lot more violent on the whole, which is why they assassinate their presidents instead of just getting another one. Conspiracy theories abound, but I'm just observing the freakshow to see what was actually going on and whether LM is a radicalised anti-capitalist or something more ominous.

 

[Gamisch]

This has nothing to do with kumba ja vibes.

You claim violence has always been a tool for change, and while that’s historically true in some cases, it doesn’t make it ethical or effective in today’s context. Violent revolts often lead to more suffering and instability for those who are already marginalized. The cycles of oppression and retaliation rarely resolve underlying issues—instead, they create new ones. What actually builds lasting change are movements driven by collective action, diplomacy, and long-term strategies, not acts of individual violence masquerading as justice.

The sympathy this killer receives isn’t necessarily because people think he was right—it’s because his story taps into broader frustrations with systemic inequality. But let’s be clear: romanticizing this act as something “necessary” risks normalizing such behavior, which is deeply dangerous. If we start accepting murder as a form of protest, where do we draw the line? How do we distinguish a “just cause” from personal vendettas or extremist ideologies? Comparing this to the struggles in poorer regions doesn’t hold up either. The systemic violence in places like Africa or South America isn’t a model for change—it’s a reflection of ongoing dysfunction that most people would work to overcome, not emulate.

Your point about the growing divide between the wealthy and the poor is valid, but framing this murder as a "necessary warning" reinforces the very divisions you criticize. Real warnings to the powerful come from organized action and societal reform, not sporadic acts of desperation. Claiming that “nature will find ways to even the score” strips away the human agency we need to fix these issues. Change doesn’t come from waiting for chaos to erupt—it comes from ensuring people have access to opportunities and building systems that work for everyone.

Ultimately, reducing this murder to a symbolic act does nothing to address the structural problems you’re talking about. It doesn’t create fairness or equality; it just perpetuates harm. Rather than using violence to “even the score,” we should focus on collective efforts to give people the means for true change... Even though that takes a long time in this system.

Yeah, let's wait until the elites finally have their epiphany and somehow some way empathise with the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, arguably the denial of a claim can also be deadly. The system by default can be a financial death to an individual. This man's mother suffered, so he went to get his "eye for an eye". Both families might have endured the same amount of grief. Billionaire's grief to ME isn't more valuable than the bum's grief. Both deaths are equally important / horrible/ outrageous.

There simply is no time to wait and hope something will change. Protest( your purposed option) doesn't make a dent anymore. The people are beyond that stage by now.

I highly respect your opinion, and you do have a good point that violence hasn't proven to be a great solution neither. But if we look at poor regions ( a category the USA arguably fits in to) we can see that the status qou won't hold up. People are tired of this shyte, worldwide that is. I am in Europe and I'm tired of the cast system in India, corruption in Africa, cartels in South America and suppression in Asia.

281 fooking billion in profits. That's hypothetically almost 1/ 0,80 billion per person in the States!! That's 800.000.000! Nobody will ever need that amount of money , but in my dumb mind I don't ser why you wouldn't reserve...1(??) mill for each person. Some spend none are perfectly healthy more than half their lives. Others will get cancer or whatever and the money is there to take care of them.

People instinctively know that something smells fishy.

They better be careful not to create a movement of civilians who will " protect themselves against the tyranny from the government ". Because shyte like this will bring multiple groups together to form a front and eventually Haiti and Mexico ( both around the USA's corner) for example show us that it's not unthinkable that the damage goes beyond a repairable state once vigilantes take control.

 

[Vanderdonck]

You’re right that inequality and elite detachment can lead to revolts, but the issue with violent uprisings is that they rarely result in meaningful, lasting change. Anger-driven revolutions often replace one flawed system with another, perpetuating the same problems. History shows that real progress comes from organized, strategic movements—not chaotic violence. By focusing on anger rather than solutions, these cycles keep repeating, leaving the masses worse off. Change doesn’t come from destruction.

Agree 1000%. If only those in power can learn to be strategic and organized. Aye, there's the rub. In some countries this has been a priority but the US's mentality would have to change. The proles are already paying for each other's health care collectively, it's just after the billing happens and they're paying much more than if it were preventative. (IF it's covered.)

 

[Raggendecanton]

Then don't act like you know me based on whatever you think about Amsterdam and the Netherlands. I'm neither typically Dutch nor typically Amsterdammer.

Everything about this case is pure speculation. I'm not calling LM a hero or a villain, I'm posting his manifesto is this thread, but that doesn't mean I agree with anything. I had my frustrations with Dutch healthcare, but the American system is so callous and greedy that this act of violence had been a long time coming (I imagined domestic anti-greed terrorist bombing UHC's HQ, but this was also enjoyable). American society/culture is a lot more violent on the whole, which is why they assassinate their presidents instead of just getting another one. Conspiracy theories abound, but I'm just observing the freakshow to see what was actually going on and whether LM is a radicalised anti-capitalist or something more ominous.

My response wasn’t meant to judge you personally or to stereotype you based on where you’re from (even though it confirmed some thoughts I had )—it was solely about engaging with the opinions you’ve shared on this case. If that came across differently, that wasn’t my intention. I think the way you wrote some of your opinion on this matter "glorified" the shooter, ofcourse I could be wrong.

That said, I find it troubling to see violence framed as something inevitable or, as you put it, “enjoyable.” While I get the frustration with broken systems like healthcare in the U.S. (and to some extent in the Netherlands), viewing acts of violence as some kind of spectacle or overdue punishment crosses a line. It risks desensitizing us to the human cost of such actions and further normalizing harm as a solution.

You mention observing this as a “freakshow,” but these are real lives being impacted—both the victim’s family and the perpetrator’s. Turning this into a philosophical or political abstraction overlooks that. Whether LM is an anti-capitalist or something more sinister, glorifying his actions doesn’t bring us any closer to fixing the systemic issues that anger so many.

I believe it’s important to keep some ethical consistency. Regardless of our frustrations with the system, violence—even against flawed systems or individuals—shouldn’t be rationalized or celebrated. It doesn’t move us closer to solutions; it just creates more pain. (In my opinion).

 

[Raggendecanton]

Yeah, let's wait until the elites finally have their epiphany and somehow some way empathise with the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, arguably the denial of a claim can also be deadly. The system by default can be a financial death to an individual. This man's mother suffered, so he went to get his "eye for an eye". Both families might have endured the same amount of grief. Billionaire's grief to ME isn't more valuable than the bum's grief. Both deaths are equally important / horrible/ outrageous.

There simply is no time to wait and hope something will change. Protest( your purposed option) doesn't make a dent anymore. The people are beyond that stage by now.

I highly respect your opinion, and you do have a good point that violence hasn't proven to be a great solution neither. But if we look at poor regions ( a category the USA arguably fits in to) we can see that the status qou won't hold up. People are tired of this shyte, worldwide that is. I am in Europe and I'm tired of the cast system in India, corruption in Africa, cartels in South America and suppression in Asia.

281 fooking billion in profits. That's hypothetically almost 1/ 0,80 billion per person in the States!! That's 800.000.000! Nobody will ever need that amount of money , but in my dumb mind I don't ser why you wouldn't reserve...1(??) mill for each person. Some spend none are perfectly healthy more than half their lives. Others will get cancer or whatever and the money is there to take care of them.

People instinctively know that something smells fishy.

They better be careful not to create a movement of civilians who will " protect themselves against the tyranny from the government ". Because shyte like this will bring multiple groups together to form a front and eventually Haiti and Mexico ( both around the USA's corner) for example show us that it's not unthinkable that the damage goes beyond a repairable state once vigilantes take control.

You make an important observations about inequality and public frustration, but I think your conclusions miss the mark. While it’s true that people instinctively sense when systems are unjust, responding with or accepting violence as an inevitable solution only creates more instability. History shows that when vigilantes or fragmented groups take control, it often leads to chaos and suffering for the very people they aim to help—just look at the long-term damage in places like Haiti or Mexico that you mentioned.

I get your frustration with wealth concentration (trust me i am frustrated about it), but redistributing money isn’t as simple as “1 million for everyone.” While it sounds fair in theory, wealth is tied up in complex systems—businesses, infrastructure, and economies—and sudden redistribution can have unintended effects like economic collapse or hyperinflation. Real solutions lie in restructuring systems over time, not in oversimplified fixes. (And systematic change in systems takes a LONG,LONG,LONG time).

Your point about protest being ineffective is valid in some cases, but dismissing it entirely ignores how change has historically happened. Movements like civil rights in the U.S. or labor reforms in Europe weren’t easy or quick (and remember, some of them are very recent), but they succeeded because they were organized, strategic, and avoided alienating the majority of society. When people resort to violence or extreme measures, it pushes potential allies away, leaving the status quo stronger.

We all agree the system needs fixing. But change doesn’t come from despair or destruction—it comes from collective action, persistence, and a focus on building something better. Instead of letting anger dictate the response, we need to channel it into sustainable and just solutions that avoid perpetuating cycles of harm. But then again, I also am kinda biased. I used too be an (injury) lawyer, and i have seen what destruction does on a personal level, but also what the impact on the families had LONG TERM. I just dont think violence is the answer.

 

[Gamisch]

You make an important observations about inequality and public frustration, but I think your conclusions miss the mark. While it’s true that people instinctively sense when systems are unjust, responding with or accepting violence as an inevitable solution only creates more instability. History shows that when vigilantes or fragmented groups take control, it often leads to chaos and suffering for the very people they aim to help—just look at the long-term damage in places like Haiti or Mexico that you mentioned.

I get your frustration with wealth concentration (trust me i am frustrated about it), but redistributing money isn’t as simple as “1 million for everyone.” While it sounds fair in theory, wealth is tied up in complex systems—businesses, infrastructure, and economies—and sudden redistribution can have unintended effects like economic collapse or hyperinflation. Real solutions lie in restructuring systems over time, not in oversimplified fixes. (And systematic change in systems takes a LONG,LONG,LONG time).

Your point about protest being ineffective is valid in some cases, but dismissing it entirely ignores how change has historically happened. Movements like civil rights in the U.S. or labor reforms in Europe weren’t easy or quick (and remember, some of them are very recent), but they succeeded because they were organized, strategic, and avoided alienating the majority of society. When people resort to violence or extreme measures, it pushes potential allies away, leaving the status quo stronger.

We all agree the system needs fixing. But change doesn’t come from despair or destruction—it comes from collective action, persistence, and a focus on building something better. Instead of letting anger dictate the response, we need to channel it into sustainable and just solutions that avoid perpetuating cycles of harm. But then again, I also am kinda biased. I used too be an (injury) lawyer, and i have seen what destruction does on a personal level, but also what the impact on the families had LONG TERM. I just dont think violence is the answer.

We are running in circles , because I can only repat my self. All that changes for me is that due to this thread I started looking into the case some more and let me tell you; the responses don't lie! .

Every comment celebrates dude's action...so ,although from a moral standpoint you are absolutely right, the ( western) world is clearly passed the talking stage.

Some more info ( I mightve missed it here) . Dude's family is LOADED. As in, upper class. Dude isn't a poor bum. He is more like Batman.

Great to see you have a strong moral compass. I do too( seriously), but to me this violence isn't any different from the violence necessary to push back Russia. It takes martyrs , sacrifices and thus lifes.

Luigi brought the world together to " stand as one" as MJ sung on that Heal the World song. It's Christmas time, and via dark, morbid detour his wish seems to come true.

Again, we need people like you. But Luigi can say Scarface's famous line out loud now: "you NEED people like ME."

 

[The Duke]

Your argument, while clearly passionate, is deeply flawed and dangerously simplistic. Murder, no matter the justification, cannot and should not be seen as a legitimate means of addressing systemic issues. By condoning or even romanticizing such an act, you undermine the very principles of justice and morality you claim to support. A society where individuals take justice into their own hands based on personal grievances or beliefs is a society that descends into chaos, not progress.

Dehumanizing the victim by calling them a "greedy capitalist pig" doesn’t strengthen your point—it weakens it. Justice cannot be selective or based on emotional vendettas. Every person, regardless of their actions, deserves due process. To strip someone of their humanity to justify their murder is to adopt the very mindset you likely claim to oppose. This is no different from the rationale used by extremists like the Unabomber—someone who similarly believed his acts of violence were necessary to awaken society to a greater truth. We’ve seen where that mindset leads, and it’s nowhere good.

You suggest that such an act will “wake people up,” but this is naive at best and dangerous at worst. The public discourse will focus on the violence, not the message. Violence rarely brings about meaningful change; instead, it alienates potential allies and gives opponents ammunition to dismiss the underlying issues. The spotlight will be on the murder, not the systemic injustices within the healthcare system. And lets be real, there are a lot of injustices in the healthcare system.... That goes for the healthcare system in America, but that also goes for our healthcare system in the Netherlands.

Let’s not forget that glorifying these kinds of acts is a threat to rational discourse and the values of any civil society. By elevating this individual to some misguided status of a martyr, you risk inspiring others to follow a similar path, perpetuating harm and undermining any chance of constructive change. This type of rhetoric doesn’t challenge power—it reinforces the very chaos that allows injustices to persist.

I’m going to be honest: I expected this viewpoint of yours, since you are living in Amsterdam. (As a fellow Dutchie, I know what kind of thinking goes around in Amsterdam.) You strike me as the typical anti-capitalist leftist. True progress isn’t built on personal vendettas or violence masquerading as justice. It’s built on collective effort, rational discourse, and a commitment to principles that transcend individual grievances. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the very nature of meaningful societal change.

Society has been addressing systemic issues with murder since the beginning of time. Currently we have Hamas vs. Jerusalem, Ukraine(USA) vs Russia. Its human nature, regardless of how you or anyone feels about it.

There are many people fed up with the corrupt healthcare system in the United States. You should see the comments on social media, and the comments that get posted on news stories. Its the corporate hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors screwing over the American People. This event has people talking about how broken our healthcare system is, the volume has been turned up significantly. Thats something positive. Will anything more become? That has yet to be seen. But this act has been an impetus.

If it took the loss of one life to create change, then so be it. The son of a b!tch that got killed was no saint and neither is the industry he worked for. He is exactly what is wrong with America. The fuhkers keep taking.

You completely ignore the fact that masses of people that have been screwed, denied coverage, and died because of a broken healthcare system. Ohhh, these folks are just supposed to sit down and talk??? they are way beyond that. That was tried and they got nowhere. Thats how they feel....why can't you understand that. Have you not ever been beat down by the system and taken advantage of? You live under a damn rock?

 

[Ricky]

Then don't act like you know me based on whatever you think about Amsterdam and the Netherlands. I'm neither typically Dutch nor typically Amsterdammer.

Everything about this case is pure speculation. I'm not calling LM a hero or a villain, I'm posting his manifesto is this thread, but that doesn't mean I agree with anything. I had my frustrations with Dutch healthcare, but the American system is so callous and greedy that this act of violence had been a long time coming (I imagined domestic anti-greed terrorist bombing UHC's HQ, but this was also enjoyable). American society/culture is a lot more violent on the whole, which is why they assassinate their presidents instead of just getting another one. Conspiracy theories abound, but I'm just observing the freakshow to see what was actually going on and whether LM is a radicalised anti-capitalist or something more ominous.

In your country you need to worry more about being Theo Van Goghed by the intolerant

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

My response wasn’t meant to judge you personally or to stereotype you based on where you’re from (even though it confirmed some thoughts I had )—it was solely about engaging with the opinions you’ve shared on this case. If that came across differently, that wasn’t my intention. I think the way you wrote some of your opinion on this matter "glorified" the shooter, ofcourse I could be wrong.

That said, I find it troubling to see violence framed as something inevitable or, as you put it, “enjoyable.” While I get the frustration with broken systems like healthcare in the U.S. (and to some extent in the Netherlands), viewing acts of violence as some kind of spectacle or overdue punishment crosses a line. It risks desensitizing us to the human cost of such actions and further normalizing harm as a solution.

You mention observing this as a “freakshow,” but these are real lives being impacted—both the victim’s family and the perpetrator’s. Turning this into a philosophical or political abstraction overlooks that. Whether LM is an anti-capitalist or something more sinister, glorifying his actions doesn’t bring us any closer to fixing the systemic issues that anger so many.

I believe it’s important to keep some ethical consistency. Regardless of our frustrations with the system, violence—even against flawed systems or individuals—shouldn’t be rationalized or celebrated. It doesn’t move us closer to solutions; it just creates more pain. (In my opinion).

My 'guru' is an American philosopher:

You and I might both be Dutch, but we don't have the same history. I'm a pragmatist, a realist, and an absurdist. You want me to show empathy? My empathy is that I hope for the health insurance victims that the media circus around this assassination might issue social reform in the system, but as a realist I doubt it, and as an absurdist I just watch the spectacle and give humanity maybe a thousand years before we follow the dinosaurs.

And if my 'laissez-faire' phlegmatic attitude towards the freakshow 'crosses your line' and offends you, well, that's too bad.

Because, let us not forget what we're talking about:

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

In your country you need to worry more about being Theo Van Goghed by the intolerant

No, we don't panic that easily.

 

[Gamisch]

Shout out to the mods @Dr.Suave , @Pierce Manhammer @BackInTheGame78 ect for letting this thread remain open !!!

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Shout out to the mods @Dr.Suave , @Pierce Manhammer @BackInTheGame78 ect for letting this thread remain open !!!

Had to remove a few posts as they were in violation of discussion rules but as long as politics and religion aren't heavily referenced it's fine to discuss.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Obviously women weren't what he thought was important. When you have plenty of something it has little value.

But he did open the door to incels looking for women by shooting some CEOs.

Gosh, these are exciting times.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

lmao…..Can you believe that halfway around the world…millions of women are using a dildo vibrator thinking of this guy at night?

No, I can't. But that's because I know that not all women are as shallow and delusional as you think women are.

 

[Gamisch]

No, I can't. But that's because I know that not all women are as shallow and delusional as you think women are.

That's the problem with modern males. They always and only think about p0ssy, while actually hating women .

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

That's the problem with modern males. They always and only think about p0ssy, while actually hating women .

They should just stick to tissues.