I read this post and see someone who is really invested in the BlackRock* CEO being targeted on purpose and is spreading the ~possibility~ of the murder being along the same lines as the UHC CEO murder.
Why would it be more important if the guy was targeting the Black Rock CEO than the published target of the NFL CEO?
The insistence that he's not spreading conspiracy theories, but rather refusing to declare a motive falls apart when you look at the first post in the thread. This is bad journalism. This is how conspiracy theorists spread their conspiracy theories. Very few claim the title of conspiracy theorist.
What I see here are toned down Alex Jones tactics. Implication, insinuation, deflection, and just asking questions. Just modified for a leftist audience. He is trying to lead you to a specific conclusion while maintaining plausible deniability.
*Edit: the correct name is Blackstone, not BlackRock. Nullagent uses BlackRock in his posts
🅰️ ®️ ✝️ U
@CorvidCrone Agreeing on your base (i think?) conclusion that this is not good journalism.
But
> Why would it be more important if the guy was targeting the Black Rock CEO than the published target of the NFL CEO?
is pretty clear: it does make a difference if people are targeted ranked by how much damage they do to others. Random or for personal issues would be normal in the US (i hear), targeted ranked by damage done relevant to the question if there is a revolution going on.
The publicly published reason is that the shooter targeted the NFL CEO because he was upset that the NFL suppressed research into the brain injuries caused by American football, which this guy believed he had.
That is significantly more similar to the alleged reason for the UHC CEO murder, which the government claims was as result of being denied medical coverage for a debilitating back injury/condition. It runs contrary to the point nullagent is trying to make
@CorvidCrone Hmm, this is getting interesting.
I classed the medical one as "because hurts others", but yeah, i think i was a bit narrow minded there.
Which leads me to the thought that both that case and the new one (if intending to kill the NFL ceo) would be personal, but that personal is a statistics issue. If many are hurt, some very few responding with violence is just a statistical instead of conscious way of selecting who hurts the most people. Like "slap one person, you are likely to get away with it. Slap millions, one will probably kill you".
In the face of riches being generated by scaling a business model, this could be seen as a natural boundary to predatory business models?
