We’ve seen a CEO shot, and the majority of people definitely don’t cheer it on; just a very vocal minority. Moreover, he may yet get the death penalty; I’m not sure I’d call that any more “fragile” than any other shooting.
Not to mention that that CEO was in health insurance. A very emotionally charged industry where someone’s life or death is directly affected by CEO decisions.
It's a minority here, on a forum like this one that has become targeted towards the well-off (it wasn't like that in beginning, but in the end those yearly 600k comps did add up and have changed many of the users here into upper-middle-class people). But out in the real world? Not in the least, out there Luigi is a hero, as he deserves to be.
Did I miss some other CEOs being gunned down? I only know of the one.
I’m more concerned about the folks cheering on vigilantes and cops who murder unarmed non-CEOs who have not perpetrated actual harm on thousands of people.
I guess it's time to bring back an old joke from Ronald Reagan [1]:
An American and a Russian are arguing about their two countries. The American says look: "In my country, I can walk into the Oval Office, pound the president's desk, and say 'Mr. President, I don't like the way you're running our country!'".
And the Russian says "I can do that." The American says "You can?" The Russian says "Yes, I can walk right into the Kremlin, go to the General Secretary's office, slam my fist on his desk and say "I don't like the way President Reagan is running his country."
There's a saying in Chinese
liberals community: We cannot help but admire the American system's ability to self-correct.
I've seen it twice these years, one was after JoeBiden won election, said the system choose Biden to fix Trump mess, one was after DTrump won, said the system correct the Biden error.
All what I can see from this comment logic is that the US have a cycle of mess that get rotated not a demonstration of self correction mechanisms.
Not to say that I believe that the US (or any other government or country) unable to have self correction ability or mechanisms. I am just pointing that your logic is flawed.
In that context, "less fragile" are vague words without a clear subject.
I posted the saying to be satirical, but in depth, the two-party system is more stable than any other political systems: To people, it may seem like a cycle of mess, but the system itself is very stable, it avoids the regime change by normalizing it.
> the two-party system is more stable than any other political systems: To people, it may seem like a cycle of mess, but the system itself is very stable, it avoids the regime change by normalizing it.
How is that makes the two-party system more stable than any other political systems. all what you say normalizing regime change does apply on all democratic systems. So you don't have the choices (both party does actually suck on many mutual aspects) but also don't gain much stability than other democratic system. In parliament system there is usually more acceptance and normalization of changes than the two-party system when you get stuck between worse and the worst most of the time.
Although I guess we’re also living in a totalitarian state that exerts its control a bit more subtly.