AllTheBlueMarbles
13655
583
20
Dec 6, 2024 1:59 AM
AllTheBlueMarbles
13655
583
20
circlebreaker
*unless the murdered person is an elected official, monarch, or other head of state (normal wealthy or influential civilians need not apply)
FloatingOnACloudOfTitties
fnoigy
Fallingsnow57
This was a public service.
bloxxing
or... an extermination.
TerribleBot
clemdarkstarzero
b00sk0r
TungstenOrbital
The guy was killed for simply being a wealthy person, or a scumbag?
FoamingToad
The guy had blood on his hands due to his organisation's health insurance refusal rates (that he could have directly influenced as CEO)
JohnWickdidnothingwrong
It's "corporate right-sizing".
FartingWiener
If you shoot him from the front, it's a penispenisination
woozle
he eliminated a redundancy
fnoigy
PyroAvok
"We don't 'assassinate' our clients, we Inhume them. -The Assassin's Guild of Ankh-Morpork.
whatsisname
I don't think "respected" is even remotely a requirement.
Sumdumguy42
Y‘all could benefit from using google
to look up how to define an assassination instead of trying to outdo each other on being ridiculous.
Getting assassinated isn’t a mark of honor that somehow needs to be denied from him.
It’s just the method of unaliving someone.
JimmieRustlin
saying unalive makes you sound like an unsmart person
Sumdumguy42
I picked it up from Deadpool. Not sure if that helps or hinders my case :-)
sunyudai
Top google result:
> assassination, the murder of a public figure. The term typically refers to the killing of government leaders and other prominent persons for political purposes—such as to seize power, to start a revolution, to draw attention to a cause, to exact revenge, or to undermine a regime or its critics.
Source: Britannica.
Sumdumguy42
Yes. So we’re in agreement then that this is an assassination?
sunyudai
Comes down to whether you agree the CEO was a prominent person.
Both likely motives, revenge or to try to enact change, do meet the definition.
Sumdumguy42
One would think it making international news kind of sort of answers that question.
maday1br
My understanding is that the motivation is what makes a murder an assassination. Specifically, the motivation to effect some political change. A prince who killed his brother over a game committed murder; a person with no real grasp on reality who killed a random hobo to make John Wayne president technically assassinated the hobo.
arkemiffo
I think it's more nuanced. Assassination is when the killing is the point. If the killing is just a means of enacting change, political or ideological, it's terrorism. Terrorism is defined as the act, or threat, of using violence to coerce change.
maday1br
Your counterpoint was compelling enough I had to look it up. According to Wiktionary, it's a "...murder, especially for political reasons or personal gain." In a sense, we're both right, but only in that the word is frustratingly un-nuanced.
whatsisname
Again not quite. Assassination is where the point is something broader than just the death of the person killed. Killing someone because they stole 5 bucks from me, the killing is the point, but that's not an assassination. There is a lot of overlap between terrorism and assassinations, but they aren't always together, terrorism is often killing randos and people to frighten an entire populace, whereas plain assassinations target only the leaders. The guy in this story I think you'd have a
whatsisname
tough call calling him a terrorist (unless you're fox news lol), because let's be honest, basically no person in the USA that isn't a health insurance executive has any concern whatsoever that they might be next.