#personal agency

[eros-heartache]

Love him for this

[legalandnotease]

If you believe Bucky exists for the sole purpose of "supporting" Sam, and owes him some kind of exclusive allegience you are denying his agency.

Agency means a person gets to choose what they want to do, how they want to do it, and who they want to associate with of thier own free will. It means that don't need permission, nor do they owe anyone an explanation for what they choose to do.

If you can't respect that Bucky exercized his agency by *choosing* to work with the Thunderbolts and stay with them then guess what? You don't get to whinge about people "babying" him.

Thunderbolts fans aren't the ones saying Bucky has no right to make his own choices and exercize his own free will. We're not the ones denying him agency here. We're not the ones acting like he needs permission from Sam just to breathe.

So yeah: either accept Bucky's agency or be quiet.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Hashtags and Hit Lists: Social Media’s Role in Justifying Violence

A new study reveals that shifting attitudes and social media platforms have created a permissive environment where acts of violence are cele

By: Colin Wright

Published: Dec 23, 2024

A new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has revealed an alarming surge in anti-civil activity online following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The NCRI study, titled “Killing with Applause: Emergent Permission Structures for Murder in the Digital Age,” highlights the profound societal implications of this event, showcasing the disturbing normalization of violence against corporate figures and the role of social media in amplifying such narratives.

While the specifics of Thompson’s murder are shocking, the NCRI warns that the broader cultural shift it appears to be facilitating may be even more worrisome. The data reveals an evolving “permission structure” online—a system in which social media platforms amplify narratives, and susceptible individuals provide justification—resulting in the normalization of violence on a scale previously confined to small extremist communities.

The murder, which occurred outside a Manhattan hotel during an investors’ conference, has sparked a wave of online glorification, memes, and merchandise celebrating the shooter, Luigi Mangione. The NCRI’s findings expose an unsettling trend: mainstream social media platforms are becoming breeding grounds for rhetoric that not only justifies violence but also facilitates its transition from the digital realm to the real world.

Public Opinion Reflects Shifting Norms

The NCRI’s research reveals a major societal shift, highlighting how public opinion has veered dangerously toward accepting violence as a legitimate response to perceived systemic injustices. Nearly half of Americans surveyed (44 percent) believe that Thompson’s murder was at least somewhat justified, reflecting a growing openness to violent means of addressing grievances. This finding is particularly alarming as it indicates that support for such extreme measures is no longer confined to isolated groups but is increasingly mainstream.

The data shows that social media plays a critical role in shaping these attitudes. Among heavy social media users—those who spend more than 5.4 hours per day on these platforms—the justification rate surges to 64 percent, starkly contrasting with just 23 percent among low-use individuals (0-1.3 hours per day).

Even more concerning is the generational divide: a staggering 78.8 percent of respondents aged 18-27 expressed at least partial justification for the murder, signaling a profound shift among younger demographics toward endorsing “targeted violence.”

The younger generation’s overwhelming approval for violent actions suggests a troubling cultural normalization of aggression as a tool for addressing grievances.

Platforms of Concern: Bluesky and Beyond

One of the most striking revelations in the NCRI study is the role of mainstream platforms like Bluesky in fostering permissive attitudes toward violence. Bluesky, widely lauded by political progressives as a kinder and friendlier alternative to X/Twitter, now exhibits the highest justification rates for the UHC CEO’s murder (78 percent), surpassing even extremist platforms like Gab and 4chan.

Bluesky’s user base skews younger and more tech-savvy, demographics that the NCRI study identifies as particularly susceptible to violent rhetoric. The combination of algorithmic amplification of extreme views and a vulnerable audience creates an environment ripe for the proliferation of violent narratives. This grim reality was recently illustrated when Bluesky users called for the murder of journalist Jesse Singal, en masse, due to his fact-based reporting on pediatric “gender medicine.” Users even posted what they believed to be his address and photos of his apartment door online.

Across social media platforms, including X, Reddit, and TikTok, there has been an alarming increase in content justifying violence. Viral hashtags like #EatTheRich and “Free Luigi” dominate many online discussions, and moderation efforts often lag behind the pace of content creation and dissemination, allowing violent rhetoric to flourish.

From Memes to Real-World Impacts

The transition of violent rhetoric from online spaces to real-world actions is perhaps one of the most troubling revelations of the NCRI study. Viral memes, fancam edits, and merchandise such as “Free Luigi” t-shirts have commodified his image. Events like the “UHC Shooter Lookalike Contest,” held in Washington Square Park, reveals how online rhetoric is influencing real-world behaviors. Participants, many of whom were dressed to mimic Mangione, gathered to celebrate and parody the assassination, demonstrating an alarming erosion of societal norms.

On social media, fancam edits and viral videos glorify Mangione’s actions, framing him as an anti-establishment icon. According to the report:

These videos frequently feature romantic or hyperbolic captions, highlight niche cultural affinities, or focus on his physical appearance, further amplifying his image and fueling narratives that glamorize his actions. This glorification fuels permission structures that could inspire others to perceive violence as a legitimate form of activism.

The hashtag #EatTheRich has surged by over 500 percent week-over-week, accompanying calls for violence against corporate figures and circulating “CEO Wanted” posters and executive “hit lists.” These posters, which feature “mocked-up mugshots of healthcare executives,” promote vigilante justice and represent “a deliberate attempt to provoke fear and destabilize corporate leadership.”

According to the NCRI report, “The murder of Brian Thompson appears to have catalyzed a dangerous feedback loop, where glorification, humor, conspiracy, and targeted harassment create an environment ripe for further violence.”

This blending of online rhetoric and offline action reflects what the NCRI describes as an “emergent permission structure,” which they describe as “a framework that justifies previously unacceptable beliefs or actions, with a clear division of labor: Social media platforms provide the amplification, while psychologically susceptible individuals provide the justification…” Taken in concert, these elements form a system that normalizes and even glamorizes acts of violence.

The Lionization of Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione’s transformation from an obscure figure to a symbol of anti-establishment resistance has been meteoric. Within days of his arrest, his social media following exploded from 5,000 to over 400,000. The slogan “Free Luigi” was posted 47,000 times in 48 hours, generating nearly 800,000 engagements across X and Reddit.

The commodification of Mangione’s image extends beyond social media. T-shirts, mugs, and other merchandise featuring his likeness are being sold on e-commerce platforms, trivializing his actions while profiting from the controversy. New cryptocurrency “memecoins” such as $LUIGI have also emerged, turning a deadly act into a speculative financial opportunity.

Psychological Drivers

The NCRI study identifies three key predictors of support for the murder: authoritarian tendencies, heavy social media use, and diminished personal agency. These factors interact in a synergistic way, with social media amplifying authoritarian predispositions and fostering the normalization of violence.

The combination of authoritarianism, an external locus of control, and social media’s amplifying effects appears to be a perfect storm for radicalization. These factors interact in a way that makes violence seem rational and even heroic to those who might otherwise feel marginalized or voiceless.

The interaction between these psychological drivers is particularly pronounced among younger demographics, who are both heavy social media users and more likely to experience anxiety or disillusionment with traditional systems. The NCRI study reveals that among users aged 18-27, those with high authoritarian tendencies and heavy social media use were the most likely to justify violence.

A Call to Action

The NCRI study concludes with a warning:

As digital platforms become arenas for ideological conflict, the consequences extend beyond individual incidents of violence to threaten broader public safety and societal cohesion. This transformation underscores the urgent need for strategies that address the root causes of digital radicalization and mitigate its impacts.

The challenges we face require a comprehensive and collaborative response. No single entity can address the complexities of digital radicalization alone. Policymakers, educators, platforms, and community leaders must work in unison to restore the moral boundaries against violent extremism.

The study concludes:

The spread and scope of justification for murder have significantly eroded what was once the monopoly of fringe communities in supporting violence and glorifying shooters online. This shift underscores the urgency of initiatives aimed at reinforcing the bonds of civic trust and restoring civility. Such efforts are essential not only in countering the tide of extremism but also in fostering a resilient society where dialogue and mutual respect prevail.

==

EDIT: Wow, this managed to attract the murderous psychopaths. I hope you'll be just as understanding when someone kills someone you care about and justifies it in the name of nebulous "systemic" somethingisms.

If there was ever any doubt about Colin's premise, it has been proven by the insanity of those cheering it on in the reblogs.

The death penalty is unfair, unjust, and evil, unless you walk up to a rich guy you don’t like on the sidewalk and shoot him in the back. The only form of the death penalty that’s okay is the form that doesn’t include a judge, jury, or court, and where the executed person has not been charged with, convicted, or even accused of any specific crime.

You don't get to call it "justice" when it's not just bypasses but is in direct violation of the law.

"Arbitrarily killing people I don't like is good akshully," is not the moral high-ground you think it is.

How many times do you think you would have been shot dead if it became acceptable for someone to simply arbitrarily execute you because they don't like you, what you do for a living, what you do with your free time, what you eat, what you stand for, or any other random disapproval?

🤔

[argonautsoul]

Very important to be intentional about your life.

[fka-feminish]

You can and should set your own personal boundaries. You should feel comfortable doing so - no matter who you are, or who you are with. This is a bare minimum, and if that’s okay then there’s a problem… and that problem is not you.

[where-dreams-dwell]

It’s not a fully fleshed out thought but I’ve grasped it now and so here’s what I’ve got dangling…

It’s so interesting to me that of the many issues and annoyances I have with Rory’s character her decisions around Yale are so tied to men.

Though the show we have a general sense that Rory (and by extension Loralai who raised her) have a distain or disappointment when women make choices due to men. Mainly when these choices are not mainly or solely things that a woman wants, and take another persons (usually a man’s) wants into account we see Rory scoff or roll her eyes or frown intensely and question it. When someone else makes a decision due to a man they want to like them or respect them, Rory seems to like and respect them less (at least in that moment).

But when a man, one who’s good opinion and respect SHE wants, says something hard and hurtful Rory abandons everything she (and by extension he mother) have worked for since she was a child. At the very least she gives up the main goal that’s dominated the last 3 years of her life. A man doesn’t think she’s good enough, so she gives up trying.

And though everyone tries to understand and support her, to change her mind and make her want to go back to Yale and to reignite her goals for her future, it is once again a man (who Rory wants to respect her and have a good opinion of her) who says a hard and hurtful thing which makes her go back to Yale.

And in the middle of all of that it’s another man (her grandfather) who has so much influence on her ‘choices’. Firstly in his support of her leaving, and in his 180 in the face of the reality of her life Rory’s grandfathers support plays a huge role in her confidence in her decisions and path.

I just find it fascinating that the writers chose to remove so much of Rory’s agency in these ‘choices’. They don’t write that Rory struggles at college, having reached the pinnacle she was working for and realising it isn’t as fulfilling as she had hoped; that she struggles (like she first did at Chiltern) now she is among other gifted people and she is once again less exceptional; that the courses she takes feel uninteresting and she languishes without drive or a purpose.

No they choose to write her story as a man says something mean and so she runs away.

And again, they don’t write her return to Yale as Rory being revitalised by her time away and once again motivated to aim higher; they don’t have her realise that she does thrive surrounded by other intellectuals and though it’s tough she CAN rise to the challenge like she did before; they don’t have her realise her dream career or degree is actually different than she thought so she goes back and changes major or her classes.

No once again, the writers have a man say something mean and so she runs away. Only this time she runs away back to where she was before.

So in the face of disappointment or dislike, at least from men she wants to like her, the only ‘choice’ Rory is allowed to make is to run.

[michellemiyagi]

Healthy Anger

As a woman, I struggle with anger. I’ve been taught that I am a bad person if I feel or express anger. So when I get angry I simultaneously feel like I’m doing something I’ll get in trouble for, like I’m wrong for feeling anger. We have emotions for a reason. They are to help us maintain healthy boundaries and when channeled effectively, by digging deep and deciphering what our feelings are…

View On WordPress

[migleefulmoments]

ccDarren is a vacuous puppet

Dear Abby (@ajw720),

Darren often wears his own clothing...in fact, in an interview he once made fun of an interviewer who suggested his stylist picked all his clothing.  Even if Ashley helps him chose clothing, she does so by providing stylish, trendy options and then Darren choses what he ultimately wears.  Your never-ending  need to make ccDarren into nothing but a puppet with no personal agency proves once again how much you hate Darren Criss.