Nope, wrong cause direction. Do people never become mass killers to get attention? Does giving mass killers more attention, making them famous affect anything, maybe encourage more?
"No" is a reasonable response if you can support it.
"No" is a reasonable response if you can support it.
Luigi Mangione's comments on stack overflow don't even register in terms of violence caused.
These kinds of removals are simply attempts at information control by the elite, and -- assuming you're not part of the 1% -- you're playing straight into their hand.
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." - Karl Marx
This is completely and totally true.
Totally irrelevant in terms of what policy /should/ be and one of the reasons to move it away from one example because what fits one example may not be generally applicable. I have not and do not stick up for S.O.
Marx, yeah nah I don't think he's helpful here or indeed anywhere.
You don't have to be a communist to realize that Marx was instrumental in giving us the labor movement, including unions which most people who haven't been indoctrinated over generations with red scare tactics will realize where good things and important mechanisms against overreach by the powerful.
Obviously, less people's behavior will be changed if there are no consequences to doing the illegal thing.
Gun control implies the need for enforcement, because you need to act on something in some way to control it. A piece of paper with some words on it (which is what an unenforced law is) can't act on people by itself.