this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
248 points (98.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2037 readers
744 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unless there was an actual threat (I'm lazy I can't be bothered to read the article. That's why I'm in the comments) , deny delay depose isn't a threat in any way. It's a tactic that insurance agents use to boost profits. Saying that is merely showing your disgust with the practice.
"Delay, Deny, Defend" is the health insurance tactic a book was written about. You will notice there is a key difference between those words and what was said on the phone call.
The difference being a word that typically means remove from power. Not a threat. Any lawyer can get the case dismissed by showing the book with the original words in court and argue it's a natural play on words anyone could come up with.
I was specifically correcting their impression that it was the health insurers' slogan, rather than a reference to the shooting
But since you were also too lazy to read the article, it's what was said next that really contributes to a threat
"You people are next" is a prediction, not a threat.
She followed it by saying they were next. Definitely a threat of violence.
You should read the article.
“Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next.” isn't exactly a threat. Definitely not something that someone ought to be arrested for.
And you should stop licking boot so hard.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm a bootlicker for telling people to read the thing that they're commenting on?
How is "delay, deny, depose" not a threat with current events? C'mon, that's disingenuous.
It really is not, it doesn't say that she will do the violence, merely that it may occur. It's the same as the difference between 'I will kill you!' and 'I hope you die!'
Lets say it is (it isn't), why don't you have the same kind of energy towards the people who have coined it as a tactic to deny people their healthcare and have taken thousands if not millions of lives as a result, and destroyed millions more, as you do for their victim who is turning their own phrase (so without the system to implement it like they do) back on them?
It's because the taste of boot is just too appealing to some, and you can't help but fight in your oppressors corner, defending them, as if one day they'll notice you and be grateful for your loyalty and take you in and treat you like one of their own (or at least come for those not licking boot before they come for you). Your indoctrinated brain might be telling you you're acting in your own best interest, but by doing it at the expense of your fellow working class people, you are exclusively serving those in power.
Why are you making any assumptions about what energy I have? I'm not defending health insurance here, mate.
Because it’s a fucking book title.
Almost a book title
Yeah, that's why everybody's been saying those words lately, because of a book that came out 14 years ago, and definitely not because of anything more recent and more notable. Right.