Hello comrades. In the interest of upholding our code of conduct - specifically, rule 1 (providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all) - we felt it appropriate to make a statement regarding the lionization of Luigi Mangione, the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter, also known as "The Adjuster."
In the day or so since the alleged shooter's identity became known to the public, the whole world has had the chance to dig though his personal social media accounts and attempt to decipher his political ideology and motives. What we have learned may shock you. He is not one of us. He is a "typical" American with largely incoherent, and in many cases reactionary politics. For the most part, what is remarkable about the man himself is that he chose to take out his anger on a genuine enemy of the proletariat, instead of an elementary school.
This is a situation where the art must be separated from the artist. We do not condemn the attack, but as a role model, Luigi Mangione falls short. We do not expect perfection from revolutionary figures either, but we expect a modicum of revolutionary discipline. We expect them not simply to identify an unpopular element of society 
, but to clearly illuminate the causes of oppression and the means by which they are overcome. When we canonize revolutionary figures, we are holding them up as an example to be followed.
This is where things come back to rule 1. Mangione has a long social media history bearing a spectrum of reactionary viewpoints, and interacting positively with many powerful reactionary figures. While some commenters have referred to this as "nothing malicious," by lionizing this man we effectively deem this behavior acceptable, or at the very least, safe to ignore. This is the type of tailism which opens the door to making a space unsafe for marginalized people.
We're going to be more strict on moderating posts which do little more than lionize the shooter. There is plenty to be said about the unfolding events, the remarkably positive public reaction, how public reactions to "propaganda of the deed" may have changed since the historical epoch of its conception (and how the strategic hazards might not have), and many other aspects of the news without canonizing this man specifically. We can still dance on the graves of our enemies and celebrate their rediscovered fear and vulnerability without the vulgar revisionism needed to pretend this man is some sort of example of Marxist or Anarchist practice.
You're assuming too much? What people are defending is critical support, ultimately it just means admitting yes he did a cool good and necessary thing and no we don't particularly care about him as an idol or figure.
The context here is entirely on social interactions between ourselves and likely libs and others, if someone IRL asks you about this guy, the issue is entirely on how you handle this answer. Are you willing to call yourself a communist and say yes you like what he did to your friend or someone politicaly engaged etc?
Of course we're not his legal team, we're not even a movement or org, that seems like a strawman.
Also the other user's argument is basically "this is a bad look" which is hilariously out of touch anyway.
Ok but that's not support, that's just saying you approve of his action. The discussion isn't whether or not we approve of his action, the discussion is if we're gonna "support" this guy or not which I argue is a meaningless thing to argue about because we're materially decoupled from him. If my lib friend asks me what I think of this guy I'll just say the truth, "what he did was great but he wasn't doing it with a coherent ideology or plan, we need a vanguard party that can guide these kinds of people with the right idea to carry out actions with more impact and a coherent plan." I don't see what else there is to debate.
To be clear I don't disagree, leftist support is indeed often just vides. But some people are definitely taking this chance to put their fangs out and show us how much more rhetorically virtuous they are for using the correct "term" on the "correct people".
The previous commenter is literaly trying to police the entire socialist base here (and presumably elsewhere if it were up to their standards) worldwide on how we should use "critical support" which I think is quite a lot more serious, you're trying to defend them, but your comment is quite outside of their actual goal here.
Yes we're materially disconnected I agree 100%, yet it doesn't seem to have any bearing on this for either side, I mean if they too acknowledge this why the panic over moral fake vibe support him? Either critical support matters at all in which case lets try to police it or it doesn't and who cares.