Maybe you should apply HN comment etiquette outside of HN.

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

The strongest good faith interpretation of "the CEO must die" is that it is not a call to action for murdering "the CEO". But we'll let the author clarify:

>“The CEO is more than an individual it is a figurehead of the capitalist order,” he wrote. “When we say the ceo must die, we mean the structure of capitalism must be broken.”

I interpret the author's clarification as backpedaling by someone who enjoyed making an inflammatory statement but didn't want to stand behind it.

Who is "the CEO"? Is it all 52? So you have decided from the start to take the uncharitable take.

I'm pretty sure that if someone posted that here, in the context of making "most wanted" list... they'd be banned.

Good faith is for arguments, not calls to murder.

You can use the search bar below to see that this is in fact true: this is a quick way to get banned on HN.

the CEO must die.

And now we wait.

A stunt like that is precisely why I was clear about the CONTEXT. Note that I'm not encouraging you to actually do it, far from it, but lets not pretend that you're bravely proving a point here.

You're free to ignore the context of a person saying "the CEO must die" after years railing against capitalism. I'm just going to call you out for it.

It seems like you're very selective in your application of the "most charitable take" principle.

Right back at ya.