66 points

Good

permalink
report
reply
85 points

so they’re going to spend a whole bunch of the companies money on security firms, it’s definitely going to come out of the executive compensation and not the workers, right? …right?

permalink
report
reply
9 points

Ha! They’ll take it from the workers AND raise the prices of whatever products they’re selling then pass the cost onto us for a tidy bit of extra profit. The leeches have to suck as much blood out of us as possible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Owners have to make these officers feel secure again… so we will pay for the security… they can’t have their comp cut just because some hero murdered their peer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I’m sure most shareholders would agree with you.

The trouble is that most shareholders own their shares through mutual funds in their retirement accounts, and those shares get voted by the fund managers at Vanguard/Black Rock/Fidelity/etc. Those people definitely are part of the good ol’ boys club and will definitely vote in the executives’ interest and against their clients’.

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

I’m pretty sure that was part of the point.

Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop. There’s no legal argument here that it wasn’t. It may not have been the guy they caught, but someone was murdered and legally that’s wrong.

Morally though, it’s a lot more gray. It’s pretty easy to prove that health insurers policies have literally been killing people thousands of people a year at at a minimum and even if it’s legal for some reason, that’s also still morally wrong. Attacking someone who’s attacking other people is usually called defending.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

When peaceful and effective protest are a choose1, gotta go with effective. If anything, it seems to me to be little different to the trolley problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
51 points

The CEO was on his way to implement policies that would kill thousands of people, and injure tens of thousands.

I see no moral gray area.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-17 points
*

He was a CEO, not a king. He doesn’t single-handedly come up with and implement these decisions.

  • The policies are probably brainstormed in meetings with several people.
  • The policies are probably voted on by an even greater number of people
  • The policies are implemented by another set of people
  • The policies are enforced by another set of people
  • The profit of the company, which these policies likely aim to improve, is almost the single main goal of all of the shareholders.
  • Many other people have likely invested indirectly (e.g., in funds that contain that company’s stock) and were also benefitting from the implementation of these policies.

The CEO may have been a big part of the problem, but he’s not the only part. He may have even been a symptom of the problem. Was he elected, appointed? Who brought him into that position? Who didn’t make the decision to remove him from that position if the opportunity arose?

EDIT: I’m not really sure why people are downvoting this. I’m not saying the CEO was innocent, I’m saying he’s not the only one who holds the guilt for the decision.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

So what you’re saying is, the job’s not done yet?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

You’re right we have a lot more work to do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

When it comes to money they’re accountable and deserve millions.

When it comes to the impact of their leadership they couldn’t possibly be accountable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You’re hopelessly wrong and un-abashedly trying to defend ghouls.

If the CEO makes the big bucks then they share the most of the blame. You can’t have one without the other.

Also don’t deliberately ignore the fact that for a brief moment in time after the CEO’s death, there was a drastic reduction in the number of claims being denied.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-17 points
*

Because you refuse to

Edit: most things are a gray area. Doesn’t speak well of you if you think killing a human is so black and white it shouldn’t even be questioned. You motherfuckers sure ain’t philosophers.

Pretty obvious I meant that if you can’t see an argument for and against killing this guy you’re probably not much of a thinker, at least by choice on this issue

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Yeah just as rich leeches refuse to stop exploiting innoncent people and you refuse to stop bootlicking

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’ve been thinking of it like what happened to Nicolai Caucescu. Sure, his death shouldn’t have happened and he should have had a trial for his crimes, corruption, and abuses of power; but, Romania came out better afterwards.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

One of the few times where freedom is washed in the tyrants blood instead of the working class. Truly a victory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop.

True but this was self defense. I don’t see murder. Murder is the terminology of the regime who is trying to pin some crime on him that I don’t see.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

True but this was self defense.

Is this a misuse of legal terms, or is there some sort of evidence behind this?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

I was being cheeky mostly but i do think if we as society re asses what self defense means, whoever killed the parasite was defending america from social murder.

The ruling class would never accept such narrative but every American can decide for himself.

When cop murders a civilian for no reason, aint it always also defense? So clearly they misuse the term here. I think newer argument has more legs to stand on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

It doesn’t sound like it was self defence, even if you stretch the meaning away from the legal. His life wasn’t directly threatened by this organization.

He did it on behalf of others, which eliminates the self in self defence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah and cops are always in fear when they murder a civilian…

Tomato, potato

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Attacking someone who’s attacking other people is usually called defending.

Same thing said by cops every time they shoot someone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

that’s why propaganda is a key cog in ruling the working class. they play with words in such a way that there is always an argument

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop.

¡Hey Buddy! That’s for a jury to decide

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Not really. The jury will decide if this particular person is guilty or not, but either way a man was murderer and that’s an illegal action by whomever did it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

People creating barbaric conditions are afraid of barbarians?

permalink
report
reply
148 points

The public reaction is what scares them. They are entirely disconnected from the consequences their actions impose on the public and can’t imagine why their “customers” would be cheering the death of their peer. They don’t think Brian Thompson did anything wrong, maximizing shareholder value is a noble goal after all, so from their perspective the public just seems bloodthirsty.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

Are we not?

I am.

permalink
report
parent
reply
59 points
*

Much like how DC politicians live in a bubble where they think everyone in the US has grocery options and plentiful healthcare (due to how business around DC structures these things so those “leaders” just assume all of the US is like DC), the C suite lives in a tone-deaf rich-person bubble with zero comprehension about what it is like to actually live in the shitty world they orchestrate and manipulate.

Reading some guff about the Kroger-Albertsons attempted merger was case in point. These corpos said: “Oh, if we don’t merge, we can’t compete against Walmart and Amazon, and we’ll have to close stores.” Like, no? What business goes, “hey, so we can’t compete with adjacent-market companies, time to close up the places that generate our revenue!”

Or the recent Congressional vote to spend THREE BILLION OF OUR DOLLARS paying telecom companies to remove Chinese hardware from their networks. Something they were told to do years ago. The same carriers that will continue to raise our service rates every few months are making us (via Congress) pay them OUR money to do what they should have done themselves years ago.

None of these morons get it, they just keep corrupting their way to profits off of our backs, while digging out the ground we stand on from underneath us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s the thing, healthcare parasites are just the tip of the iceberg here…

Got to resolve health first but so much work done done.

All oligopolies operate like health parasites, they ruin quality of life while looting us like a piggy bank.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Reminds me of finding out the taco bell executive used the phrase ‘thinking outside the bun’ in the I actual work correspondences.

To function in a big huge corporate c-suite level you must drink the cool-aid.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They are rich, and they are powerful. On top of that, they are delusional. It’s a fantastic combination.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Everyone says this but I disagree. I’m sure Musk and many other public figures are emperors without clothes or whatever. But this idea that most execs are this other species blind to the muck under their boot… but most people are normal people… They may be mean, evil, mentally ill. But they don’t party in the front train car with no idea about the insect bars in the back. They’re just selfish and don’t care. They’re well aware. Don’t give them credit for ignorance by delusion. It’s malice. I make business decisions. I make them in partnership with colleagues. Some are kind. Some are dicks. But they’re intelligent enough to know what decision they’re making. And this transcends boxes. Even some of the most compassionate and empathetic human centric people I’ve ever worked with, proven in actions, not words, are repeat Trump voters. Having said that, most verticals of business are like elected office in that a certain type of person is going to win and get to the top. Oil tycoons know they’re burning the earth for personal gain. Non profit exec takes a big slice of pie, understanding the bookkeeping. They both just believe they should have it. Maybe not even deserve. Many leaders feel ordained to retroactively validate vile means to ends. “I’m on top, so I’m supposed to be on top. I see I stepped on people but that’s okay, because I’m supposed to be on top.” I know wealthy people too and it’s nearly the same. They’re on earth. They see what’s up. Many of them are in your office but just don’t mention cotillion or junior league. Some are kind, some are assholes. Just like all people.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 10K

    Posts

  • 197K

    Comments