- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Probably more fear from seeing how the public at large has reacted.
“There are reports that girls are fawning over this guy. This level of notoriety risks triggering copycats. And let’s face it, some business leaders are
vulnerablecomplete fucking ass bags”Fixed that for em
If somebody’s got the itch and just has to go shoot up something this is a way, way better thing to copycat than school shooters.
🤏🎻😭
I. Love. It.
Quality work
Hahahah this is amazing.
Signs around NYC.
this is good more of this please
Also add Elon, please.
“forcing leaders to ask themselves uncomfortable questions about their own preparedness for a threat landscape that appears far more serious than many realized just a week ago.”
It’s probably even more serious than they think it is right now too.
In fact, all I see are talks of securing these executives. And as the article points out, security is a sunk cost. There is no financial gain. That means as security gets more expensive, they will have to weigh how to afford it versus the problems they cause.
Fear isn’t the word I think we want though, fear seems too normal. Terror sounds closer to what they likely need to feel before things get better.
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.
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.
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.
Are we not?
I am.
Good, good.
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?
I don’t dn’t see how that’s profitable. If I were on the board I would just make sure their life insurance was paid up. Management is completely disposable. If they die, then you just get a new one, plus the insurance payout.
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’.
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.
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.
Good
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.
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.
Because you refuse to
Yeah just as rich leeches refuse to stop exploiting innoncent people and you refuse to stop bootlicking
Ah yes you dipshits knew what I meant as you are incredible mind readers
deleted by creator
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.
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.
So what you’re saying is, the job’s not done yet?
There’s a question of where the line would be drawn.
But do you kill everyone responsible for a joint decision?
Do you kill everyone who benefitted from it? Shareholders, indirect investors, spouses and children…?
How many of your loved ones have they already murdered?
How many more will have to die before the owners of this country decide that a for-profit healthcare system isn’t worth the threat those profits generate?
The death toll of the health insurance industry currently stands at like 68,000/year. Health, life, and medical insurance companies combined employ about 900,000 people. We could end the insurance industry overnight and the lives saved would outnumber the jobs lost in like 13 years.
You’re right we have a lot more work to do.
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.
Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop.
¡Hey Buddy! That’s for a jury to decide
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.
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.
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.
True but this was self defense.
Is this a misuse of legal terms, or is there some sort of evidence behind this?
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.
The term is “justifiable homicide”.
If the Joker is about to blow up a bus of 30 people and Batman shoots him dead with a gun then the jury acquits because it was justifiable homicide
I think the difference with cops is that they don’t need the self-defense argument, because the “oopsie” argument gets them out of jail too
well they always say “feared for their life” so i think you have a point but that argument is root in idea that they always have a right to defend themselves and be given deference on their decision making, ie they only need to feel that way subjectively.
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.
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.
One of the few times where freedom is washed in the tyrants blood instead of the working class. Truly a victory.
Attacking someone who’s attacking other people is usually called defending.
Same thing said by cops every time they shoot someone.
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
If you listen to the news segment, it talks about security completely and not about chnaging the corporate zeitgeist around the priority balance between workers, customers, and shareholders.
Hear that whooshing sound?
The revolution will not be televised
It’s sort of funny. All they are going to do is isolate the bastards into doing even more corrupt shit.
They really refuse to believe that the first part of finding out, is fucking around.
The more they fuck around and put profit ahead of everything, the more finding out I imagine is going to occur.
Right? No introspection at all. I doubt the C-suite of Patagonia sees a need to increase security.
People creating barbaric conditions are afraid of barbarians?
As scared as someone denied necessary medical therapy, surgery, prescriptions?
Just as planned.
