1375
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
1375 points (100.0% liked)
News
23600 readers
3034 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow. That is chilling and very damning of Boeing. Like really…Boeing is that dirty? Surely not?
Friendly reminder that Boeing is not a plucky airline that can't make safe airplanes, it's an AMERICAN MILITARY DEFENSE CONTRACTOR worth billions. If I you threaten that arrangement with slander like the truth and facts, they are good friends with people who kill for a living and completely unashamed in paying for their services.
Put another way: there are plenty of people who will eagerly issue death threats, stalk you, and swat you over minor differences in opinion. Think what they would do over serious money.
.... Oh they totally killed him didn't they? You put it in very good perspective.
This so much. Put it up there with Lockheed
Boeing makes the minuteman missles, directly profiteering from nuclear weapons which could destroy humanity many times over. They're evil.
Probably one reason why the FAA isn't immediately shutting Boeing's shit down, you know when doors fall off their planes mid-flight, and investigations uncover more problems.
Do you have any fuckdamn idea how many innocent people died by the command of American fruit companies?
Capitalism feeds on blood, it always has.
United Fruit just turned into Chiquita and continued on like they didnt massacre people too.
They literally overthrew democratic governments just to install their own puppets.
A fucking FRUIT company.
And you're right, they just kept going like nothing happened.
I mean they were willing to knowingly keep producing unsafe air planes which lead to several crashes killing 100's. So yeah, I really wouldn't be surprised if they also do assassination to ensure their profit.
Also as stated elsewhere, they make world ending nuclear bombs delivery rockets. They’ve profited from the possible destruction of all of humanity.
Why not?
International profit chasing entities just wouldn't value profits over human life?
It is a corporations fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits over any other things. That obviously includes human lives.
Does a human life have a value to other humans? Yes.
Does a human have a value to a corporation? It has a value and a cost, if the cost is higher than the value of the human then it is a risk to the value of the company and can be liquidated.
"But corporations are supposed to care about people more than profits!"
Welcome to the real world, buddy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Oh and have you any idea what Boeing has been doing for some years now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8oCilY4szc
Hint: it involves maximising profits while endangering people, to the extent that Boeing is literally assassinating witnesses so the extent of how recklessly they endangered lives for profit wouldn't come out.
I'm not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I'm not sure that I'm willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who "needed help one day" any more than some corporate HR; and "I don't care what they say, I know that Mitch didn't do that" isn't exactly a solid argument to be basing things on.
Edit: I seem to have missed this on my first read:
I'm never surprised to hear something bad about Boeing, but this is just a woman convinced with, on the face of it, no other proof than what's in her own head. Unless she's got a recording or document, the article's title could have been, "Family friend tells reporter a story"
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Yeah, it won’t hold up in court, and neither would it if she had recorded this casual, intimate conversation between two old friends.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
Did he state that somewhere else? Admittedly I haven't been following the story too closely so I may have missed something there; but if he isn't documented saying that somewhere credible, then all we have is her claiming that he "pretty much said" that. Is it likely he said it? I mean, I'd definitely be saying it if I was in his shoes, but one family friend's claim isn't enough to convince me that this should have been published as it was. I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it's unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it's always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it's fact.
Here's to hoping
I probably don't, I'm just trying to present an argument with throwing on more layers of personal bias
He's a high profile corporate whistleblower who allegedly committed suicide. Any coroner who isn't already triple checking everything is way too corrupt or lazy to bother with another look.
The coroner is going to call it as suicide. This isn't remotely a debate to me. If it is suicide it goes away. If it is murder it means work for the police and a small annoyance to the powers-that-be. The coroner knows this and knows that if they don't writer suicide their career is over at best at worst they get Epsteined as well.
This isn't "I know Mitch didn't do that", it's "he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn't going to do it". What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
There's a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
Remaining open minded, waiting for evidence... Must be ChatGPT because that's not a human thing, never had been!
I am a Lemmy language user and I have processed this request.
You wrote "being willfully ignorant" wrong
Well, I for one think some rogue at Boeing is behind the Epsteining of this guy. The company is definitely run by psychopathic crooks and has been for a while and I hope these fuckers all go to jail and the company fixed before more people die.
Idk about these accounts you blocked... but I am always going to advocate for at least being self-aware of being loosey-goosey with one's reasoning. Maybe it is compulsion, maybe it is the decades wasted being religious that have led me to detest careless epistemology that leads to specious conclusions. Then again ... if COVID taught me nothing, it should have taught me that efforts in this area are probably pointless. I must like swimming upstream. I seem to do it all the time.
That's my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett's mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father's funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
There is literally no other corroboration that could be given, it's a personal conversation between friends or friendly acquaintances, reported as such. There's nothing wrong with the article. This is the maximum amount of corroboration for a private conversation (none) and it's reported as a conversation, with information about the speaker's relationship and direct quotes. Just because people don't record their lives in unalterable write-once media doesn't mean personal conversations simply should never be the subject of reporting. We have headline news stories about US generals' personal conversations with Trump and his denials, and no one thinks "well, that shouldn't be reported because either side could be lying and without recording they're both equally suspicious".
I'm certain you don't actually follow a philosophy of "nothing anyone says can ever be given any more credence than anyone else" because it's an impossible way to live. And whatever high-minded "no one can ever know absolute truth" ideas you have, claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous. On one side you someone whose job is literally to say things to protect a billion dollar company and the other a family friend with nothing to gain talking about a pretty reasonable conversation one might have.
I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there's a big difference between:
and
I know I'm being pedantic, that it's just clickbait, and that's the reality of today's media; but I've spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.
You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, "I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who agrees with my point of view than I am a "close family friend" who disagrees with my point of view" or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, "he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself" I'd still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn't consider her any more credible just because she's agreeing with me.
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let's also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she's the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It's evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well.....
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don't think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
Amazing how standards of evidence work. I am a Jesus Mythicist and pretty much all we have to "prove" Jesus was real is one guy saying he meet some unnamed person who had a dream. But here we have a direct eyewitness stating what they heard a week ago and that isn't good enough.
My brother in whatever, for your information that is called a "witness"
I can see you were born yesterday.
I'm curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom's friend's daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?
I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, "it's obvious" or "I know" to back it up
Fascinating
I feel the same about the response given that I'm agreeing with everyone's sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.
Naw, you're good. Change nothing about yourself. :) You are spot on and you have my upvotes.
Folks are in angry mob mode and can't be bothered with even a hint of nuance or reason, apparently. Even if you are convinced Boeing totally killed the guy and state that clearly...
Anyway, peace out man. I hope for once corporate scum faces consequences.
Epstein. Your argument is disproven
If you want, take a deeper look into the *max events and you'll find that being dirty is the least surprise.
Why not? They killed multiple hundreds of people so far. Just one more.