Hatred often makes you want to hurt people, but people hurt peope in the name of greed more often, and not only with less potential for guilt, but is often the cause of delusional accolades and reassurance both from within oneself and from others.

Hypothetical:

A CEO lays off 10,000 employees that helped that company succeed, solely to increase earnings and not because the company is hurting, not only seriously hurting 9,997 people, but causing 3 to commit suicide.

A bumpkin gets in a fight with someone he hates the melanin of because he’s a moron and kills them.

Who did more damage to humanity that day? They’re both, I want to say evil but evil is subjective, they’re both highly antisocial, knowingly harmful behaviors, yet one correctly sends you to prison for a long time if not forever, while the other, far more premeditated and quite literally calculated act, is literally rewarded and partied about. Jim Kramer gives you a shout out on tv, good fucking times amirite!

Edit: and this felt relevant to post after someone tried to lecture me about equating layoffs to murder.

“Coca-Cola killed trade unionists in Latin America. General Motors built vehicles known to catch fire. Tobacco companies suppressed cancer research. And Boeing knew that its planes were dangerous. Corporations don’t care if they kill people — as long as it’s profitable.”

https://jacobin.com/2020/01/corporations-profit-values-murder-culture-boeing

  • Pheta@kbin.social
    31·
    11 months ago

    Pt 3.

    You go after organizations whose bread and butter is legal entanglement, using legal entanglement as your only weapon. You make the regulatory environment more difficult for startups and SMBs to compete in, and you do nothing but give your (supposed) worst enemies more political tokens with which to negotiate advantageous positions in that environment. Why do you think these corporate elites flush hundreds of millions of dollars sponsoring progressive media outlets?

    Again, we’re not writing law here. Nobody has even propositioned any concrete plan, or even an actionable statement to get this riled up about. The ‘legal entanglement’ you’re speaking of is just fretting about the semantics of a law neither you nor anyone else has defined, and how if this hypothetical law is hypothetically written poorly; Which is a strawman you’ve created, deluded yourself into somehow being convinced is the most logical and reasonable stance to take, and the most accurate interpretation of events is both baffling, and really underlines how you’re not here to discuss, just argue in bad faith and say, ‘no this is bad because what if, if, if, ad infinitum.’

    We’re talking about criminal law. Can you clearly, objectively, without arbitrary valuation of goods or services, define a legal principle which identifies the point at which a health plan cut becomes a crime?

    We discuss a general idea and intentionally leave the actual wording of the hypothetical law unsaid because that is none of our (including you) job to make, and to intentionally assume it’s going to be written poorly or demand details like what you’ve argued above is really, once again, putting a nail in the coffin.

    Also, nice hyper-focus to the literals instead of the practical argument being made. Nobody ever defined if we were discussing civil or criminal law, or even what classification it should be. So, would you mind explaining why you thought the example given would be inferred as a criminal offense?

    Do you think they’re stupid?

    Do you think anyone else but you is this stupid? Seriously, this is some piss poor arguing.