Reported by a worker at McD. Wtf, they’re the group that would benefit the most from a change in the healthcare system. Idiot.
Or, and hear me out here, we can view this with a little sympathy: there's $60k in rewards for anyone who turned this guy in, and the person who did it makes peanuts at McDonalds.
Now, I don't know if I would do it, but I can completely and utterly sympathize why someone who makes poverty wages would turn class traitor for what almost certainly life-changing money.
The food and ingredients are the same, but the quality can vary a lot depending on how bad of job they do cooking it. When you've been disappointed enough by buying dry and borderline-burned breakfast, you stop trusting that all locations are equal.
Probably very few if any. Admittedly the outlier, I read Chipotle reviews because I've had too many of them give a time for pickup then proceed to dilly-dally for 20-30 mins past the time they gave me. Not cool. I'm happy to wait, but don't tell me it's going to be done.
If I'm stopping by somewhere out of town, yes. Food quality varies by location, and I'm not going to waste my money on an undercooked meal at McDonald's when the competitor down the street is better.
I'm not directing this at you personally when I say this, but what the fuck is so hard for most people to believe about the idea? Is it a foreign concept to treat franchized fast food places run by different franchisees as not equal? I'm not the only one who uses reviews to decide if I should skip a crappy location.
I meant more like, that's the best accolade you may get as someone working for McDonald's. But yes, McDonald's absolutely has a reason to support the status quo in terms of corporate rule.
Here here. I'm poor as shit, got no insurance whatsoever, 60k would be somewhat life changing for me. I would never ever squeal on a comrade like that, even for millions.
If I remember correctly, they can be anonymous. If that's the case, they wouldn't really be easily taxable. Still, we are talking about the government here, and if they tax lottery winnings, I would bet they tax rewards.
To be charitable, other people can have different views on ethics.
For example, if harming a CEO who helped raise claim denial rates from less than 10% to 30% results in revised policies and less overall suffering, that could be morally justifable to some.
And that's because it's not his job to do so. Not every problem needs to be solvable by any given individual.
If he really was that passionate about the problem, he should've run for office to get into a position to solve the problem, or at least joined forces with some group that pushes for causes he believes in. Or started a business to compete with those businesses he disagrees with. Those would all be proactive steps he could take. Killing a CEO doesn't solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.
Running for office wouldn't have stopped the CEO from continuing to murder thousands, since the CEO and his shareholders literally spend billions making sure people who would stop them don't get elected.
Killing a CEO doesn’t solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.
Yeah, this is why adventurism doesn't really work. The guy's actions were ineffective at systemic change, however just they may have been.
You're right, and neither does this extrajudicial killing. Nothing changed in insurance policie, and nothing will likely change. But running for office has a much better chance of helping people in the future than murdering a CEO.
And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that's why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that's how the game is played, but there are options if you're laser focused on one type of policy.
however just
Justice is the lawful administration of law, and extrajudicial killing is, by definition, unjust. Depending on your moral code, I also argue it's immoral, because it's only moral to kill to protect innocent lives, and retribution isn't protection.
If killing this person was likely to actually change company policy, I could see it as moral, but there's absolutely no way a reasonable person would think that. This was a crime of passion, not of justice.
And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that's why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that's how the game is played, but there are options if you're laser focused on one type of policy.
I agree with the sentiment, but all the labor unions in the country couldn't hold a candle to the potential damage a billionaire could do to an independent campaign, let alone a cabal of them. They don't play fairly in politics, and they're not above using advertising and media to direct a narrative that benefits their interests.
That's not to say I'm endorsing violence. After seeing Bezos and Musk manipulate news media and social media, respectively, I just don't have much hope in the system anymore.
I guess people are saying that they believe there is such a thing as an ethical murder in the streets. Of course in any form of ethics vacuum chamber this can’t stand. But in the real world where children are bombed for the sake of some asshole’s religion, where the president boasts he could get away with murder in the street and courts confirm this, in a world where sick people are left to suffer to boost a share price, then, THEN an act like this becomes a reasonable response to an unreasonable world.
Maybe someone better educated can tell me what ethics scholars have to say about how an ethical actor should behave in a system where ethics have utterly broken down. Right now, the crowd is saying “like that guy.”
I’m ill-disposed to wag my finger at them, and think the only ethical course is to address the corrupt environment in which this act occurred, because that environment undermines any one-dimensional ethical evaluation of this murder in the street, and that makes me deeply uncomfortable.
The comment I replied to wasn’t cheering on a murderer.
The comment I replied to was trying to convey that an impoverished person may feel like the reward money for turning in a murderer outweighs any moralizing over the murder itself. That the dollar figure could be literally life changing and they may feel they have no option but to turn them in.
And people downvoted that. Hence my shaken faith in people’s ability to empathize.
Yea. The shooter and ceo were closer in class than the shooter and working class who supposedly called in so wouldn't necessarily be considered class traitor
Family supposedly owns a country club. Prominent baltimore family. If that is so, that is definitely up there in the capitalist class and not working class. Still was rooting for him. Just would have alot cooler if was a working class guy.
He was a white collar working class guy. His work history is full of positions at various tech companies working as an engineer. It doesn't appear that he was handed any sort of dynasty.
He was upper class, and he had better opportunities than your average American, but he was still a worker.
Simply a lack of class consciousness. America has worked hard since the rise of the USSR to topple workers power through union busting and destruction of community.
Basically we are built by our material conditions.
$50k is 1-2 years pay for the person who reported him. For them, that short term relief was worth more than the highly improbable outcome where this man's actions actually impact their life in a positive way in the next few months. Money wins almost every time
Idiot yes but we can't be too harsh on the pedon... so much education needs to be done, and these recent events is a good time for outreach and education.
Unity is the message. Luigi did the hard work, least the plebs can do it show some solidarity.
You're right. But they would have literally starved or been mangled by a machine if they had done nothing. Back then, the greatest weapons the top 1% had were hired guns.
A century ago, your choices were to die today on strike, or die tomorrow from starvation or work conditions, even if you play by the rules. Now, the greatest weapon the 1% has is complacency. You can die today on strike or you can play by the rules and the corporate overlords will feed you just enough until you become too expensive to feed.
How do you ask someone to starve when they have a legitimate alternative? Complacency is a killer.
How do you ask someone to starve when they have a legitimate alternative?
I know this was more of a rhetorical question, but for anyone who is legitimately asking this question: you show them that it's not actually a binary choice. There's options like communism and unionization that can both protect them and feed them.
The best part of long-term solutions is that they're actually solutions. The worst part about immediate satisfaction is that it's only immediately satisfying. If someone has an immediate problem, it's hard to get them to look at long-term solutions.
I don't blame the worker either. I don't know their story, but if someone told me that I could either keep my mouth shut or feed and care for my family, I'd probably get chatty too. $60K isn't enough to feed you for life, but it's enough to get reliable transportation, clear a little debt, and buy a little time and cloth to interview for a job that pays better than McDonald's.
What I'm saying is that it's really hard to live by high standards when getting fired from your shitty-ass job could destroy, yet it doesn't pay enough for you to escape. Once again, class solidarity is for those who can afford it.
The middle class income ranges from $17k per person up to $90k per person. I hope you don't think that I'm trying to belittle anyone. Someone making 90K can definitely afford to not be a bootlicker; a family of four averaging nearly $17K per family member is gonna have a much harder time.
The year that I lost my shit-paying job only to find an even worse-paying job with more hours was really fucking tough. If you'd offered me $60K legally when I was making $12K and scrambling for rent, I'd've had a really hard fucking time saying no to that. Back then, I was living alone and had very little to live for. Drop me into my current living arrangement and sub that situation: I'm saying yes to the money 80% of the time.
I wish I could say that I'm better than that, but struggling in a capitalist society makes you sick, scared, and desperate really fast. I'm not saying that people with lower income deserve lower expectations or should live by lower standards. I'm just saying to reserve your judgement before shitting on someone and labeling them a snitch before you know whether they could have afforded anything else.
For those of us who can afford class solidarity against the top 1%, we need to remember that the most vulnerable need to be helped up, not stepped on. Instinctually blaming this McDonald's worker helps the billionaires class far more than many of us may realize.
Maybe I'm off-base, but ultimately, this act of betrayal is unlikely to have an effect on the momentum of this potential movement. Whoever killed Thompson is unlikely to act again, their message was unlikely to be heard while they were in hiding, and if they are the hero everyone believes they also likely would forgive someone who was trying to de-shittify their life a little bit.
If you want this to move forward, pull those below you up so they can join us, not attack them for being on a lower level. Class solidarity is for those who can afford it. It sounds like you and I can afford it, so help someone else be able to afford it. Don't shun people who are too scared of starving to fight. Feed them.
America's working class has a long history of buying into propaganda and acting against their own interests. It's a huge reason why the medical industry has gotten so bad.
That being said, it's important to keep our anger focused on the system, not people who are getting suckered by it.
It pains me to see so many people ready and willing to beat up their Trump voting neighbor who fell for propaganda designed for them but not the Trump financing ceos
Because they rely on "tips" , as the corporation is unable to pay a wage that is sufficient to support a basic standard of living. If only capitalist weren't so greedy they wouldn't be relying on the tips to survive.
Also worked there. There is no McDonald's that has ever allowed tips. It's against their corporate rules. I even saw an employee get written up for accepting a tip, once.
And this has to do with the ceo getting killed how?
When I said nothing would change this is not what I meant in the slightest.
Regardless of the ceo getting murdered or not the insurance industry is still going to deny claims to make a profit. People will continue suffering so UHC makes a profit.
In that sense nothing will change and certainly not because the ceo got murdered.
But sure if you want to take a random story and call that change then good for you bud.
Here you are saying the actions of people don't have meaning. You feel smug because you proved yourself right. Seems the only power you have here is convincing others they are as powerless as you.