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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Well then this person is a moron. They won’t see a dime. Maybe a pat on the head and a gift card from the dollar store.
Employee of the Month
With the review bombing and public hatred of that McDonald’s location? Fired is more like it.
I don’t think that McDonald’s gives single fuck about review bombing
The corporation? Definitely not. But review bombing and boycotting will hurt the profits of that franchised location, and its owner certainly will.
Do people really look at or read reviews of McDonald’s?
When you’re an out of towner looking for the nearest place to go and get coffee or use a public bathroom, reviews matter.
I have never looked at the reviews for a fast food franchise. They’re all much the same, which is kinda the point.
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.
You research reviews of McDonald where you are going to get burger? Really?
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.
You do not check the reviews before you go to McDonalds. Just quit.
You’re insane.
You people Buy burgers in Macdonald’s?
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.
They’ll let him order anything he wants off the dollar menu!
Which is really just a pack of fries, minus the fries at this point, becaues what store has a dollar menu anymore?
No way the average person working at Mcdonalds does anything but blow 60k even if they get it.
Edit: To be clear, I spent 4 years working at one. Good people, bad people, but not much economic sophistication in either group.
Yeah, the fucking idiot will probably all blow it on something stupid like an ER visit.
I don’t. Might as well just be a cop if you think like that, plenty of room for bootlicking morons in that profession.
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.
Find out finds everyone
that person might get 60k…
maybe because of this circle jerk, regime will pay out to prove a point.
but there is a lesson in this discussion folks.
Neat how that works. Keep the populace poor and they become a wall to wall surveillance system for you. And people worry about technology…
Off-topic question: are rewards money taxable?
There’s no reason for them not to be treated like any other income.
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.
The downvotes on this really make me question my faith in humanity.
Only the downvotes?
What about the cheering on of murder in the street?
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.
Vigilante justice indicates a failure in the system to administer justice.
It is absolutely in society’s interest that someone who has caused deaths and misery of thousands is punished.
Punished, sure, but not murdered.
Luigi wasn’t really in a position where he could stop the CEO through any lesser use of force.
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.
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.
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.
We all know that doesn’t work.
Killing a CEO certainly doesn’t solve anything…
Are you advocating torture?
No, investigations by the various 3-letter agencies.
Nah, that rich fuck had it coming, shooter is a hero.
We have a president who says that he could do exactly what The Adjuster did, and get away with it. If the president can do it, why not this guy?
I don’t like it, but this is our world right now.
Hey DM, can I get a reroll?
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.
deleted by creator
Ah, good ol’ “anyone who makes enough money to pay rent is part of the capitalist class, not the working class”
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Some people think anyone whose parents actually owned a house are “the elites”.
No. The CEO earned more in a year than even someone with a six figure salary would earn in a lifetime.
deleted by creator
And yet, despite that was still responsible for less deaths than the CEO
Maybe his family did, but judging by his work history, he wasn’t personally wealthy enough to be owning a country club.
If he was “owns a country club” rich, his work history would mostly just say “Owner and CEO of whatever country club”.
There’s no reason to work any sort of normal job if you have that kind of income rolling in.
deleted by creator
Could well be in debt up to their eyeballs and barely making a profit, for all we know.
I dunno. I’ve never met the narc, and I already don’t feel like he’s on my side.