So, Hitler wasn’t bad. Stalin was OK, didn’t kill anyone right?
But their decisions did. Their position of power allowed them to.
Just cause they didn’t murder directly doesn’t mean they played a fair game. They knew exactly what they were doing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes goes for bad people too.
The CEO is however a robber baron operating at the times of peace, using different methods but achieving the same end - people dying, most often miserably. I don’t see how that’s better.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s so radical not grieving after a person who is the head of a corporation of which sole purpose is to take money from people for a promise of payout when things go dire, and then refusing when the times comes, leaving them exposed at the most miserable time of their entire lives…
Insurance companies are not banks, they don’t take deposits and return them to you with huge margin when you need it most. They would be operating at massive loss for each client.
Right, but still a person who had a part in making the lives of lots of people miserable or unnecessarily short.
If a CEO isn’t responsible for the policies of the company they’re CEO of, why would you need a CEO in the first place?
So, Hitler wasn’t bad. Stalin was OK, didn’t kill anyone right?
But their decisions did. Their position of power allowed them to.
Just cause they didn’t murder directly doesn’t mean they played a fair game. They knew exactly what they were doing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes goes for bad people too.
Hitler killed Hitler. Pretty good score.
^(It’s fucking sarcasm, of course.)
Honestly that fact was known to me, but I just realized he was the good guy/hero we needed after what he did…
The CEO is not a violent dictator commiting war crimes
The CEO is however a robber baron operating at the times of peace, using different methods but achieving the same end - people dying, most often miserably. I don’t see how that’s better.
This is why I get tired of Lemmy. Constant extreme views with little rational thought
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s so radical not grieving after a person who is the head of a corporation of which sole purpose is to take money from people for a promise of payout when things go dire, and then refusing when the times comes, leaving them exposed at the most miserable time of their entire lives…
Insurance companies are not banks, they don’t take deposits and return them to you with huge margin when you need it most. They would be operating at massive loss for each client.
You don’t have to grieve but think you should to sensitive to fellow humans no matter if they run a company that ruins your life.
That would be too radical for me, sorry
Right, but still a person who had a part in making the lives of lots of people miserable or unnecessarily short.
If a CEO isn’t responsible for the policies of the company they’re CEO of, why would you need a CEO in the first place?