Okay come on, the "Governor of the Great State of Canada" thing is pretty obviously a joke.
Of course it was. It wasn't funny, it wasn't clever, and it served no purpose other than to stroke his ego and feed a base that, somehow, manages to get stupider with each rotation of the Earth.
It was insulting, and I don't think we should allow him a pass on any of the "jokes" that flow outwards from that acorn between his ears.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
Of course it was. It wasn't funny, it wasn't clever, and it served no purpose other than to stroke his ego and feed a base that, somehow, manages to get stupider with each rotation of the Earth.
It was insulting, and I don't think we should allow him a pass on any of the "jokes" that flow outwards from that acorn between his ears.
Trump throws out nicknames all the time to see what sticks. If he starts getting attention for it, he thinks it's successful, and keeps doing it. The best reaction in these cases is to completely ignore it, and he stops. None of this means anything deeper than the needs of his ego.
Way more deserving than most Americans who get shot every day. If psychopaths could change their preferred mass shooting targets from schools to shareholder meetings, that would be a pretty positive change. Likely the only way any sort of gun control would ever get passed down there
The problem is in the arbitration. This is the same argument that can extend all the way to applying the death penalty through a court system. Who, ultimately, can judge evil to the extent that applying an indisputably evil punishment is valid? Who gets to set the bar and who has to enforce it? How do we ensure that the bar is fairly kept?
Ultimately we can't. We're not good at this. Maybe AI would be but that sounds hellaciously dystopian.
The problem is in the arbitration. This is the same argument that can extend all the way to applying the death penalty through a court system. Who, ultimately, can judge evil to the extent that applying an indisputably evil punishment is valid? Who gets to set the bar and who has to enforce it? How do we ensure that the bar is fairly kept?
Ultimately we can't. We're not good at this. Maybe AI would be but that sounds hellaciously dystopian.
Right, we can't and we don't. I see this kinda thing as a failsafe that in theory should protect us from the unrestrained greed of capitalism. You can disagree with it, but it's kinda part of the system as much as maximizing shareholder return at the expense of lives is. If we don't want to see this being excecised, there are no shortages of off ramps that can be taken. Judging by the words of the Andrew Witty, they aren't really interested in those options.
Trump throws out nicknames all the time to see what sticks. If he starts getting attention for it, he thinks it's successful, and keeps doing it. The best reaction in these cases is to completely ignore it, and he stops. None of this means anything deeper than the needs of his ego.
You're probably right, but everything is a #1 hit with his target audience.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
Not much of a reasoned answer, though. How evil? You call for the deaths of Russian soldiers in Ukraine to stop them from killing innocent people. Yet because this guy wears a suit, the deaths on his hands are worthy of letting him continue to do more of the same, for money?
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
How evil does a person need to be before deserving one? Hitler evil? Putin? Hamas? ISIS? Bin Laden? Brian Thompson?
"I mean, Benito Mussolini used to force feed people castor oil until they literally died of diarrhea. That's gotta be where the goal posts are, right?"
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
Undercoverbrother had an almost unsaitable bloodblust when Russia invaded Ukraine, at an uncomfortable level and suddenly he's mister peace when it comes to a CEO whose decisions have benefited only his shareholders while leaving untold others to suffer and die.
__________________ MMF is the tough as nails cop that "plays by his own rules". The force keeps suspending him when he crosses the line but he keeps coming back and then cracks a big case.
-JiriHrdina
Not much of a reasoned answer, though. How evil? You call for the deaths of Russian soldiers in Ukraine to stop them from killing innocent people. Yet because this guy wears a suit, the deaths on his hands are worthy of letting him continue to do more of the same, for money?
Can we now shoot mechanics that overcharge?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Its like a modified trolley problem. Disregarding the "sacrificing the few for the many" part of the experiment, the difference between say Bid Laden and a Healthcare CEO is in pulling the lever.
If you have the ability, and responsibility, to pull the lever and don't, then someone dies are you as culpable as someone who pulled the lever and someone died?
That's the morality of it. "Hitler, Bid Laden, etc" actively pulled the lever and people died. UHC refused to pull the lever and allowed people to die. Now it comes down to personal and societal morality.
If I am a lifeguard standing on the dock and someone is drowning and I have a ring buoy. I look down and think, that person should probably be able to swim on their own so I don't throw it, and they drown. Am I a murderer? Did I have a responsibility to help them as I had the tools and my role was to assist them?
I can understand both points of view. Personally, I think denying of a positive action makes me as culpable as performing a negative action, which is where the internet seems to be leaning right now.
How much of the "internet posters" reflects societal morality? Its hard to say, as societal morality seems to be determined by the ruling class of oligarchs. You never would have seen the police resources thrown at this case if the victim had been a claims adjuster for UHC as opposed to the CEO. That in itself tells us how much of our morality is judged by our wealth and status.
The internet outrage is not just some random hatred, it is showing the very large chasm in morality growing between the ruling class and the plebs.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
