It’d be interesting if cultural standards were upheld unanimously amongst all members of said culture…

Or, conversely, if a culture could be judged by the actions of a few outlying individuals…

un-abashedly trying to defend ghouls.

No, I’m not.

If the CEO makes the big bucks then they share the most of the blame. You can’t have one without the other.

This will definitely depend on the particulars of an organization, but usually it’s not just one singular CEO who’s getting rich by making these decisions.

Also don’t deliberately ignore the fact that for a brief moment in time after the CEO’s death, there was a drastic reduction in the number of claims being denied.

I wasn’t aware of this, and I’m not sure why you would describe that as “deliberately ignoring” it…lol

There’s a question of where the line would be drawn.

But do you kill everyone responsible for a joint decision?

Do you kill everyone who benefitted from it? Shareholders, indirect investors, spouses and children…?

If there’s a collision and someone in the car isn’t wearing a seatbelt, that’s a danger to everyone inside the car. The person without the seatbelt becomes a projectile.

I know someone who gets absolutely red hulk faced full of rage because the cars beside them wont let them over […] while screaming adn cussing up a storm about “entitled” drivers who wont let him over…

Meanwhile, in the other cars:

Hey, look at that guy in the fast line. That dude is absolutely PISSED at his friend there. What do you think they’re fighting about?

Because that’s what he’d do if he saw someone signal? Lol

Jesus is gonna laugh at them when they’re down below. Dance with the devil and you get burnt – not a ticket to heaven, lol

I would not be in that car

I think the difference with cops is that they don’t need the self-defense argument, because the “oopsie” argument gets them out of jail too

That they got away safely? Maybe the fact that they’re on Lemmy

True but this was self defense.

Is this a misuse of legal terms, or is there some sort of evidence behind this?

He was a CEO, not a king. He doesn’t single-handedly come up with and implement these decisions.

• The policies are probably brainstormed in meetings with several people.
• The policies are probably voted on by an even greater number of people
• The policies are implemented by another set of people
• The policies are enforced by another set of people
• The profit of the company, which these policies likely aim to improve, is almost the single main goal of all of the shareholders.
• Many other people have likely invested indirectly (e.g., in funds that contain that company’s stock) and were also benefitting from the implementation of these policies.

The CEO may have been a big part of the problem, but he’s not the only part. He may have even been a symptom of the problem. Was he elected, appointed? Who brought him into that position? Who didn’t make the decision to remove him from that position if the opportunity arose?

EDIT: I’m not really sure why people are downvoting this. I’m not saying the CEO was innocent, I’m saying he’s not the only one who holds the guilt for the decision.

I can understand why it might bother some people, since it’s kind of like “literally”, where the “new” definition is the opposite of the “traditional” definition, and we already have perfectly good words to fill in for the new definition.

I also dislike how “apparent” means “clear” or “obvious”, but I’d been using “apparentLY” to mean “allegedly”.

But thank you for the affirmation that I was using it in “one” proper way!

I think it’s a good question that everyone should be asking regularly

Most capitalist societies draw the line somewhere before “Gaining capital through the Sexual exploitation of children is ok”

Aren’t you concerned at all with the large number of people that are under represented by their choices in the voting booth?

Yes, but they should still vote. Anyone who didn’t vote decided that they’re okay with Trump. Generally, anyone not okay with Trump who didn’t vote is either stupid, ignorant, or lying about not being okay with Trump being elected.

State level electoral reform will give more political parties the chance to be involved in future elections with no chance of a spoiler effect.

Yeah, I agree. But you don’t have that. So we work with the system we have.

Who could say no to more democracy? Who could possibly be against ensuring their fellow country men/women/and more are fully represented to the best of our ability? Republicans? Yes, of course they are against democracy. How about the democratic party? Do they support democracy?

If you think that Trump is worse than the Democrat candidate, then you vote Democrat. Deciding not to vote doesn’t give you more democracy, it gives you less.

More political parties means more chances to beat the Republicans. More political parties means more people are involved in politics. More people being involved in politics statistically means more votes for the democratic party.

Not with FPTP. I’m in Canada, where we realistically have a 3-party system. What happens in some parts of the country (including Federally) is the Left vote gets split and the Right vote often ends up winning.

Why is the DNC saying no to these easy extra votes? Why wouldn’t democrats use every tool at their disposal to defeat the republicans?

If it were that simple and easy, they’d do it. But it’s not. If the Right doesn’t split too, and if FPTP isn’t replaced with something better, then the Left has just screwed itself out of ever being elected again.

Yeah, there are two kinds (probably with different names). Aphantasia is where there’s no “mental video/images”. I think there’s a different name for “no internal monologue” and/or “no mental sound”.

A person can have one or the other, or both, or neither

No worries! I also assumed that the busses in Korea were made in Korea, or at least to Korean specifications. I could be wrong, lol

A tool built by evil to fight evil could be a good thing.

But this is kind of like a tool built by evil to fight neutral in an evil way.

“but I couldn’t vote for the Democrats in good faith!!!”

Well now you’ve helped elect Trump. Hope that aligns with your morals!

(General “you”, not you specifically)