> since billionaires are immune from persecution, the costs for acting unethically must massively increase so that such bootlickers and useful idiots like you will be too scared to even think of publicly defending evil parasites > an anon trying to draw attention to the issue of sensationalizing this and how it's bad for the underlying cause is a sign of support  holy shit man, are you serious?   > i just signed the document that deputized an ai algorithm to decide who gets medical treatment or not! it's the algorithms fault! if you were less of a computer literate and you didn't understand these things as well as an expert like yourself, this would be a solid defense. uhc didn't have an ethics review board. the board of directors made this call first and foremost in their strategy meetings.  even if the guy figured out that it was questionable at best, that genie does not go back into the bottle if the board is making more money and shareholders are happy. compliance and blameworthiness does not fall solely on the ceo - its spread among shareholders, board members, computer scientists, middle management, etc.     you do recognize that the emotions you're imbuing into that graph is an age old class struggle talking point, right? are you anti-meritocracy too? the graph affirms the pareto distribution. my argument that people are retarded for not recognizing that killing a ceo won't change what ails them fits this narrative perfectly. only 20% of the people that think about it will come to a depth of understanding to act more morally/ethically, while 80% of people will either be outraged and shit the bed, or will ignore it with nothing gain or lost and nothing learned or reflected upon. people like that don't amass wealth, and people who get buttblasted at that are either retarded or evil. when did leftoids flood this board?
United States