731
Second Boeing whistleblower dies suddenly
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
731 points (97.4% liked)
Not The Onion
12380 readers
25 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[…]
Let’s not turn into QAnon level conspiracy fuckwits here. He died of a natural illness as confirmed by his mother, and his family probably don’t want to have to deal with seeing everyone bringing him up in some deep state corpo assassination conspiracy bullshit.
You can hate Boeing for their shitty capitalist practices with resorting to this.
Agreed. It really looks like they only killed the one whistle blower.
Yea. That first one was so obvious there's no way there's a way to kill someone and fool their mother. Case closed I'm satisfied...
That's well within safe levels of whistleblowers turning up dead at the hands of a major defence contractor.
I think the real take away is that there are so many people willing to speak out against Boeing's procedures that odds are some are going to die before the conclusion of this investigation.
Imma need a dissertation on the probabilities here.
Source:
Okay, but in the interest of not pretending that They Would Never(tm) can we all agree that if a THIRD whistleblower dies shortly before or during testimony that maybe something is happening here? You have the guy who committed suicide in the middle of depositions after telling his friend "If I commit suicide, no I absolutely did not" and now the healthy 45 year old who all of a sudden has multiple infections and a stroke. Is there a point at which you'd accept the idea that it's a bit beyond coincidence that the deadliest place in the world seems to be the witness stand at a trial where Boeing is the defendant?
Didn't the first guy's family talk about how he was depressed out of his mind and barely knew the woman who made those claims?
You can blame Boeing for abusing and causing mental and ultimately physical deterioration of their QA staff. You can't blame them for faking suicide or giving someone pneumonia.
I still personally think that criminal charges need to be filed against their managers or coworkers, even if it's not for murder.
I'm just trying to establish conditions by which we all might agree that this is worth looking into before they happen. It's easy to try to play connect the dots with the stars, there are a bunch of them already and you can just ignore the ones that don't make the picture you want. I'm trying to add predictions to this theory in the name of the scientific method - if another whistleblower dies before his testimony is complete, that will be beyond what I can dismiss as coincidence.
You can give people infections on purpose. If he had died of a genetic heart defect it would be different.
I like how you imply qa anon leaps and obvious deductive powers are the same.
Obvious deductive powers like not reading the article? Or do you think his mum was in on it too?
This article headline is written to push people to a conclusion. If it had simply added the word “illness” most people would not be “deducting” shit. It’s media manipulation to generate clicks and you’re falling for it.
Yes, the source article is from Newsweek, which is about as trustworthy as Boeing.
This is becoming distressingly common.
Because it works.
Way to miss my point.
Explain your point.
Deducing from headlines and circumstances while ignoring crucial information is exactly what QAnon does
Thinking it's possible a seedy thing happened =/= making up reams of bullshit based on a number in the background but sure everyone who disagrees with you is qanon
I intended to make it more like a cautionary tale. QAnon can happen to the best of us, and seedy thoughts that still consider that it was an illness for a while are sort of an entry point to the thought pattern behind conspiracy theories. If one builds tolerance to this kind of leap, it'll be easier to build tolerance for much bigger leaps.
I don't agree. It happens to vulnerable people. And it's not like a disease you can catch if you're not vigilant. There are many steps to becoming bat shit, and wondering if a specific corporation would kill a person isn't something I'm willing to avoid because next thing I know I'd be trying to hang the vice president.
Everyone is vulnerable in one way or another. Of course, wondering is natural, but seriously accepting it, as some in this thread have done, is a QAnon kind of leap.
Technically accurate that some have done that, but an exaggeration to consider it a trend
Well, there only has to be a strong possibility to warn against it.
You have to realize how your first post came off. The poster you responded to clearly was talking about the people claiming Boeing did it. Of which there are plenty of this thread.
You then jumped in and said this wasn't conspiracy nonsense, but the result of "obvious deductive powers."
This did not come off as merely "wondering" or considering it a possibility, but as if you were saying it was an obvious fact.
I'm not even sure how to interpret that comment in relation to what you're saying now.
What I remember seeing was people making implications and jokes. People don't always mean things 100% literally. I doubt there are all that many people totally convinced it was Boeing, but some of you are acting like that is the case. I disagree, that is all
Ps deductive reasoning doesn't mean "I know it for a fact"
If my kid goes into the kitchen, and I go in a little while later and see the cookies are gone, i'm going to believe they ate them. Am I 100% convinced of it? No. Maybe i just didn't realize they had been eaten earlier, or maybe someone snuck in the back and ate them. But I'm relatively convinced they ate the.
I'm sure there are very few people, at most, that are convince 100% that Boeing did it. But it's very presumptuous to assume that all of the people in this thread claiming Boeing did it are just joking. Seems more reasonable to take their statements at face value and understand that they do think Boeing did it, or at least someone related to boeing did it.
But I'm not sure what this has to do with what was suggested by your initial post.
By definition deductive reason is using logic to come to a specific conclusion, so it absolutely does mean it's a fact.
Deductive reasoning means using evidence so no you're flat wrong. Also, ever heard of a "knee jerk reaction"? Hint, that also isn't a term that means you're sure of anything
You're confusing deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning. But I wouldn't even call it inductive reasoning, as it's really just an empty hypothesis where people are putting what they want to be the truth into the holes of our knowledge...or hell even outright rejecting evidence, like qanons do.
And, again, Ive already agreed that they don't 100% believe it. But arguing that they don't think Boeing had this person killed is just ignoring what they said and assuming what you want.
This conversation started with some people cheekily blaming Boeing (a fair first reaction). Then some dude chided everyone for being like qanon, I said that was a deep over exaggeration, now here I am getting a lesson in pedantry. What even are conversations like this?
I read the thread one way and a couple others didn't. End of story.
"oh, sorry. I was mistaken about what deductive reasoning means, and I can see why what I said did not convey what I actually think. Thanks for the correction.'
"Sorry for caring more about pedantry than the topic at hand. I'll speak to my therapist about that"
Lol I assure you me and my therapist have way more pressing issues to talk about than you refusing to admit you are wrong.
The fact that you think a phrase can't imply a "potential conclusion" and instead must be a "certain conclusion" would agree with you there.
What didn't you understand about me and my therapist having more important things to discuss than you being wrong and refusing to admit it?
Oh, wait, I see what this is. It's a projection. Your inability to admit you are wrong is something you realize you need to work through, which is why you are claiming that I have issues I need to work through.
You'll be fine tho, it's not that big of a thing.
You see you just admitted you got issues beyond "me being wrong". I used your words against you to say I agree. Surely a pedant could appreciate the weaponization of an opponent's words to use against them
Oh I see, people mean what they say when it confirms what you want to be true, but when it puts you in a tricky spot... Well, then, man you have to be really stupid to think they actually mean it.
Lol how convenient
Pure gold, my man
Keep thinking you got me good if it helps your day go better
I didn't get you, you got yourself