I’m not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who “needed help one day” any more than some corporate HR; and “I don’t care what they say, I know that Mitch didn’t do that” isn’t exactly a solid argument to be basing things on.
Edit: I seem to have missed this on my first read:
Jennifer said she thinks somebody “didn’t like what he had to say” and wanted to “shut him up” without it coming back to anyone"…“That’s why they made it look like a suicide,”
I’m never surprised to hear something bad about Boeing, but this is just a woman convinced with, on the face of it, no other proof than what’s in her own head. Unless she’s got a recording or document, the article’s title could have been, “Family friend tells reporter a story”
And he said, ‘No, I ain’t scared, but if anything happens to me, it’s not suicide.’
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Unless she’s got a recording or document, the article’s title could have been, “Family friend tells reporter a story”
Yeah, it won’t hold up in court, and neither would it if she had recorded this casual, intimate conversation between two old friends.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
I’m not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who “needed help one day” any more than some corporate HR;
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Did he state that somewhere else? Admittedly I haven’t been following the story too closely so I may have missed something there; but if he isn’t documented saying that somewhere credible, then all we have is her claiming that he “pretty much said” that. Is it likely he said it? I mean, I’d definitely be saying it if I was in his shoes, but one family friend’s claim isn’t enough to convince me that this should have been published as it was. I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
Here’s to hoping
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
I probably don’t, I’m just trying to present an argument with throwing on more layers of personal bias
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
He’s a high profile corporate whistleblower who allegedly committed suicide. Any coroner who isn’t already triple checking everything is way too corrupt or lazy to bother with another look.
The coroner is going to call it as suicide. This isn’t remotely a debate to me. If it is suicide it goes away. If it is murder it means work for the police and a small annoyance to the powers-that-be. The coroner knows this and knows that if they don’t writer suicide their career is over at best at worst they get Epsteined as well.
This isn’t “I know Mitch didn’t do that”, it’s “he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn’t going to do it”. What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
There’s a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
Well, I for one think some rogue at Boeing is behind the Epsteining of this guy. The company is definitely run by psychopathic crooks and has been for a while and I hope these fuckers all go to jail and the company fixed before more people die.
Idk about these accounts you blocked… but I am always going to advocate for at least being self-aware of being loosey-goosey with one’s reasoning. Maybe it is compulsion, maybe it is the decades wasted being religious that have led me to detest careless epistemology that leads to specious conclusions. Then again … if COVID taught me nothing, it should have taught me that efforts in this area are probably pointless. I must like swimming upstream. I seem to do it all the time.
What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation?
That’s my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett’s mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father’s funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
There is literally no other corroboration that could be given, it’s a personal conversation between friends or friendly acquaintances, reported as such. There’s nothing wrong with the article. This is the maximum amount of corroboration for a private conversation (none) and it’s reported as a conversation, with information about the speaker’s relationship and direct quotes. Just because people don’t record their lives in unalterable write-once media doesn’t mean personal conversations simply should never be the subject of reporting. We have headline news stories about US generals’ personal conversations with Trump and his denials, and no one thinks “well, that shouldn’t be reported because either side could be lying and without recording they’re both equally suspicious”.
I’m certain you don’t actually follow a philosophy of “nothing anyone says can ever be given any more credence than anyone else” because it’s an impossible way to live. And whatever high-minded “no one can ever know absolute truth” ideas you have, claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous. On one side you someone whose job is literally to say things to protect a billion dollar company and the other a family friend with nothing to gain talking about a pretty reasonable conversation one might have.
I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there’s a big difference between:
‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death
and
‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Family friend reports Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death
I know I’m being pedantic, that it’s just clickbait, and that’s the reality of today’s media; but I’ve spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.
claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous.
You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, “I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who agrees with my point of view than I am a “close family friend” who disagrees with my point of view” or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, “he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself” I’d still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn’t consider her any more credible just because she’s agreeing with me.
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let’s also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she’s the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It’s evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well…
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don’t think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
Amazing how standards of evidence work. I am a Jesus Mythicist and pretty much all we have to “prove” Jesus was real is one guy saying he meet some unnamed person who had a dream. But here we have a direct eyewitness stating what they heard a week ago and that isn’t good enough.
I’m curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom’s friend’s daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?
I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, “it’s obvious” or “I know” to back it up
I feel the same about the response given that I’m agreeing with everyone’s sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.
Naw, you’re good. Change nothing about yourself. :) You are spot on and you have my upvotes.
Folks are in angry mob mode and can’t be bothered with even a hint of nuance or reason, apparently. Even if you are convinced Boeing totally killed the guy and state that clearly…
Anyway, peace out man. I hope for once corporate scum faces consequences.
I’m not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who “needed help one day” any more than some corporate HR; and “I don’t care what they say, I know that Mitch didn’t do that” isn’t exactly a solid argument to be basing things on.
Edit: I seem to have missed this on my first read:
I’m never surprised to hear something bad about Boeing, but this is just a woman convinced with, on the face of it, no other proof than what’s in her own head. Unless she’s got a recording or document, the article’s title could have been, “Family friend tells reporter a story”
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Yeah, it won’t hold up in court, and neither would it if she had recorded this casual, intimate conversation between two old friends.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
Did he state that somewhere else? Admittedly I haven’t been following the story too closely so I may have missed something there; but if he isn’t documented saying that somewhere credible, then all we have is her claiming that he “pretty much said” that. Is it likely he said it? I mean, I’d definitely be saying it if I was in his shoes, but one family friend’s claim isn’t enough to convince me that this should have been published as it was. I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact.
Here’s to hoping
I probably don’t, I’m just trying to present an argument with throwing on more layers of personal bias
He’s a high profile corporate whistleblower who allegedly committed suicide. Any coroner who isn’t already triple checking everything is way too corrupt or lazy to bother with another look.
The coroner is going to call it as suicide. This isn’t remotely a debate to me. If it is suicide it goes away. If it is murder it means work for the police and a small annoyance to the powers-that-be. The coroner knows this and knows that if they don’t writer suicide their career is over at best at worst they get Epsteined as well.
This isn’t “I know Mitch didn’t do that”, it’s “he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn’t going to do it”. What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
There’s a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
Remaining open minded, waiting for evidence… Must be ChatGPT because that’s not a human thing, never had been!
I am a Lemmy language user and I have processed this request.
You wrote “being willfully ignorant” wrong
Well, I for one think some rogue at Boeing is behind the Epsteining of this guy. The company is definitely run by psychopathic crooks and has been for a while and I hope these fuckers all go to jail and the company fixed before more people die.
Idk about these accounts you blocked… but I am always going to advocate for at least being self-aware of being loosey-goosey with one’s reasoning. Maybe it is compulsion, maybe it is the decades wasted being religious that have led me to detest careless epistemology that leads to specious conclusions. Then again … if COVID taught me nothing, it should have taught me that efforts in this area are probably pointless. I must like swimming upstream. I seem to do it all the time.
That’s my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett’s mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father’s funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
There is literally no other corroboration that could be given, it’s a personal conversation between friends or friendly acquaintances, reported as such. There’s nothing wrong with the article. This is the maximum amount of corroboration for a private conversation (none) and it’s reported as a conversation, with information about the speaker’s relationship and direct quotes. Just because people don’t record their lives in unalterable write-once media doesn’t mean personal conversations simply should never be the subject of reporting. We have headline news stories about US generals’ personal conversations with Trump and his denials, and no one thinks “well, that shouldn’t be reported because either side could be lying and without recording they’re both equally suspicious”.
I’m certain you don’t actually follow a philosophy of “nothing anyone says can ever be given any more credence than anyone else” because it’s an impossible way to live. And whatever high-minded “no one can ever know absolute truth” ideas you have, claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous. On one side you someone whose job is literally to say things to protect a billion dollar company and the other a family friend with nothing to gain talking about a pretty reasonable conversation one might have.
I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there’s a big difference between:
and
I know I’m being pedantic, that it’s just clickbait, and that’s the reality of today’s media; but I’ve spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.
You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, “I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who agrees with my point of view than I am a “close family friend” who disagrees with my point of view” or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, “he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself” I’d still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn’t consider her any more credible just because she’s agreeing with me.
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let’s also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she’s the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It’s evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well…
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don’t think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
Amazing how standards of evidence work. I am a Jesus Mythicist and pretty much all we have to “prove” Jesus was real is one guy saying he meet some unnamed person who had a dream. But here we have a direct eyewitness stating what they heard a week ago and that isn’t good enough.
My brother in whatever, for your information that is called a “witness”
I can see you were born yesterday.
I’m curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom’s friend’s daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?
I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, “it’s obvious” or “I know” to back it up
Fascinating
I feel the same about the response given that I’m agreeing with everyone’s sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.
Naw, you’re good. Change nothing about yourself. :) You are spot on and you have my upvotes.
Folks are in angry mob mode and can’t be bothered with even a hint of nuance or reason, apparently. Even if you are convinced Boeing totally killed the guy and state that clearly…
Anyway, peace out man. I hope for once corporate scum faces consequences.
Epstein. Your argument is disproven