3 ms·

I'm assuming you're not some kind of shill, as it should be, and I do think your point has merit. At the same time I can't help myself from thinking this sort o

I'm assuming you're not some kind of shill, as it should be, and I do think your point has merit. At the same time I can't help myself from thinking this sort of deflective take has at least some roots in the PR efforts of "a specific family" and the industry. All it takes is a few convincing arguments to be made by real shills and taken up by others that "no, we shouldn't blame the Sacklers, because..." That's how PR does its work. That aside, I think it's clear their family got away with profiting off of wrongdoing, even after the fines. Profiting off of wrongdoing is much too common for big businesses. In some sense they can afford not to be held to account.

skybrian 5y ago
Thanks for not accusing them of being a shill, but the problem with this sort of wariness is that you can’t make certain arguments, or even ask certain questions, without people thinking you might be a shill. You can’t figure out what’s really going on in the world by making meta-arguments about who benefits. Meta-arguments aren’t evidence. (It is true, though, that in a forum where we don’t know each other, there is a lack of trust for good reasons. Which is why it’s good to post links to more trustworthy sources.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]