5 ms·

It's so convenient that all these people waited until retirement to speak out, but they also said they weren't doing anything wrong? Zero morals by anyone in th

It's so convenient that all these people waited until retirement to speak out, but they also said they weren't doing anything wrong? Zero morals by anyone in this story.

kibwen 5mo ago
We built our modern society on the principle that profit must be prioritized over morality, they're just conforming to systematic incentives. Those who sell their souls to the devil don't get to act shocked when they wind up in hell.
- joe_mamba 5mo ago
  > Those who sell their souls to the devil don't get to act shocked when they wind up in hell. Which is everyone, since everyone has their pension invested in a giant pool made of of unethical companies that we can't fine, ban or let fail because it would destroy people's retirements who will then vote in an angry way to reverse this, or it will destroy some upstream national important industries that are very well regulated, or lobby very well, like Purdue pharma. It's a collective fault, not that of only a handful of people.
  - TJSomething 5mo ago
    I feel like this supposes a better world where most people are educated, rational, and calm investors with the time, money, and energy to actively manage a diversified portfolio. Or I guess you could get there by abolishing the stock market as it exists, which seems more likely.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - joe_mamba 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - Spooky23 5mo ago
        I served in an executive role for a non-Federal government organization. Think a senior director, not a political position. My stock holdings had to be disclosed, and were and still are publicly viewable. They audit them and explore potential conflicts. When I was promoted, I had to justify and certify potential conflicts due to long existing stock holdings of myself and my son, which were subject to monitoring and I was not allowed to participate in certain activities without counsel approval. Even that was only permissible because I asked for specific permission due to the hardship I would face from tax liability. If I hadn’t asked for that permission I could’ve been subjected to a civil penalty or even criminal prosecution. That’s required for public confidence. The federal rules are stricter. A Federal official can be subject to a fine for displaying a political lawn sign at their home. Their supplemental retirement plan obscures the corporate affiliations of their investments. Unfortunately, you’re displaying the nihilist, uninformed perspective which put fascists in power. By saying the president is corrupt, but so is everybody else you’re implicitly supporting and endorsing the behavior. That’s what they want. Choose to educate yourself with better sources.
        joe_mamba 5mo ago
        >That’s required for public confidence. The federal rules are stricter. You're trying to hide behind a bureaucratic mumbo jumbo, which is how the likes on Nancy Pelosi can constantly beat the stock market by a wide margin, and yet not raise any legal eyebrows. Not putting you in the same basket as her, just saying that just because there are rules in place, doesn't mean they have the desired preventing effect you talk about, because it's the enforcement that's lacking. Just because the policies keep YOU honest, doesn't mean they apply to everyone else. >Unfortunately, you’re displaying the nihilist, uninformed perspective which put fascists in power. By saying the president is corrupt, but so is everybody else you’re implicitly supporting and endorsing the behavior. That’s what they want. You're soo offtopic that it's laughable. Sure buddy, everyone with a different opinion than you is a fascist, only you have the right answer to everything from within your bubble. Why do you think that special forces officer was arrested for insider trading but not Trump's friends? Now tell us again, how there's no legal double standards, and your legal mumbo jumbo prevents insider trading.
akudha 5mo ago
It is easy to be ethically and morally responsible, after one becomes rich, after one is retired. Until then, it is enough to follow the law just enough to not get fined. Actually, even that is a tall ask these days - fines are just cost of doing business. It sucks that it is this way, but society seems to have largely accepted it
- mystraline 5mo ago
  Fine are the cost of doing business... FOR COMPANIES. For individuals: arrest, jail, prison, and horrifically crippling fines are normal. An individual kills 1 person, and its 15y to life. But if youre an 'insurance company' and make policies in abeyance of insurance and arbitrarily deny 30% of claims getting many killed (Luigi says hi), thats perfectly fine. Youre a business leader making lots of money. You steal $100 from the till at $shitretailjob and company calls cops and has you arrested. BUT if they fraudulently change timesheets and steal $100 from you, wellllll thats a civil matter. Or, a company made 1B dollars but spent $990M, they only owe taxes on 10M$. But if I make $100k and spent $90k, I still pay taxes on 100k, not 10K. This country should be called the Corporate States of America. That fiction has more rights than I or any other non-billionaire average human will ever have.
  - f1shy 5mo ago
    > This country should be called the Corporate States of America. Who knows a country in which is different, let me know, please, honestly.
    - mystraline 5mo ago
      I can call these hypocrisies to light. I do so on the off chance that we gain enough support to start reversing end-stage capitalism. Im not going to list factoids of what rank we are or arent. Its honestly irrelevant. Im stuck here, since I have no familial claim of citizenship elsewhere. So, yeah. I speak out here and in person, about these abuses. Eventually, we'll do better. Takes time. Probably longer than I have alive.
    - 5mo ago
alphabeta3r56 5mo ago
> “That’s not a logo,” fumed Shaw, CEO of the world’s largest carpet company, one attendee later recalled. “That’s a target.” Do people really speak like that?
boondongle 5mo ago
It's actually not convenient at all. Consider this: animal study to human study fail all the time. In another world, there could have been NO impact at all to human beings and PFAS could be just another random chemical the body doesn't clear but doesn't actually do anything and sits there inert. I know everyone's pissed about this but the thyroid/other connections stuff happens 10 years later as a result and these are idiot business people playing in waters they don't understand (and neither did medicine at that time). You could say, "you can't take the risk." For me these questions are maybe we need to take a deeper/closer look at what are permissible risks and at what point. But you could use the same logic to not make any advancement ever. No antibiotics because it will cause resistence. No chemo because it will cause damage and death. People want there to be a Dr. Eggman or Hitler in this story because it's turned out to be so impactful. Like Aesbestos which solved for fire, just poorly - carpet was solving for comfort, sound deadening, and emotional well being. We just can't necessarily quantify that as easily. It's fantastic that science continually grows in understanding and can attribute once thought "inert" chemicals to problems. "How evil children playing with matches" are though, is asking the wrong question. These people were stupid enough to say - "there's cancer in rats, lets just keep going".
- Chris2048 5mo ago
  > there could have been NO impact at all True, but if you contaminate water, and people, with chemicals not supposed to be there; I feel the burden should be on you to prove the chemicals are not harmful. > you could use the same logic to not make any advancement ever No you couldn't - the measures taken to prevent contamination were inadequate, they could've innovated while also following the rules. And if not, no business is owed a viable business model, certainly a random strangers heath isn't worth the price of profiting from easy-to-clean carpets. > We just can't necessarily quantify that as easily. Quantify what? > can attribute once thought "inert" chemicals to problems we (or America) have a whole system of classifying chemicals as safe for human consumption or not. Whatever was thought about PFAS, I don't believe they had been proven safe enough to dump into drinking water?
- dennis_jeeves2 5mo ago
  >But you could use the same logic to not make any advancement ever. No antibiotics because it will cause resistance. No chemo because it will cause damage and death. I understand the argument you are making, and I'm no fan of govt/regulations, but you will notice that often basic testing of toxicity/side effects is missing or the system is gamed. One example I recently came across: antidepressant drugs are tested on people for around 12 weeks and then labeled safe if there are no side effects or reversible side effects. To summarize: profits overrides and safety concerns.
gchamonlive 5mo ago
Better to not be a hypocrite and continue abusing your hard exploited capital? It's the banality of evil over and over again. Can't really blame the individual, with some extreme exceptions, otherwise by calling people out as you are doing you are participating in perpetuating the problem without contributing with anything new.
casey2 5mo ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 5mo ago
  Intergenerational rage like this is not OK on HN, and dehumanizing language towards anyone is clearly against the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tomhow 5mo ago
Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's so convenient that all these people waited until retirement to speak out, but they also said they weren't doing anything wrong? Zero morals by anyone in this story.

kibwen 5mo ago

We built our modern society on the principle that profit must be prioritized over morality, they're just conforming to systematic incentives. Those who sell their souls to the devil don't get to act shocked when they wind up in hell.

joe_mamba 5mo ago
> Those who sell their souls to the devil don't get to act shocked when they wind up in hell. Which is everyone, since everyone has their pension invested in a giant pool made of of unethical companies that we can't fine, ban or let fail because it would destroy people's retirements who will then vote in an angry way to reverse this, or it will destroy some upstream national important industries that are very well regulated, or lobby very well, like Purdue pharma. It's a collective fault, not that of only a handful of people.
- TJSomething 5mo ago
  I feel like this supposes a better world where most people are educated, rational, and calm investors with the time, money, and energy to actively manage a diversified portfolio. Or I guess you could get there by abolishing the stock market as it exists, which seems more likely.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - joe_mamba 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Spooky23 5mo ago
      I served in an executive role for a non-Federal government organization. Think a senior director, not a political position. My stock holdings had to be disclosed, and were and still are publicly viewable. They audit them and explore potential conflicts. When I was promoted, I had to justify and certify potential conflicts due to long existing stock holdings of myself and my son, which were subject to monitoring and I was not allowed to participate in certain activities without counsel approval. Even that was only permissible because I asked for specific permission due to the hardship I would face from tax liability. If I hadn’t asked for that permission I could’ve been subjected to a civil penalty or even criminal prosecution. That’s required for public confidence. The federal rules are stricter. A Federal official can be subject to a fine for displaying a political lawn sign at their home. Their supplemental retirement plan obscures the corporate affiliations of their investments. Unfortunately, you’re displaying the nihilist, uninformed perspective which put fascists in power. By saying the president is corrupt, but so is everybody else you’re implicitly supporting and endorsing the behavior. That’s what they want. Choose to educate yourself with better sources.
      - joe_mamba 5mo ago
        >That’s required for public confidence. The federal rules are stricter. You're trying to hide behind a bureaucratic mumbo jumbo, which is how the likes on Nancy Pelosi can constantly beat the stock market by a wide margin, and yet not raise any legal eyebrows. Not putting you in the same basket as her, just saying that just because there are rules in place, doesn't mean they have the desired preventing effect you talk about, because it's the enforcement that's lacking. Just because the policies keep YOU honest, doesn't mean they apply to everyone else. >Unfortunately, you’re displaying the nihilist, uninformed perspective which put fascists in power. By saying the president is corrupt, but so is everybody else you’re implicitly supporting and endorsing the behavior. That’s what they want. You're soo offtopic that it's laughable. Sure buddy, everyone with a different opinion than you is a fascist, only you have the right answer to everything from within your bubble. Why do you think that special forces officer was arrested for insider trading but not Trump's friends? Now tell us again, how there's no legal double standards, and your legal mumbo jumbo prevents insider trading.

akudha 5mo ago

It is easy to be ethically and morally responsible, after one becomes rich, after one is retired. Until then, it is enough to follow the law just enough to not get fined. Actually, even that is a tall ask these days - fines are just cost of doing business. It sucks that it is this way, but society seems to have largely accepted it

mystraline 5mo ago
Fine are the cost of doing business... FOR COMPANIES. For individuals: arrest, jail, prison, and horrifically crippling fines are normal. An individual kills 1 person, and its 15y to life. But if youre an 'insurance company' and make policies in abeyance of insurance and arbitrarily deny 30% of claims getting many killed (Luigi says hi), thats perfectly fine. Youre a business leader making lots of money. You steal $100 from the till at $shitretailjob and company calls cops and has you arrested. BUT if they fraudulently change timesheets and steal $100 from you, wellllll thats a civil matter. Or, a company made 1B dollars but spent $990M, they only owe taxes on 10M$. But if I make $100k and spent $90k, I still pay taxes on 100k, not 10K. This country should be called the Corporate States of America. That fiction has more rights than I or any other non-billionaire average human will ever have.
- f1shy 5mo ago
  > This country should be called the Corporate States of America. Who knows a country in which is different, let me know, please, honestly.
  - mystraline 5mo ago
    I can call these hypocrisies to light. I do so on the off chance that we gain enough support to start reversing end-stage capitalism. Im not going to list factoids of what rank we are or arent. Its honestly irrelevant. Im stuck here, since I have no familial claim of citizenship elsewhere. So, yeah. I speak out here and in person, about these abuses. Eventually, we'll do better. Takes time. Probably longer than I have alive.
  - 5mo ago

alphabeta3r56 5mo ago

> “That’s not a logo,” fumed Shaw, CEO of the world’s largest carpet company, one attendee later recalled. “That’s a target.” Do people really speak like that?

boondongle 5mo ago

It's actually not convenient at all. Consider this: animal study to human study fail all the time. In another world, there could have been NO impact at all to human beings and PFAS could be just another random chemical the body doesn't clear but doesn't actually do anything and sits there inert. I know everyone's pissed about this but the thyroid/other connections stuff happens 10 years later as a result and these are idiot business people playing in waters they don't understand (and neither did medicine at that time). You could say, "you can't take the risk." For me these questions are maybe we need to take a deeper/closer look at what are permissible risks and at what point. But you could use the same logic to not make any advancement ever. No antibiotics because it will cause resistence. No chemo because it will cause damage and death. People want there to be a Dr. Eggman or Hitler in this story because it's turned out to be so impactful. Like Aesbestos which solved for fire, just poorly - carpet was solving for comfort, sound deadening, and emotional well being. We just can't necessarily quantify that as easily. It's fantastic that science continually grows in understanding and can attribute once thought "inert" chemicals to problems. "How evil children playing with matches" are though, is asking the wrong question. These people were stupid enough to say - "there's cancer in rats, lets just keep going".

Chris2048 5mo ago
> there could have been NO impact at all True, but if you contaminate water, and people, with chemicals not supposed to be there; I feel the burden should be on you to prove the chemicals are not harmful. > you could use the same logic to not make any advancement ever No you couldn't - the measures taken to prevent contamination were inadequate, they could've innovated while also following the rules. And if not, no business is owed a viable business model, certainly a random strangers heath isn't worth the price of profiting from easy-to-clean carpets. > We just can't necessarily quantify that as easily. Quantify what? > can attribute once thought "inert" chemicals to problems we (or America) have a whole system of classifying chemicals as safe for human consumption or not. Whatever was thought about PFAS, I don't believe they had been proven safe enough to dump into drinking water?
dennis_jeeves2 5mo ago
>But you could use the same logic to not make any advancement ever. No antibiotics because it will cause resistance. No chemo because it will cause damage and death. I understand the argument you are making, and I'm no fan of govt/regulations, but you will notice that often basic testing of toxicity/side effects is missing or the system is gamed. One example I recently came across: antidepressant drugs are tested on people for around 12 weeks and then labeled safe if there are no side effects or reversible side effects. To summarize: profits overrides and safety concerns.

gchamonlive 5mo ago

Better to not be a hypocrite and continue abusing your hard exploited capital? It's the banality of evil over and over again. Can't really blame the individual, with some extreme exceptions, otherwise by calling people out as you are doing you are participating in perpetuating the problem without contributing with anything new.

casey2 5mo ago

[flagged]

tomhow 5mo ago
Intergenerational rage like this is not OK on HN, and dehumanizing language towards anyone is clearly against the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tomhow 5mo ago

Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html