1493
Is Boeing in big trouble? World's largest aerospace firm faces 10 more whistleblowers after sudden death of two
(www.hindustantimes.com)
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
1493 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
59605 readers
3394 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
EDIT: I should've read the article, but I'm taking the L and leaving this up with a strikethrough. The phrasing "after" in the headline definitely creates the wrong impression here. As for what this says about people, I guess we'll have to see if the other ten whistleblowers still testify.
And if you think it's too much to assume Boeing killed these two people, that's the wrong question. It matters more whether as a fellow whistleblower it's reasonable to worry about whether Boeing killed them, and I think it is.
Also Boeing definitely killed the first guy at least. "If I die, it's not suicide." - man who "committed suicide". WTAF.
~~If you ever hear anyone talking about how humans suck and we're all terrible and will definitely destroy ourselves, just think about the fact that killing whistleblowers was quickly followed by more whistleblowers. Not just lone heros, but ten fucking people said, "hey, fuck you, are you really gonna kill me too?" knowing that the answer could well be "yes".~~
sadfsdfasfasf
There is plenty of evidence of foul play you smartass. They willingly risked lives over many years and are still currently flying many planes with defective unsafe parts. Going from that to assasination is not a big leap.
Multiple of the whistleblowers and their colleagues have also independently said that their workplace was directly and deliberately sabotaged in order to continue using defective parts.
Yes the last one doesnt really look like a typical assasination but it doesnt matter in the slightest if it was or not.
Well...the first dude did say something about Boeing killing whistleblowers and the bravery of others to step up in defiance of that.
So that whole line of thinking is conspiracy theory stuff with no real proof and it is being parroted here. Granted, usually the assassination stuff is usually tongue in cheek, but the top comment seems a bit crazy.
I agree that calling it "killing whistleblowers" is a bit too early, but for the point that the top comment was making, it doesnt actually matter. Because his point was about the bravery of the other whistleblowers coming out and for that it doesnt matter if they actually got killed or not.
The 10 other whistleblowers are brave because there is a good chance that at least one of the whistleblowers was killed. They are still brave even if it turns out that the dead ones died of natural causes or suicide.
If the "bravery" and admiration comes against the idea of assassination, then it completely matters. Idk why you're hand waving the nonsense here
If the whistleblowers truly believe that the previous ones were assassinated, then they are brave for speaking out. They might be stupid, foolish, whatever, but they would be even more stupid if they didnt consider the possiblity of it being true.
Intent is what matters here not what is actually the case. This is obvious when it comes to law. For example if a judge decides that you truly believed that your life was in danger in a situation and that you had to act in self defense, you can usually not be sentenced for murder, even if it turns out that your life wasnt in danger after all.
Really this is a grammatical framing problem, but i think its totally fair to call these people "brave" either way, because even if their lives arent in danger, then at least their livelihood is.
1: I wholeheartedly believe being a whistleblower is a courageous and brave act. Full stop.
2: drawing conclusions as to why these people decided to speak up when they did without hearing it from them is nonsense.
3: assuming and repeating a John Gresham novel from news articles between corporations and their whistleblowers is not only buying into a conspiracy theory, but is also parroting it.
4: partaking in these conspiratorial shenanigans helps no one and isn't something to be waved away as harmless - otherwise, what's the difference here and qanon?