Technology

59374 readers

3846 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

[email protected]

1495

Is Boeing in big trouble? World's largest aerospace firm faces 10 more whistleblowers after sudden death of two (www.hindustantimes.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

297 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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?