this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
1605 points (99.2% liked)

News

36993 readers
1486 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

John Barnett had worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement in 2017.

In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.

Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett's passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.

It said the 62-year-old had died from a "self-inflicted" wound on 9 March and police were investigating.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well, Boeing is demonstrably willing, even determined, to choose financial short term gain over any amount of human lives or reputation loss. It would be shocking if it was truly an accident that saved Boeing from a second day of testimony right when everything is starting to really fall apart for them, right?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Notice how you haven't offered up any evidence. Just motivation to kill him (even that's tenuous at best).

You know what Trump supporters often argue? That the "deep state" had motive to stop Trump from becoming POTUS, which is what makes their claims reasonable.

In this case, you're acting just like them.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with you. But evidence of Boeing being willing to trade lives for profit is super, super easy to find right now. If you aren't being disingenuous I am willing to do some of the labor you are asking for

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You are just justifying being suspicious. I'm suspicious too. You don't need to convince me of rhay.

But it's 100% possible for them to be willing to kill him but he still killed himself. Right now I've seen no evidence that they did it. It's all blind speculation.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I didn't say they did although I would personally place it at like a 60% likelihood. Obviously there's no evidence, this literally just happened.

Just wanted to be clear that I live in reality and no one has the security camera footage yet.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago

I didn’t say they did

t would be shocking if it was truly an accident that saved Boeing from a second day of testimony right when everything is starting to really fall apart for them, right?

Say it? No. But you certainly implied it.

I would personally place it at like a 60% likelihood.

Which is based on suspicion alone. That's my point.

[–] mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly what evidence are you expecting random people on the internet to dig up?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm expecting random people on the Internet not to dog up evidence, but to accept that their suspicions are just that, and without evidence you can't call it likely the truth or pretend you know what happened.

You know, basic critical thinking.

[–] mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, that's called letting other people think for you, but if that's what you consider critical thinking, then I know who you voted for.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Holy shit you just argued that basing your opinions on the facts, instead of your own prejudices, not only isn't critical thought, but letting people think for you.

Amazing.