This isn’t “I know Mitch didn’t do that”, it’s “he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn’t going to do it”. What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
There’s a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
Well, I for one think some rogue at Boeing is behind the Epsteining of this guy. The company is definitely run by psychopathic crooks and has been for a while and I hope these fuckers all go to jail and the company fixed before more people die.
Idk about these accounts you blocked… but I am always going to advocate for at least being self-aware of being loosey-goosey with one’s reasoning. Maybe it is compulsion, maybe it is the decades wasted being religious that have led me to detest careless epistemology that leads to specious conclusions. Then again … if COVID taught me nothing, it should have taught me that efforts in this area are probably pointless. I must like swimming upstream. I seem to do it all the time.
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let’s also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she’s the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It’s evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well…
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don’t think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
Amazing how standards of evidence work. I am a Jesus Mythicist and pretty much all we have to “prove” Jesus was real is one guy saying he meet some unnamed person who had a dream. But here we have a direct eyewitness stating what they heard a week ago and that isn’t good enough.
What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation?
That’s my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett’s mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father’s funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
There is literally no other corroboration that could be given, it’s a personal conversation between friends or friendly acquaintances, reported as such. There’s nothing wrong with the article. This is the maximum amount of corroboration for a private conversation (none) and it’s reported as a conversation, with information about the speaker’s relationship and direct quotes. Just because people don’t record their lives in unalterable write-once media doesn’t mean personal conversations simply should never be the subject of reporting. We have headline news stories about US generals’ personal conversations with Trump and his denials, and no one thinks “well, that shouldn’t be reported because either side could be lying and without recording they’re both equally suspicious”.
I’m certain you don’t actually follow a philosophy of “nothing anyone says can ever be given any more credence than anyone else” because it’s an impossible way to live. And whatever high-minded “no one can ever know absolute truth” ideas you have, claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous. On one side you someone whose job is literally to say things to protect a billion dollar company and the other a family friend with nothing to gain talking about a pretty reasonable conversation one might have.
I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there’s a big difference between:
‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death
and
‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Family friend reports Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death
I know I’m being pedantic, that it’s just clickbait, and that’s the reality of today’s media; but I’ve spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.
claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous.
You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, “I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who agrees with my point of view than I am a “close family friend” who disagrees with my point of view” or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, “he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself” I’d still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn’t consider her any more credible just because she’s agreeing with me.
This isn’t “I know Mitch didn’t do that”, it’s “he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn’t going to do it”. What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
There’s a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
Well, I for one think some rogue at Boeing is behind the Epsteining of this guy. The company is definitely run by psychopathic crooks and has been for a while and I hope these fuckers all go to jail and the company fixed before more people die.
Idk about these accounts you blocked… but I am always going to advocate for at least being self-aware of being loosey-goosey with one’s reasoning. Maybe it is compulsion, maybe it is the decades wasted being religious that have led me to detest careless epistemology that leads to specious conclusions. Then again … if COVID taught me nothing, it should have taught me that efforts in this area are probably pointless. I must like swimming upstream. I seem to do it all the time.
Remaining open minded, waiting for evidence… Must be ChatGPT because that’s not a human thing, never had been!
I am a Lemmy language user and I have processed this request.
You wrote “being willfully ignorant” wrong
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let’s also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she’s the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It’s evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well…
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don’t think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
Amazing how standards of evidence work. I am a Jesus Mythicist and pretty much all we have to “prove” Jesus was real is one guy saying he meet some unnamed person who had a dream. But here we have a direct eyewitness stating what they heard a week ago and that isn’t good enough.
That’s my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett’s mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father’s funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
There is literally no other corroboration that could be given, it’s a personal conversation between friends or friendly acquaintances, reported as such. There’s nothing wrong with the article. This is the maximum amount of corroboration for a private conversation (none) and it’s reported as a conversation, with information about the speaker’s relationship and direct quotes. Just because people don’t record their lives in unalterable write-once media doesn’t mean personal conversations simply should never be the subject of reporting. We have headline news stories about US generals’ personal conversations with Trump and his denials, and no one thinks “well, that shouldn’t be reported because either side could be lying and without recording they’re both equally suspicious”.
I’m certain you don’t actually follow a philosophy of “nothing anyone says can ever be given any more credence than anyone else” because it’s an impossible way to live. And whatever high-minded “no one can ever know absolute truth” ideas you have, claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous. On one side you someone whose job is literally to say things to protect a billion dollar company and the other a family friend with nothing to gain talking about a pretty reasonable conversation one might have.
I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there’s a big difference between:
and
I know I’m being pedantic, that it’s just clickbait, and that’s the reality of today’s media; but I’ve spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.
You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, “I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who agrees with my point of view than I am a “close family friend” who disagrees with my point of view” or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, “he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself” I’d still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn’t consider her any more credible just because she’s agreeing with me.