this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
191 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13822 readers
770 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Since it's worded a little weirdly in tbe title, and equally-weirdly in the article, I believe what they're saying is....
"UHC didn't lower their profit goals after Thompson's murder, even though achieving those goals requires aggressive anti-consumer tactics, and they should have known that they wouldn't be able to implement those, after the murder highlighted how anti-consumer the company is."
So, in case it wasn't clear, no, the plaintiff position doesn't really give a shit about the anti-consumerism itself.