you really think someone would do that? just go on a once-respected publication and tell lies?

The irony being here that a 'working class hero' to Bret is someone who is no longer working class

he made his money fucking over the working class. that's not heroic

I mean, of course it isn't, but nobody told the NYT or their opinion writers who are currently tripping over each other trying to normalize Trump, Thompson, and other monsters..

This is one of the problems with treating class as an inherent identity, not a person's relation to the means of production. A person that begins as a direct wage laborer is working class, but if they ascend the ladder they become closer and closer to carrying out the functions of the owner class (i.e. becoming upper management) they lose proletarian character and gain bourgeois character. So the UHC CEO may have started out working class but obviously he became a bourgeois monster.

There's a similar pitfall, which is the uncritical moralization of the working class. The working class has a world historical role to play and is the class oppressed by the bourgeoisie, but it can easily have reactionary elements that should not be embraced, esoeciskky not as "working class values". The working class exists in the society shaped by the bourgeoisie, with marginalizations baked in by the bourgeoisie that can become self-perpetuating (e.g. racism), so we must not simply accept whstever the majority opinion of the working class is, let alone some random guy that ended up facilitating death and pain for profit.

They love these stories. They reinforce their delusions of libertarianism and that anyone who is truly able will be found and given their rightful position.

You know the rags to riches story is the best rock of owner class narrative...

If you work hard enough, you can join the club! I'd you are not in the club, you clearly didn't work hard enough, peasant.

Obviously other rich people, like the chucklef who penned it

The earth will be fine. It’s us who will be fucked.

The NYT only put the Holocaust on the front page 26 times when it was happening. Only 6 of those times were Jewish people identified as primary victims.

They have never cared about actual news, only manufacturing consent.

Its an editorial bro... Why are you shitting on genocide apologist of record?!

Like just printing it as is?

Whoever said the onion's job is getting harder because reality is catching up to them on being satirical is so, so correct.

Imagine you can extract 100k in premiums over lifetime of the slave?

Then at year 20 he get cancer... Now if you pay, it will cost 1m aka his premium plus 9 other slaves who won't get cancer...

So why would you deny and book all that sweet cheese.

Nothing will change until parasites are removed from profit seeking positions and health care system is reformed to do this.

If more dead CEOs are needed, well we got people doing school shootings so hopefully they update targeting algos.

Boardrooms, not classrooms.

This fight will take a generation. Owners are already turning narratige. Left and right politics clowns are starting to derail discussions.

It’s the inherent reason the ruling class wants people dumb, poor, and preoccupied. If you’re of reasonable intelligence, have free time, and the means to address concerns as they arise you are more likely to be able to educate yourself about injustices that are extremely infuriating to the point of reaching either nihilism or anger

Does the person working 2 jobs and raising 3 kids have time to read the news in depth? To read books on theory and philosophy? To read about the history of atrocities and research a conflict? No. But the upper class child of a lawyer who went to school for free and got to take a gap year when they felt stressed? They just might, if they can look past the consumerist glitter that’s constantly distracting them.

Kohlberg theorized that morality develops with life experience and there is a stage called post-conventional morality that not everyone reaches. This is where we start to move beyond maintaining social order by following externally designated rule systems (like laws) and start to define internal ethics that doesn’t inherently align with those laws. Laws themselves become social contracts rather than rules and must be changed when they no longer serve the greater good. At the highest level ones personal ethics supersede laws and it can even become necessary to break laws that are unjust intentionally

This is illustrated by responses to the Heinz dilemma, which is what the initial research was based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

Reaching post-conventional morality requires stronger abstract reasoning skills. That requires education and (to some degree) genetics. As a result only a small portion of the populace make it past stage 4 (which again, is follow the rules and obey authority to keep social order). If you give people more education and free time to develop their empathic morality outside of external moral systems (eg religion, laws) more people would get there, probably. I think it’s already happened, most of the research on how many people fall into which category is 20-40 years old at this point and a lot has changed significantly in that time. But again, a system that allows for this is a system in which people start complaining loudly and demanding change to injustices so we’ve also seen tremendous destruction to worker compensation, the education system, etc in that same timeframe so who knows