[CodeMage]

No, the argument was pretty clear: we're at this point because the majority has been tolerating -- and even defending -- similar behavior for a long time; therefore, we should stop tolerating this kind of behavior in general, not just for this special case under these special circumstances.

And the argument is correct. You cannot keep teaching people unlimited greed and profiteering is okay because "it's free market" and then expect them to behave ethically. You have to change what is acceptable and tolerated. The current situation is an excellent starting point, but we shouldn't stop here.

[nate_meurer]

Ok, but that's not what OP said. Allow me repeat the quote:

> It's not right to vilify these people while we give a free pass to everyone else doing equally unethical things.

Seems to say, we should stop criticizing these scumbag disaster profiteers, simply because there exist equally loathsome corporate profiteers.

Taken at face value, this is quintessential whataboutist bullshit. Now maybe I misinterpreted, which is why I asked, but your new goal posts have not answered my question.

[CodeMage]

It's not about moving goal posts, it's about interpretation. Allow me to repeat the same quote, with my own emphasis:

> It's not right to vilify these people while we give a free pass to everyone else doing equally unethical things.

If "A and not B" is not right, you can conclude that we should stop A, or that we should start B. You interpreted it as the former, I interpreted it as the latter. I guess we have different biases.

Regardless of whether the goal posts have moved or have always been in the same place, I'm not sure which of your questions remains unanswered. If it's "who is this 'we' you speak of", the answer is "look around you". If the majority were truly intolerant of the behavior OP describes, then we would have a lot more social unrest than we do.