Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by croes 127 days ago
Victim blaming?

Greedy for trying to stay in business.

If you didn’t fight hard enough it’s your fault?

You let the government of the hook to easily.

By your logic you‘re a perpetrator too because he don’t blame the real bad guy

4 comments

> Greedy for trying to stay in business.

If CBS were headed by someone with gumption and less willingness to kowtow to the government, they could resist this pressure and still be fine. Worst case scenario, a merger would get rejected and they would be targeted by some spurious lawsuits. Going out of business is not a realistic risk.

What is a risk, however, is non-optimal shareholder value. We live in a world where the stock price is more important than anything else, including doing the right thing.

For CVS the stock price isn't the driver. It's owned to 77% by the Ellison family, who certainly want to make a buck, but also want political influence and control.
> they could resist this pressure and still be fine

Precisely. See also: TACO

There are lots of things that where unthinkable before Trump.

But it seems this is just business between billionaire buddies

How is CBS a victim here? They have shown by their actions (Bari Weiss, the 60 Minutes neutering, etc) they are fully backing what Larry Ellison and Sons want them to pump out. This isn't victim blaming, it's pointing out a complicit conspirator.
If you give in and comply without a fight, are you actually a victim or are you actually a collaborator? CBS is controlled by Ellison, which makes this look a lot like collaboration.
> If you give in and comply without a fight, are you actually a victim or are you actually a collaborator?

That is victim blaming. Heard the same from judges about rape victims.

> CBS is controlled by Ellison, which makes this look a lot like collaboration.

That changes this completely. That isn’t being a coward, that’s just good old quid pro quo from billionaire buddies.

We're not talking about rape, and you're begging the question.
Your statement just reminded me of a judge who said something similiar to a rape victim.
First off, corporations are not people, so your argument is insane from the beginning.

Were the leaders of Vichy France victims? No, they were collaborators.

Corporations are plenty of people with jobs and families that depend on that jobs.

Where all the people of France that didn't choose to fight to their death collaborators?

Where all the people in the concentartion camps collaborators. Do you blame them or the real perpetrator?

I find it strange to put the blame on the middleman instead on the source of all that.

Corporations are made of people in the same way that Soylent Green is made of people. Your argument is incoherent.

There's a difference between not fighting and obeying in advance.

So if a corporation makes bad decisions and goes bankrupt the people in the corporation aren’t affected?

Without people there is no corporation.

And I‘m pretty sure the people in corporations are still alive so your Soylent Green example is nonsense.

> There's a difference between not fighting and obeying in advance.

Sometimes not. If you know in advance what will happen, not fighting can be the better option. At least for the moment.

Yes.

I'm blaming victims.

If you're suffering from government oppression and you go home and cry instead of stand up for your rights, I'm blaming you for your oppression.

You're only a victim if you die with your boots on, so to speak.

You can do that if you are responsible for yourself but there are lots of people with jobs behind that.

It’s not on you to decide they have to die with you.

But the fact that Trump buddy Ellison owns CBS takes that in a completely new direction.

I'm not engaging with someone arguing the point of appeasing, bootlicking cowards.
Can’t decide, is this a strawman or ad hominem.

Beside this case I guess you never where responsible for hundreds of peoples lives.

Or maybe talk to some mothers and fathers what they endure to protect their families what you would call appeasement.