Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
And their planes made with scrap parts are still flying around.
Edit: A lot of new .world users showing up with ChatGPT responses about how this was a conspiracy, reminds me of an article i read this week.
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/657978/reddit-ai-experiment-banned
There was a police investigation.
They just didn't investigate Boeing about it because the police investigation determined they weren't involved.
If you truly believe there should be investigations, you have to accept when the results of the investigations don't match your expectations. That's why we have investigations.
The military industrial company a person was whistleblowing against wasn't investigated in the mysterious death of that person.
Yeah that's called not doing a proper investigation.
I need to step in here with a major correction, John Barnett was not Whistleblowing. That's not what the court case was about at all.
No, the court case was for the wrongful termination, which was a result of his whistleblowing.
This is an important distinction, because the whistleblowing was done. John Barnett had nothing more to offer authorities, because he had already turned over all the evidence he collected. That particular case was a done deal years ago.
John Barnett then sued Boeing over his wrongful termination, and some apparent black balling. (i.e. retaliatory rumormongering to prevent John from working in aerospace).
John lost the lawsuit. He then appealed that decision, and it wasn't going well.
This is the situation that led to his suicide. Boeing 100% drove a man to kill himself. But no, they didn't fucking hire some guy to go kill John Barnett, that would be fucking stupid.
The possibity will certainly frighten future whistle-blowers.
No.
What disincentivizes future whistleblowing is the prospect of never being able to work in your field ever again, because your boss, or rather his boss, talked to his counterpart at the other aerospace companies, so now no one will hire you.
You then drown in debt, and die penniless on the street, years or decades later. Depending on your luck.
Simply killing someone is messy. You might get caught. Ruining a man's life to the point where he kills himself? That's disturbingly easy.
Again, the lawsuit was not over John Barnett's whistleblowing. That case had concluded a few years earlier, with Boeing being found in violation of some safety standards. They got a fine and John Barnett got fired. Except Boeing didn't "Fire" him, they forced him to retire.
So John Barnett sues Boeing for wrongful termination, and loses. Boeing has some very expensive lawyers.
John appeals the loss, and that's what this court case was about. He was giving testimony about how Boeing retaliated against him. And he obviously thought that he was going to lose again.
That's is a standard disincentive across US industry.
Knowing that a company hounded their previous whistle-blowers to death (no matter the method) is and additional disincentive specific to Boeing.
Law enforcement would never lie.
If you won't accept the results of an investigation, then why call for one in the first place. You can do one or the other, but both is dumb. Don't move the goalposts, just admit that you think X happened and you are now rejecting any evidence you disagree with.
Well of course not, they exist to protect and serve!
Protect and serve...
... the interests of the pedophilic corporate elite, that is.protect and serve (not the people though)
Protect and Serve Capital and those who have it.
That doesn't logically follow. It's like insisting OJ wasn't guilty of murder, because the criminal case didn't stick. But he was guilty of "wrongful death" because the civil suit did stick. What kind of conclusion do we draw when the police fumble the bag and private investigators continue to turn up incriminating evidence?
And even then, you can both have an investigation (even one that turns up culprits) and still have a cover-up.
There's even a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout