you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 2 months ago (67 children)

you don't get it mate I don't like the games ubisoft makes so making fun of someone who burned to death in a freak accident is totally justified

also his ancestors ran from the french revolution over 200 years ago. this is relevant because... uh.......

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 67 child comments
  • [+] 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (62 children)
  • [–] 56 points 2 months ago (23 children)

    Meh, I don't wish death on anyone, but that doesn't mean I have to be sad that a shitty person died.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago* (21 children)

    Nobody's criticizing people for not being sad. There's a word for this, "gloating".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago*

    this isn't complicated

    the social contract basically boils down to, you at a baseline do right by me and in return I do the same for you

    assholes like this and other rich fucks try to game this system for profit by literally harming parts of our lives via loopholes

    when ass fucks say lets hurt person ‘insert something that has no impact on anything’ like skin color or sexuality that is wrong

    when people talk about wishing death on people that are literally fucking with our lives it should obviously not be the same

    whether tanking a video game falls into that bucket is nuanced but people like the united health fuck are easily fair game

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    It’s wrong to wish people dead

    I had this attitude 20 years ago. I no longer do. I've come to realize that there are certain rich fucks who are actively harming humanity directly (Hitler, Kissinger, Reagan, world leaders who send the poor to useless wars), and if they died and their death prevented more suffering, that's a good thing for humanity. Even the rich fucks that just hoard money are actively robbing from the poor to do so, and some of those people die as a result.

    How many people does a person have to kill before they are too far gone to save, and are just evil? How many levels of indirection does it take before they wouldn't be considered evil? What happens if a person indirectly kills millions of people? Is that still far enough to call them evil?

    These are the questions you should ask yourself when you try to plot out your own moral compass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Wait, why do you hate lemmy for this? I think who you actually hate are humans. Reddit and all the other modern social media platforms have the same issues, because they too have humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Lemmy seems waaaay more negative in general though. It's actually kinda jarring being here sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Because most of us got banned on Reddit for speaking out.

    I guess I have to tolerate limpdicked equivocation and "let's all be sad some rich asshole carked it" on reddit but why here? Those spineless losers can fuck off back to reddit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (18 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Way to skip over all the documented recent reasons people are posting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    documented recent speculation that we don't know he was involved with? his brother yves was the ceo at the time of all this drama. Claude was just a stakeholder.

    it's clear that nobody knew who the fuck he was before this thread and suddenly everybody is trying to spin a story

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago

    Claude was a director and deputy CEO. He was on the board. He was directly involved in the technical and business management side for years. Calling him just a stakeholder undercuts his own opinion on what he did at Ubisoft as he expressed in a few interviews himself throughout the years.

    Just because you didn't know who he was doesn't mean the rest of us didn't. Yes Yves was the face and CEO, and thus the person directly named in the lawsuit because that's how it works, but Claude was often cited as the quiet force behind Yves anchoring him, serving as operations officer, advisor, and other titles over time.

  • source
  • parent