this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
843 points (98.0% liked)

memes

10642 readers
3035 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Slab_Bulkhead@lemmy.world 111 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A C T . O F . G O D .

[–] Tuxman@sh.itjust.works 92 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"so we were going to award the life insurance payout for a murder, but since the shooter took time to inscribe the bullets as a type of manifesto, it’s now considered a terrorist attack and is not covered under our terms."

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a legit argument. If the purpose of the killing is to intimidate other insurance companies, it's terrorism, and almost all insurance companies have an exception for terrorist attacks.

It's also why we shouldn't be as upset when mass-shooters aren't called out as terrorists by law enforcement and politicians. There's insurance implications.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, we should be upset about that, just upset at the ridiculousness of the insurance to not pay the victims because of the specific views of the criminal.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

But until the insurance problem is solved, it may be better for the victims of the families not to call it terrorism.

They're going through absolute hell. Last thing they need is an unexpected loss of a 6-figure insurance payment.

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 74 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, but they're on the same side, and it isn't ours...

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They're on the same side in that they are on the side of taking your money and giving you nothing. Ironically, that also means they're not on the same side of this situation where one is the insurer and one the insured.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

A broken clock is right twice a day

[–] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 74 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Americans never stop surprising me lol, regards for shooting someone not innocent this time!.

If you keep doing this maybe you guys will be able to violence your way to some good.

[–] ShouldIHaveFun@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I mean, wasn't that the original goal of the second amendment? To allow the population to protect themselves from political regimes that want to exploit them? Makes sense that people use their rights to do something good instead of just building a collection is weapons to show of.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

No, it wasn't. That's bullshit the Republicans made up to justify it still applying. It's about defending the nation from attackers. At the time of writing, militias were the common way militaries were formed for most nations. Only the most prosperous had standing professional armies. The brand new US was not expecting this, so militias were seen as the only way to defend itself. This is no longer true, so the second amendment, which bases itself on this premise, is not valid.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I still defend people having the right to own firearms, but I also support restrictions. People should have to be trained in it's safe operation, maintenance, and storage, for example. They should also have to prove they have a safe place to store it. There are a lot of ways we can still protect people and allow for firearm ownership and usage.

[–] el_abuelo@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I read that to say that the right to bear arms is only so when a well regulated militia is needed to defend a free state. Given that it's no longer the case, the right to bear arms does not exist- according to the 2nd amendment!

It's not void or irrelevant, it has infact predicted and enshrined into law that there is no right to bear arms anymore.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Exactly. That seems to be the only reasonable way to read it to me. I don't know why it's never been contested on this premise in court.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because historic context is relevant in court cases, really easy to show 200+ years of it not being interpreted that way

Its a very poorly written sentence, likely on purpose to force interpretation by judges

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SoulWager@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think you're forgetting the fact that the founding fathers were revolutionaries. They very obviously felt the need for the people to have the tools to depose a government if necessary. However, they did not foresee the US becoming a superpower, or the extent to which weapons technology has progressed.

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What I am surprised about is, how united the different political views are in that regard (for now).

Let's see how big money carves out some loyalist political pawns from the MAGA crowd by mental gymnastics (something something bootstraps). Listen closely to the Fox-News Spin on this story.

[–] Good_morning@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 week ago

It's crazy how much the parties try to divide us and make it seem like we're so very different using wedge issues like abortion while both parties completely ignore issues we pretty much unanimously agree on (healthcare is broken, housing is unaffordable, wages aren't keeping pace with inflation, police brutality, obvious corruption of our government, the need for term limits and updated voting system (RCV))

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (7 children)

It’s the liberals who are getting their panties in a twist over how it’s wrong to murder murderers.

My own fucking liberal MSM obsessed mother is defending this guy despite the fact that they killed my father. It’s complete and total brainwashing at this point.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Read up on the French Revolution. Is widely praised for catapulting liberal ideas and democracy, but it went with class warfare and partisanism leading to the decapitation and murder of many om both sides, military dictatorship et cetera

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Maybe someone finally manages to get Trump

[–] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is the vice president of USA the better one of the two?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

That's the bad timeline - T will burn this mother to the ground, a short while o fimmense pain followed by a chance to rebuilt. A smarter fascist replacement will irreversably destroy the foundations of this country and there won't be a rebuilding after that, just a smouldering ruin.

[–] Kaeru@slrpnk.net 68 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do what deny, delay, defend?

[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 21 points 1 week ago
[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why?

You, your boss, the executive board, hell the country and the planet even, is completely irrelevant to the ghouls who only see profit. Everyone is replaceable.

Externalities are not a cost feature of capitalism, and when the government fails to prevent the most egregious excesses of the ‘line must go up, forever exponentially’ money chasers, everyone pays the price for their greed.

Communities poisoned because freight trains “need to be umpteen cars long to be profitable” whilst demanding priority treatment on taxpayer funded infrastructure.

Over $60 billion in taxpayer handouts to corporations in the last ten years alone, often with no or weak strings attached, and a legislature that refuses to enforce the clauses and responsibilities that secured those subsidies. Collect payout, ‘restructure and reincorporate’ and poof - there isn’t a company by that name anymore, our contract is void but they keep the money.

Public sector employees driven to destitution by crippling low pay, while Congress voted themselves $174,000 per year rocketing themselves into the top 9% of all earners, whilst we pay for 72% of their healthcare insurance premiums.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

The people who claw their way to those positions, even if not seeing the lion's share, should check their alignment. This is a nice check.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Dude made 10 mill a year and still didn't fix his teeth.

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago

Dental insurance kept denying him.

[–] And009@reddthat.com 10 points 1 week ago

Obvious lack of dental coverage, peasant

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

Na, its the smile of a guy thinking "don't shoot me for this, please".

[–] wurstgulasch3000@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Does life insurance pay out for unnatural causes?

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure they can tell he didn't intend for this to happen

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 63 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It looks like suicide to me. His actions resulted in his own death.

[–] wurstgulasch3000@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 26 points 1 week ago

Suicide by Greed is a fucking song name right there son.

[–] wurstgulasch3000@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

But maybe his spouse did? I don't know, maybe I watched too much monk

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I mean we are only now hearing about all these suppose threats he had gotten from her. My brother wonders how guy knew exactly where he was going to be. Wife most definitely could have been in on the hit.

[–] HeyJoe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He was about to give a speech at a conference that morning. Doesn't sound like it would be that hard to figure out where they would be.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Dude show up only minutes before he walked out. He didn't wait long and was saw talking on the phone before hand. Money says someone knew Ceo was walking out and when and alerted the killer. Could have been the wife making the call. CEO was also pretty calm and brave walking out when just the night before his wife had gotten a bomb threat the night before at 7pm.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah her comments are definitely odd. This is opening some speculation. If this was a murder for hire by his estranged wife, that’s pretty fucking clever to write those words on the shell casings. If it does turn out to be, I wonder how it will change the public perception of this.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Absolutely. Even for suicide given a year or two. Unlike healthcare, life insurance pays on the nose. They only have 1 chance to get it right before customers run away.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Life insurance is actually pretty good about paying out. Their racket is more about the aggressive way they sell you the wrong policy to begin with. They make their money at the time of purchase, rather than by denying pay outs.

In fact, most insurance, other than health insurance, is actually run fairly well. It's almost like an insurance model isn't the correct model to use for handling healthcare.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

Why can't more decision makers do the funniest thing ever? Ask yourself, what would Tim Onion do?

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

My mother's life insurance policies, many of which she's had for decades, are actually bleeding her dry with premium increases. I'm hoping seeing an accountant can convince her to drop at least some of them. She's so obsessed with "leaving me something" when she dies that she's going into debt to pay for it...

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to get anything from her and I've told her so repeatedly.

[–] el_abuelo@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago

She's already left you the best gift she could. You.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 week ago

That would be so deserved.

[–] Turbonics@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago

All the CEO's are starting a life insurer hunt.

load more comments
view more: next ›