• General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    16 days ago

    .world is in the EU. The same laws that apply to inciting hate or violence against “The Jews” or “The Blacks” also apply to “The CEOs”. And the same laws that apply to Facebook also apply to lemmy.

    • SparrowHawk@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      CEO is not an identity, nor minority. It’s a political and economical position

    • NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      I was born into a poor family if genetic CEOs. We’ve lost our ancestral claims to the shareholders. We used to conduct layoffs from the Urals to the Black Sea. Not anymore.

      We were a proud people, passing down strong CEO genes.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        I don’t think it has much to do with ethics in the usual sense. It’s all about tribal allegiance. Facebook and the like are the enemy. Anything that seems to bother the enemy is cheered. There is no thought that laws apply generally. It reminds me of that old internet meme about conservatism. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

        I think you could make a serious argument that the CEO killing was self-defense. But it’s not going to really change anything. Maybe the successor is less ruthless but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.

    • redrum@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      No. From the Case of Savva Terentyev v. Russia (police) of the European Court of Human Rights:

      76.  The Court further considers that the police, a law-enforcement public agency, can hardly be described as an unprotected minority or group that has a history of oppression or inequality, or that faces deep-rooted prejudices, hostility and discrimination, or that is vulnerable for some other reason, and thus may, in principle, need a heightened protection from attacks committed by insult, holding up to ridicule or slander

      ACAB, for pigs and CEOs.