• Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    A former quality auditor at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems who turned whistleblower has died after a sudden illness, his family announced on Tuesday.

    […]

    Dean’s sudden death at the age of 45 was announced by his aunt and sister on social media on Tuesday. His mother wrote on Facebook that he had contracted pneumonia in April and suffered a stroke following an MSRA infection.

    Let’s not turn into QAnon level conspiracy fuckwits here. He died of a natural illness as confirmed by his mother, and his family probably don’t want to have to deal with seeing everyone bringing him up in some deep state corpo assassination conspiracy bullshit.

    You can hate Boeing for their shitty capitalist practices with resorting to this.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      153
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Agreed. It really looks like they only killed the one whistle blower.

      • STOMPYI@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yea. That first one was so obvious there’s no way there’s a way to kill someone and fool their mother. Case closed I’m satisfied…

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s well within safe levels of whistleblowers turning up dead at the hands of a major defence contractor.

    • SupahRevs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think the real take away is that there are so many people willing to speak out against Boeing’s procedures that odds are some are going to die before the conclusion of this investigation.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Okay, but in the interest of not pretending that They Would Never™ can we all agree that if a THIRD whistleblower dies shortly before or during testimony that maybe something is happening here? You have the guy who committed suicide in the middle of depositions after telling his friend “If I commit suicide, no I absolutely did not” and now the healthy 45 year old who all of a sudden has multiple infections and a stroke. Is there a point at which you’d accept the idea that it’s a bit beyond coincidence that the deadliest place in the world seems to be the witness stand at a trial where Boeing is the defendant?

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Didn’t the first guy’s family talk about how he was depressed out of his mind and barely knew the woman who made those claims?

        You can blame Boeing for abusing and causing mental and ultimately physical deterioration of their QA staff. You can’t blame them for faking suicide or giving someone pneumonia.

        I still personally think that criminal charges need to be filed against their managers or coworkers, even if it’s not for murder.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m just trying to establish conditions by which we all might agree that this is worth looking into before they happen. It’s easy to try to play connect the dots with the stars, there are a bunch of them already and you can just ignore the ones that don’t make the picture you want. I’m trying to add predictions to this theory in the name of the scientific method - if another whistleblower dies before his testimony is complete, that will be beyond what I can dismiss as coincidence.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      You can give people infections on purpose. If he had died of a genetic heart defect it would be different.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      6 months ago

      I like how you imply qa anon leaps and obvious deductive powers are the same.

      • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Obvious deductive powers like not reading the article? Or do you think his mum was in on it too?

        This article headline is written to push people to a conclusion. If it had simply added the word “illness” most people would not be “deducting” shit. It’s media manipulation to generate clicks and you’re falling for it.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Deducing from headlines and circumstances while ignoring crucial information is exactly what QAnon does

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Thinking it’s possible a seedy thing happened =/= making up reams of bullshit based on a number in the background but sure everyone who disagrees with you is qanon

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I intended to make it more like a cautionary tale. QAnon can happen to the best of us, and seedy thoughts that still consider that it was an illness for a while are sort of an entry point to the thought pattern behind conspiracy theories. If one builds tolerance to this kind of leap, it’ll be easier to build tolerance for much bigger leaps.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              QAnon can happen to the best of us,

              I don’t agree. It happens to vulnerable people. And it’s not like a disease you can catch if you’re not vigilant. There are many steps to becoming bat shit, and wondering if a specific corporation would kill a person isn’t something I’m willing to avoid because next thing I know I’d be trying to hang the vice president.

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Everyone is vulnerable in one way or another. Of course, wondering is natural, but seriously accepting it, as some in this thread have done, is a QAnon kind of leap.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                wondering if a specific corporation would kill a person

                You have to realize how your first post came off. The poster you responded to clearly was talking about the people claiming Boeing did it. Of which there are plenty of this thread.

                You then jumped in and said this wasn’t conspiracy nonsense, but the result of “obvious deductive powers.”

                This did not come off as merely “wondering” or considering it a possibility, but as if you were saying it was an obvious fact.

                I’m not even sure how to interpret that comment in relation to what you’re saying now.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  What I remember seeing was people making implications and jokes. People don’t always mean things 100% literally. I doubt there are all that many people totally convinced it was Boeing, but some of you are acting like that is the case. I disagree, that is all

                  Ps deductive reasoning doesn’t mean “I know it for a fact”

                  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    If my kid goes into the kitchen, and I go in a little while later and see the cookies are gone, i’m going to believe they ate them. Am I 100% convinced of it? No. Maybe i just didn’t realize they had been eaten earlier, or maybe someone snuck in the back and ate them. But I’m relatively convinced they ate the.

                    I’m sure there are very few people, at most, that are convince 100% that Boeing did it. But it’s very presumptuous to assume that all of the people in this thread claiming Boeing did it are just joking. Seems more reasonable to take their statements at face value and understand that they do think Boeing did it, or at least someone related to boeing did it.

                    But I’m not sure what this has to do with what was suggested by your initial post.

                    Ps deductive reasoning doesn’t mean “I know it for a fact”

                    By definition deductive reason is using logic to come to a specific conclusion, so it absolutely does mean it’s a fact.