Anonymous #1 3w

All employees had moved outside or were leaving when he allegedly lit the fire. The company services thousands of clients and have jobs available to place them. No one was injured. No intention to injure either. He did nothing wrong.

11

Anonymous #2 3w

Pay US enough to live. He did it for us just as much as for himself.

18

Anonymous OP 3w

“Nobody was injured” doesn’t mean lives weren’t in danger, there were reportedly 20 people inside when the building was set on fire. The company has said they are “working to place employees impacted by the fire at other company operations in the area” but they haven’t said if 100% of employees have been transplanted yet. Or even if they have plans for everyone No intention to injure doesn’t mean anything

-1

Anonymous #1 3w

No one was injured. They were all already outside our juat about to be before the building was even close to on fire. No violence. He did nothing wrong.

3

Anonymous OP 3w

It was luck that nobody was injured

-1

Anonymous #1 3w

Incorrect.

6

Anonymous OP 3w

The plant has an insurance policy so they likely wont be out much if anything at all. And the new warehouse will absolutely have more automation, therefore less jobs

-7

Anonymous OP 3w

Okay

0

Anonymous #1 3w

Automation is happening anyway. If you’re so concerned about it then push for a solution. No human was hurt. They have open jobs

15

Anonymous #1 3w

Also the warehouse already has robots. Get your head outta your ass.

14

Anonymous #1 3w

he allegedly planned it for everyone’s breaks, I thought this was common knowledge? also, the fact that multiple billionaires immediately started advocating for a universal basic income and universal healthcare after the current chain of fires, should be a heavy indicator for you. fuck those billionaires, and fuck their assets into oblivion if that’s what it takes for them to value our lives and our planet.

4

Anonymous OP 3w

Yeah it is, because now they have a completely clean slate to implement it. The solution would be to not give them a huge check and a clean slate

-1

Anonymous OP 3w

It had some robots? Ah nvm yeah might as well take away the rest of them then

2

Anonymous #1 3w

The solution is to end the current corporate model.

9

Anonymous #1 3w

also, the fact that you’re more upset over potential monetary lose and the idea of fighting back, rather than the incessant damage being caused to not only our own species, but to the planet’s capabilities to house a side diversity of life, shows exactly where your priorities are. fuck your profits, we want to live.

4

Anonymous #4 3w

It’s insane that you actually believe them too

-1

Anonymous OP 3w

Im sure this will do that, surely it wont go back to how it was right?

-1

Anonymous #1 3w

This wasn’t meant to be a solution. It was meant to be a message.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Do you disagree that the warehouse has insurance? Or that people are currently without a job? I fail to see where you disagree

0

Anonymous OP 3w

The guy is very likely going to prison, and the companies involved are getting a fat check. What’s the message?

-1

Anonymous #1 3w

The message is treat American workers like human beings

7

Anonymous #1 3w

The message is stop licking the boot 🥾

11

Anonymous #2 3w

He literally recorded himself doing it, which makes it easier for the company to get their payout. He only succeeded in speeding up their refund

-2

Anonymous landtrust 3w

until this becomes such a normal occurrence that insurance companies refuse to provide insurance unless the company applying for said insurance is paying what’s perceived to be a livable wage; assuming we don’t have even more impactful changes in the long term yall need to think much bigger than you currently are.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

go see my reply to landtrust, the insurance argument against this type of resistance is a moot point, as if this happens enough then insurance companies will begin refusing any coverage unless their employees are treated well enough to avoid any potential retaliation.

4

Anonymous #4 3w

The only argument to be had is potentially vigilantism, and the potential impact to life, which I’d argue only one of those apply in this case since the person in question did their due diligence to ensure that no one was in the building.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

also, do you not recognize how this puts fear into the eyes of the billionaires currently running the world economies? obviously they’re attempting to calm us by lying about advocating for UBI and such, but that’s indicative of a larger conversation to be had regarding what they could afford to pay in terms of social safety nets, and how they’re only advocating for such as an attempt to avoid harm to their own lives.

2

Anonymous #4 3w

they have no issue harming us, as long as they perceive themselves to be protected. Ahhh sorry I replied to the wrong thread :(

2

Anonymous #4 3w

If it becomes such a normal occurrence you will see the costs of everything go up. Careful what you wish for

-1

Anonymous landtrust 3w

the costs of everything are already going up, did you have any other rebuttals?

1

Anonymous landtrust 3w

It’s interesting how you consistently come to the defense of capitalists though, while claiming to be opposed to the oppression of capitalism…

1

Anonymous #4 3w

I’m against the oppression of capitalism I’m also for common sense

1

Anonymous #4 3w

If the costs are going up, imagine how much more they’d go up with burning down warehouses becoming normal. Remember what happened when the kulaks burned the grain?

1

Anonymous landtrust 3w

imagine how much they’d go down if there was a forced redistribution of wealth? see, we both can engage in hypotheticals. actions speak louder than words, and you can claim to be against capitalism as much as you want, but it’s quite meaningless when you oppose the working class every chance you get. You’re sitting here complaining about insurance policies, claiming to be anti-capitalist. utter insanity, then again right-wing “communism” always is.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Burning down warehouses isn’t the same of redistributing wealth. Also if you want to talk about capitalism, you should read Marx. He did not say socialism is when workers burn down the factories, he said it’s when they own the factories

0

Anonymous landtrust 3w

and Marx also discussed the necessity of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a means in order to transition capitalism to communism. Cherry-picking and weaponizing marx now, are you? Marx also called for the dissolution of oppressive hierarchies and states, but I’m sure you don’t advocate for that, right?

1

Anonymous #4 3w

How that “dictatorship” looks is in air still, but it’s discussing the need for the proletariat to forcibly take control over the means of production as capitalists will not, not will they ever, willingly give up their control and power. do not paraphrase Marx to an actual communist.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Yeah DOTP doesn’t mean burn down warehouses. In fact according to Marxist theory that actually stalls the transition to DOTP since it destroys the centralized and socialized labor that these massive warehouses created

0

Anonymous landtrust 3w

See how you continuously defend capitalists and their capital? Not once did Marx nor Engels claim that the destruction of capital is detrimental to the organization of the working class, otherwise go ahead and cite a quote. Don’t think I didn’t notice you fly past the topic of deconstruction oppressive hierarchies, considering your social views.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

I’m not defending capitalists, I’m supporting centralized production, which is is a requirement for socialism. Also my social views are pretty moderate so

-1

Anonymous landtrust 3w

we know they are, Mr “traditional family values” so you’re not actually communist, nor advocating for a socialist transition, you’re a nationalist who wants centralized production in the state or do you at least believe in the dissolution of borders as well, because we know you don’t believe in the dissolution of oppression hierarchies

2

Anonymous #4 3w

and yes, we are indeed beginning to circle back to how right-wing communism is bullshit, and how you’re essentially repackaging the same tactic employed by nazi germany.

2

Anonymous #4 3w

I’m not a right wing communist. I consider myself left wing. Also how I want to live my life doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to live that way too. But that doesn’t tie to socialism, since socialism is about workers ownership of the means of production

-1

Anonymous landtrust 3w

socialism is about a worker ownership over the means of production while transitioning society out of capitalism. with all due respect, the democrats also consider themselves left-wing.

2

Anonymous #4 3w

You’re right and what I’m saying is that since socialism is defined by worker ownership of the means of production, socialism, then a socialist isn’t defined by anything other than supporting socialism

0

Anonymous landtrust 3w

Th costs are already going up. Your argument is invalid.

2

Anonymous OP 3w

Costs are going up despite no shortage. Now imagine how much more they’d go up with shortages

0

Anonymous landtrust 3w

They go up bc they want to make more money. At some point it doesn’t matter how much it costs you won’t be able to afford it anyway.

3

Anonymous OP 3w

And they go up more if kulaks are burning all the grain

0