This is why I hate Lemmy sometimes. “It’s wrong to wish people dead, except for ‘them’. ‘They’ are fare game.” It’s the same BS we’ve been doing for the whole history of our miserable species.
Something online users cannot understand is that one thing can be bad and and another thing can be thousands of times worse. It really shouldn’t be so hard.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but this is just the cherry on top of a steaming turd sundae of other issues I have with Lemmy that I won’t rehash again here. It’s not like my complaining will change anything anyway.
Compare these reactions to the Ubisoft subreddit, which granted are going to skew fanward. On /r/games the conversation seems to be mixed, with a few dancing on his grave, most expressing dismay at his death while still acknowledging the harm he did to the company and industry as a whole. Plenty of people are simply discussing the dangers of small aircraft.
if you can burry your head in the sand enough to be upset about people celebrating the death of rich fuck wads in 2026 just put said head back in the ground
That pretty much nails my feelings. Charlie Kirk is a huge piece of shit and I’m glad he died honestly. But I’d be a worse person if I made a personality out of mocking him for being dead. Can’t we just take the win? Fate decided a bad person was over. I wish that could be that.
Before 2016 (and to an even greater degree, 2025), I would never have wished death on another person. However, the last ten years have been very eye opening for me. There are people whose continued existence on this mortal plane is the direct cause of untold hatred, suffering, and death (all unnecessary).
Humanity, and quite literally the planet itself, would be much better off with them dead. And, in fact, their continued existence is a direct threat to all life on this planet.
Whether or not it’s healthy is a separate question. I can’t say I’m super happy about it. But it is what it is.
Yes, there are degrees and this Ubisoft guy isn’t on the same level as, say, Trump or Stephen Miller. But they are both cancers on humanity, maybe just different “stages.”
Charlie Kirk was okay with people dying from gun violence if it meant fewer restrictions on guns. He fought against minority groups’ rights. He was spreading dangerous rhetoric worldwide.
The Ubisoft guy helped found a popular video game company and was probably just a generic rich prick at worst.
The world is better off without Charlie Kirk. I doubt the world, let alone the video game industry, let alone even just Ubisoft, will get any better after today thanks to Guillemot’s death.
I mean, yeah, Kirk was unquestionably the bigger turd but I’m happy both are gone. They’re all part of the same overarching issue with this world.
Them just fixing their shit would be greatly preferable. But they wouldn’t be part of the problem for very long if they were capable of that kind of introspection.
Is it unhealthy to be gleeful for the death of someone who promotes and spreads violent and hateful rhetoric and got hoist by his own petard? This is different than being gleeful about the death of someone who is making a hobby worse in one specific company.
Stop hating Lemmy. For me, it’s my way of communicating that I’m a Misanthropic Anti-Natalist. I can do my part to sway the public opinion that humans should all go extinct. I can spread the idea of humans being the monsters, the true enemies of the planet and all it’s life. I can see it slowly taking hold of the world, people coming to terms with our monstrous nature. Someday in the far future, perhaps we all choose to self-terminate. We are not divine nor special, just meat.
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
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.
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…
The Guillemont brothers were/are not nice people, maybe that’s triggering those horrible comments like “Ah ok, anyways…”
This is why I hate Lemmy sometimes. “It’s wrong to wish people dead, except for ‘them’. ‘They’ are fare game.” It’s the same BS we’ve been doing for the whole history of our miserable species.
Meh, I don’t wish death on anyone, but that doesn’t mean I have to be sad that a shitty person died.
10 years ago (maybe even 5), I would have agreed with you.
I’m past that shit. There are people that I now 100% wish would do humanity a favor and kill themselves.
Nobody’s criticizing people for not being sad. There’s a word for this, “gloating”.
I still think that’s fine. Sometimes the world is better off when someone dies.
Like Hitler.
Yep. Someone like trump. Not someone who made games worse.
Part of the 0.01%, made absurd amounts of money making games worse, heading a company actively fighting against unionisation.
Something online users cannot understand is that one thing can be bad and and another thing can be thousands of times worse. It really shouldn’t be so hard.
Yes, causing harm to thousands of people is significantly worse than one person dying in a crash.
That’s not true.
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.
Ok, so which of those examples was this guy most like? Lol
The wealth hoarders immediately after that part you quoted.
“actively robbing the poor” and “actively killing masses of poor people” are two different levels of evil.
Keep reading the comment you dolt
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
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.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of these people are, in fact, banned on reddit because of this behavior.
Lemmy seems waaaay more negative in general though. It’s actually kinda jarring being here sometimes.
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.
Definitely not just talking about subjects like this.
Yes, but this is just the cherry on top of a steaming turd sundae of other issues I have with Lemmy that I won’t rehash again here. It’s not like my complaining will change anything anyway.
Compare these reactions to the Ubisoft subreddit, which granted are going to skew fanward. On /r/games the conversation seems to be mixed, with a few dancing on his grave, most expressing dismay at his death while still acknowledging the harm he did to the company and industry as a whole. Plenty of people are simply discussing the dangers of small aircraft.
Both of those places are on reddit and are heavily censored.
Why are you still posting?
Because I like the idea of Lemmy and the fediverse, so I hang on despite its issues.
if you can burry your head in the sand enough to be upset about people celebrating the death of rich fuck wads in 2026 just put said head back in the ground
nowhere is perfect, but some places are better than others.
That pretty much nails my feelings. Charlie Kirk is a huge piece of shit and I’m glad he died honestly. But I’d be a worse person if I made a personality out of mocking him for being dead. Can’t we just take the win? Fate decided a bad person was over. I wish that could be that.
Who here is making this into their personality? It’s the pearl clutchers here who are making this far bigger than it is.
People are still posting gleeful shit about his death. I don’t care what anyone says, that’s unhealthy.
Before 2016 (and to an even greater degree, 2025), I would never have wished death on another person. However, the last ten years have been very eye opening for me. There are people whose continued existence on this mortal plane is the direct cause of untold hatred, suffering, and death (all unnecessary).
Humanity, and quite literally the planet itself, would be much better off with them dead. And, in fact, their continued existence is a direct threat to all life on this planet.
Whether or not it’s healthy is a separate question. I can’t say I’m super happy about it. But it is what it is.
Yes, there are degrees and this Ubisoft guy isn’t on the same level as, say, Trump or Stephen Miller. But they are both cancers on humanity, maybe just different “stages.”
good things should be celebrated
things that improve the general state of humanity are generally considered good
Charlie Kirk was okay with people dying from gun violence if it meant fewer restrictions on guns. He fought against minority groups’ rights. He was spreading dangerous rhetoric worldwide.
The Ubisoft guy helped found a popular video game company and was probably just a generic rich prick at worst.
The world is better off without Charlie Kirk. I doubt the world, let alone the video game industry, let alone even just Ubisoft, will get any better after today thanks to Guillemot’s death.
There’s a huge difference here.
I mean, yeah, Kirk was unquestionably the bigger turd but I’m happy both are gone. They’re all part of the same overarching issue with this world.
Them just fixing their shit would be greatly preferable. But they wouldn’t be part of the problem for very long if they were capable of that kind of introspection.
The point is was making had nothing to do with Charlie Kirk other than he was an example of people being gleeful about a death. Which is unhealthy.
Is it unhealthy to be gleeful for the death of someone who promotes and spreads violent and hateful rhetoric and got hoist by his own petard? This is different than being gleeful about the death of someone who is making a hobby worse in one specific company.
You don’t need to ask this. You know what I’m saying. I’m not going to participate in you trying to excuse what you’re doing.
I don’t even know what you’re accusing me of doing, lol
Yeah I’m sure you’ve never heard that wishing death on someone makes you a worse person. Because there’s just definitely no truth to that at all.
Stop hating Lemmy. For me, it’s my way of communicating that I’m a Misanthropic Anti-Natalist. I can do my part to sway the public opinion that humans should all go extinct. I can spread the idea of humans being the monsters, the true enemies of the planet and all it’s life. I can see it slowly taking hold of the world, people coming to terms with our monstrous nature. Someday in the far future, perhaps we all choose to self-terminate. We are not divine nor special, just meat.
At this point I can’t tell who’s shitposting and who isn’t lol
What the fuck are you talking about?
Is this satire?
Way to skip over all the documented recent reasons people are posting.
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
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.