Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 324 posts

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#311

Post by roenxi »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #309
roenxi wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You left out vaccinations (obviously effective) and mask mandates (somewhat effective but certainly falls under minor inconvenience) The authoritarian tactics used to impose both of those were ineffective, or at least can't be justified on the evidence. Otherwise all the people trying to justify their brush with their inner Nazi would be able to put up a good argument for what they advocated for. Both measures fail…

Calling that Nazi-like is just pathetic.

There was a crisis, they banded together, identified the enemy withing and started a campaign to strip them of their rights. They knew they can't get their way with persuasion so they go straight to coercion and might-makes-right logic. Call them what you want, they aren't principled people.

Very much a scum rising to the top scenario. We saw the illiberals making a power play during COVID, they're cut from the same cloth as all the other authoritarians. They were even using the old "you're killing us" logic and people making up a you-struck-first narrative is a reasonable precursor to some really terrible things.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#312

Post by fooker »

dns_snek wrote: post #190
fooker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money is literally the accountability here. You could have other forms of accountability sure: freedom, life, and so on. For several reasons, we have settled on money as the preferred form unless the responsible party has a good chance of harming others in future.

> For several reasons, we have settled on money as the preferred form unless the responsible party has a good chance of harming others in future. Sorry, but in which universe? The people who're responsible for harming millions almost always get away with a fine that can be brushed away as the cost of doing business, and they almost always reoffend precisely because they never have to face justice. Meanwhile the worki…

> Sorry, but in which universe?

In this one. I'm just describing what the situation is, not whether it is a good system. How else would you get events like this one?

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#313

Post by fooker »

yard2010 wrote: post #160
fooker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money is literally the accountability here. You could have other forms of accountability sure: freedom, life, and so on. For several reasons, we have settled on money as the preferred form unless the responsible party has a good chance of harming others in future.

This is stupid because the marginal value of money is nothing when you have enough. So it's simply a get out of jail ticket we give to part of the society. The worst part IMHO.

Yes, it is stupid.

Try to design an alternative though, go and actually give it a try. And you are immediately going to find several historical anecdotes where your idea had gone horribly wrong.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#314

Post by fooker »

ungreased0675 wrote: post #243
fooker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money is literally the accountability here. You could have other forms of accountability sure: freedom, life, and so on. For several reasons, we have settled on money as the preferred form unless the responsible party has a good chance of harming others in future.

Except the monetary accountability comes from the company, and the people responsible remain rich and successful. In order to put the brakes on unethical and immoral behavior, personal accountability must be a possibility. As in, you will go to jail if you intentionally hurt others via decisions made at work.

>As in, you will go to jail if you intentionally hurt others via decisions made at work.

I agree, and it's already the case if it can be determined and enforced.

Do you see the issues in trying to enforce it in a heavy handed manner though?

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#315

Post by Dylan16807 »

roenxi wrote: post #311
Dylan16807 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling that Nazi-like is just pathetic.

There was a crisis, they banded together, identified the enemy withing and started a campaign to strip them of their rights. They knew they can't get their way with persuasion so they go straight to coercion and might-makes-right logic. Call them what you want, they aren't principled people. Very much a scum rising to the top scenario. We saw the illiberals making a power play during COVID, they're cut from the same…

> identified the enemy within

> the old "you're killing us" logic

The analogy falls apart when the target is a behavior and not a way to go after any innate qualities that groups of people have.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#316

Post by newswasboring »

caminante wrote: post #282
newswasboring wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not charges for the mass murder they have supported. They are charges for not following procedure. There is a huge difference.

We're calling felony obstruction/coverup charges "not following procedure" and not related to the principal/McKinsey's actions? This is some mental gymnastics. It was pay a fine or go to jail, but at best, the parent's comment was still wrong.

Giving it a fancy name don't make it equivalent to the murder charges it should have been.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#317

Post by dartos »

ternnoburn wrote: post #306
dartos wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that fact is evident if you look at the news… ever… Hunter Biden pardoned, Trump’s convictions not resulting in punishment, high ranking executives getting bonuses for layoffs, etc…

Rajup had posted about a CEO getting unalived, as an example of the rich facing consequences. I had misread your post as agreeing with him, like this Luigi thing was a continuation of a phenomena. My bad. I see you were disagreeing with the poster sarcastically.

All good. I reread my comment and it does kind of read in the opposite way I intended.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#318

Post by teddyh »

DonHopkins wrote: post #304
theoreticalmal wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d really rather not jail people who didn’t do anything illegal

Is that why you think exonerating, platforming, and worshipping Kyle Rittenhouse is justified? Because you think murdering innocent people in the name of racism should be legal, as well as mass murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people by denying health care in the name of massive profits, earning $10 million per year plus $64 million in UnitedHealth Group stock as blood money? Please explain your previous s…

It’s baffling that HN has not banned you for these regular tirades and personal attacks.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#319

Post by roenxi »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #315
roenxi wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a crisis, they banded together, identified the enemy withing and started a campaign to strip them of their rights. They knew they can't get their way with persuasion so they go straight to coercion and might-makes-right logic. Call them what you want, they aren't principled people. Very much a scum rising to the top scenario. We saw the illiberals making a power play during COVID, they're cut from the same…

> identified the enemy within > the old "you're killing us" logic The analogy falls apart when the target is a behavior and not a way to go after any innate qualities that groups of people have.

If the plan is to defend authoritarianism, I might just observe that "well they're targeting the right groups this time" is not a line that is going to get much traction with me. The problem here is not a group of people you've decided to dehumanise to the point where their basic rights aren't a factor. The problem is authoritarian tactics being visibly and enthusiastically used by people who's role is to uphold the opposite values.

If you put people in charge who only believe in using one bad tool, they eventually use it on everyone because they don't understand how to do things in a morally reasonable way.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#320

Post by Dylan16807 »

roenxi wrote: post #319
Dylan16807 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> identified the enemy within > the old "you're killing us" logic The analogy falls apart when the target is a behavior and not a way to go after any innate qualities that groups of people have.

If the plan is to defend authoritarianism, I might just observe that "well they're targeting the right groups this time" is not a line that is going to get much traction with me. The problem here is not a group of people you've decided to dehumanise to the point where their basic rights aren't a factor. The problem is authoritarian tactics being visibly and enthusiastically used by people who's role is to uphold the…

I don't want to argue with you about whether it's authoritarian, I just want to say "Nazi" is overblown and ridiculous in this context.

> "the right groups"

It's not about which groups, it's about how the groups are defined that makes the analogy so broken. Attacking in certain ways based on any nationality is worth a Nazi comparison, while attacking based on mundane choices is not in the same category.

> If you put people in charge who only believe in using one bad tool, they eventually use it on everyone because they don't understand how to do things in a morally reasonable way.

Does this describe what happened? What is the "one bad tool"? I hope you don't mean "authoritarianism" because that's a circular argument.

Post reply on HN