you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I feel like this thread is somehow interpreting the "bribery" payment as malicious on Paramount's part. If a corrupt cop is going to arrest you for made up charges unless you grease his palms, you're not being malicious or unethical, you're not somehow getting something out of the exchange that you otherwise wouldn't have, you're just being extorted by a corrupt cop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Except that the company wants another merger, not simply to exist. They wouldn't go to jail, they just wouldn't pad the pockets of certain execs and/or shareholders

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Paramount being capitalist is a red herring. That would have been the case regardless of trump being corrupt. Settling the extortion payment had to happen for them to stop being harassed. The fact that they want to stop being harassed....so that they can continue doing the same capitalist bullshit they would have done regardless is irrelevant. It's not the flip side of an extortion coin, it's a completely separate unethical practice to try to confuse and divide criticism. This is step one in fostering a "both sides" argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment