3 ms·

> Not all whistleblowing is idealogoical Is it true that not all whistleblowing is idealogoical? In order to be idaealogoical, it must be motivated by idaealeo

by samhw 5y ago

> Not all whistleblowing is idealogoical Is it true that not all whistleblowing is idealogoical? In order to be idaealogoical, it must be motivated by idaealeogoy. Whistleblowing is definitionally motivated by opposition to the leaked activities, making it ipso facto idaealogoiacal. Why do you think it's not idaealaogoiacal?

OneTimePetes 5y ago
The ideological opposite to corruption is the set of all correct behaviours. This is like a opposition to law and order being seen as a political stance, meanwhile its a society per-requisit.
- Armisael16 5y ago
  Many requirements for society are political stances; they just aren’t interesting ones because basically everyone agrees with them.
  - pc86 5y ago
    At the most basic level maybe, but at some point they're not worth talking about at the same level. Saying that someone thinks we should exterminate a race of people may be a "political stance" by the most strict definition of the word, but calling it that casually elevates it out of the heinous area in which it belongs to something similar to people arguing about infrastructure spending priorities. There are certain "political stances" which cannot coexist with a peaceful, modern society.
- samhw 5y ago
  I was mostly writing this comment just so I could continue the comical tendency for 'ideological' to get more and more misspelt every time it was used. That said, I don't think I agree with this idea that the dominant ideology is no ideology at all. It seems a bit like the tendency to think that one's own accent is no accent at all.
manquer 5y ago
Everything is ideological if you frame it in that context. By your logic, following the law is ideological. Not whistle blowing on illegal activities in some jurisdictions is in itself illegal and makes you accessory to the crimes being committed. I wouldn't think that kind of whistle-blowing as ideological. P.S. Yes, I made a spelling mistake while typing a comment on the phone, I regret that and happy to learn when pointed out. Do keep in mind not everyone's first language is English, making fun of that is not a good way to encourage people to learn the language better, if new speakers stop putting in the effort to improve because the feedback is negative you( and we) don't get to interact with speakers from distant lands , learn new and interesting ideas.
- samhw 5y ago
  > Everything is ideological Pizza isn't ideological. Birds aren't ideological. Things that are explicitly in the domain of ideology are, yes, ideological. There's no such thing as 'no accent' just because you have the dominant accent, and no such thing as 'no ideology' just because you follow the dominant ideology. Your rationale is a bit like people who consider climate change protests to be 'political', but themselves, and their desire to ignore them and go to work, to be ... well, just, normal. Or something like that. > Do keep in mind not everyone's first language is English This is fair enough. I wasn't intending to mock your English, I just thought it was a funny accidental property of your message. I've absolutely made the same mistakes myself in the past!
- jjk166 5y ago
  The belief that laws ought to be followed is an ideology. There are also plenty of people who refuse to obey laws for ideological reasons. There are non-ideological reasons to follow laws as well, such as avoiding punishment, but that would presumably fall under coercion.
  - manquer 5y ago
    If refusing to obey laws for ideological reasons they are doing some form of civil disobedience, that is still obeying the "law"[1]. Even when refusing to follow a specific law you still follow the Law, the point is that you willingly accept the consequence of your (in)action as per that law, i.e. that usually means go to jail. Thoreau's seminal essay or Gandhi or King's(and many others) writings talk about the topic in length . King actually frames civil disobedience as the expression of highest respect for the law. All behavior is motivated by either seeking gratification/pleasure or for avoiding pain, however such a reductive mental model is not useful work with in this context. Coercion in the context of leak (MICE) usually is understood as unwilling participant who is being blackmailed to leak. Money, Ideology and Ego are voluntary, Coercion is forced is the idea i believe. --- [1] I am talking about the conventionally held definition of Civil Disobedience, non-violent and public are generally accepted qualifiers . It is not really required under many definitions. Ellmann states that covert lawbreaking is just valid way of expressing your morality ( ideology ) as public disobedience. There are similar arguments for revolutionary and violent variations as well. It boils down does common(yours) morality allow deceit or violence under this situation. Morality being more subjective( you may agree violence is justified someone else will not) most popular commentators try to stick to non-violent and public conditions to make their case stronger and widely supported. Whether that public or non-violent is a component or not it doesn't matter. The point I am trying to make is: if is ideological then consequences will be readily accepted, otherwise it just common crime.

by samhw 5y ago

OneTimePetes 5y ago

The ideological opposite to corruption is the set of all correct behaviours. This is like a opposition to law and order being seen as a political stance, meanwhile its a society per-requisit.

Armisael16 5y ago
Many requirements for society are political stances; they just aren’t interesting ones because basically everyone agrees with them.
- pc86 5y ago
  At the most basic level maybe, but at some point they're not worth talking about at the same level. Saying that someone thinks we should exterminate a race of people may be a "political stance" by the most strict definition of the word, but calling it that casually elevates it out of the heinous area in which it belongs to something similar to people arguing about infrastructure spending priorities. There are certain "political stances" which cannot coexist with a peaceful, modern society.
samhw 5y ago
I was mostly writing this comment just so I could continue the comical tendency for 'ideological' to get more and more misspelt every time it was used. That said, I don't think I agree with this idea that the dominant ideology is no ideology at all. It seems a bit like the tendency to think that one's own accent is no accent at all.

manquer 5y ago

Everything is ideological if you frame it in that context. By your logic, following the law is ideological. Not whistle blowing on illegal activities in some jurisdictions is in itself illegal and makes you accessory to the crimes being committed. I wouldn't think that kind of whistle-blowing as ideological. P.S. Yes, I made a spelling mistake while typing a comment on the phone, I regret that and happy to learn when pointed out. Do keep in mind not everyone's first language is English, making fun of that is not a good way to encourage people to learn the language better, if new speakers stop putting in the effort to improve because the feedback is negative you( and we) don't get to interact with speakers from distant lands , learn new and interesting ideas.

samhw 5y ago
> Everything is ideological Pizza isn't ideological. Birds aren't ideological. Things that are explicitly in the domain of ideology are, yes, ideological. There's no such thing as 'no accent' just because you have the dominant accent, and no such thing as 'no ideology' just because you follow the dominant ideology. Your rationale is a bit like people who consider climate change protests to be 'political', but themselves, and their desire to ignore them and go to work, to be ... well, just, normal. Or something like that. > Do keep in mind not everyone's first language is English This is fair enough. I wasn't intending to mock your English, I just thought it was a funny accidental property of your message. I've absolutely made the same mistakes myself in the past!
jjk166 5y ago
The belief that laws ought to be followed is an ideology. There are also plenty of people who refuse to obey laws for ideological reasons. There are non-ideological reasons to follow laws as well, such as avoiding punishment, but that would presumably fall under coercion.
- manquer 5y ago
  If refusing to obey laws for ideological reasons they are doing some form of civil disobedience, that is still obeying the "law"[1]. Even when refusing to follow a specific law you still follow the Law, the point is that you willingly accept the consequence of your (in)action as per that law, i.e. that usually means go to jail. Thoreau's seminal essay or Gandhi or King's(and many others) writings talk about the topic in length . King actually frames civil disobedience as the expression of highest respect for the law. All behavior is motivated by either seeking gratification/pleasure or for avoiding pain, however such a reductive mental model is not useful work with in this context. Coercion in the context of leak (MICE) usually is understood as unwilling participant who is being blackmailed to leak. Money, Ideology and Ego are voluntary, Coercion is forced is the idea i believe. --- [1] I am talking about the conventionally held definition of Civil Disobedience, non-violent and public are generally accepted qualifiers . It is not really required under many definitions. Ellmann states that covert lawbreaking is just valid way of expressing your morality ( ideology ) as public disobedience. There are similar arguments for revolutionary and violent variations as well. It boils down does common(yours) morality allow deceit or violence under this situation. Morality being more subjective( you may agree violence is justified someone else will not) most popular commentators try to stick to non-violent and public conditions to make their case stronger and widely supported. Whether that public or non-violent is a component or not it doesn't matter. The point I am trying to make is: if is ideological then consequences will be readily accepted, otherwise it just common crime.