8 ms·

Whistleblowers act against power structures and that's the ultimate transgression as far as the power structure is concerned. Transgressions in favor of the st

by paulmd 4y ago

Whistleblowers act against power structures and that's the ultimate transgression as far as the power structure is concerned. Transgressions in favor of the state are one thing, you'll get a slap on the wrist at most, even personal benefit and promotion in some cases, but transgressions against the state are what will provoke a real response. See, for example, the incredible vigor pursued against the people who released the collateral murder videos, and not the people in the video who violated the geneva conventions by murdering surrendering combatants. One transgressed in favor of the state, and one against. That's all that matters. And of course the power structure has investigated itself and found no wrong-doing, something something "you can't surrender to a helicopter therefore we were fine to shoot them", or whatever. You can't get a hmmwv out to a site during a decade-long occupation to take them in, better shoot them I guess. It is the same thing in corporations too: you can be incompetent or your project can fail, and that's fine as long as you don't rock the boat. It's actually probably worse to rock the boat and try to save a failing project, not only do you take it on yourself if it fails (which it likely will anyway, because they won't listen/the project is too far gone) but even if it succeeds you've stuck your head up and shown yourself to not be a yes-man. We want team players here, not someone who's going to kick up a fuss and argue with the boss or jump them on the ladder. Doesn’t matter if what you said was true or not, you don’t transgress the power structures.

HeckFeck 4y ago
That's exactly the problem. You know they are speaking an essential truth when you look at the feathers ruffled by Snowden, Assange and those who follow in their path. They will get their due acclaim if we're lucky to have a more moral and free society in the future.
- killjoywashere 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - confoundcofound 4y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. The very concept of freedom is based on a moral philosophy.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      There is a materialist sense of it too
  - bastawhiz 4y ago
    The two are not mutually exclusive or opposites on a spectrum. You can have a society which is neither moral nor free. It is possible to have a society which is both more moral and more free than the one we have.
  - dmbche 4y ago
    Hey, I'm a little baffled by your mention of Mogadishu...what are you refering? - for reference, the battle of mogadishu is the Black hawk down incident, and Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia.
  - throwaway27391 4y ago
    I don't think handmaiden’s tale was a moral society. Hanging women on walls and raping them doesn't seem very moral. Oppression through purity propaganda more descriptive. A moral society wouldn't be oppressive and murderous.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      It depends on how you define "moral", I guess. The people in power in that story believed themselves to be following the highest moral code of them all. You and I would of course disagree with their morals, but I think that's just evidence that "moral code" is an invented thing, and is something people agree on, not an absolute truth.
- phailhaus 4y ago
  I am not a fan of the idea that "oh, the right people are mad, therefore it must have been a Good thing to do!" The same feathers would have been ruffled if Snowden had leaked our nuclear codes. The point is that he exposed wrongdoing, and the public agreed. There are plenty of people who are punished by the state that the majority does not believe are "speaking an essential truth". For example: domestic terrorists.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    > leaked our nuclear codes You mean 00000000 ? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...
    - George83728 4y ago
      This story is a bit convoluted, mostly true but incomplete as the Ars article tells it. From what I can gather, the way the system was originally meant to work is that each Minuteman squadron had five Launch Command Centers (LLCs), each with two men in them who would have to simultaneously turn their keys. In order for the missiles to fly normally, at least two of the five LLCs would have to command a launch. The computers in the LLCs contained launch codes which would be sent to the missiles, and these codes were never set to 00000000. Disconcertingly, there was a 'backup' system that was meant to enable if the LLC lost electrical power, a single-vote timer. The single-vote timer would allow a single LLC (two men) to launch the missiles after a delay of at least one hour (during which time the order could be countermanded by one of the four other LLCs.) Sounds okay, except according to John H. Rubel these timers could be set to zero. So if the main power went out and the LLCs were running on backup power, a single LLC could have commanded the launch, and if the single-vote timer were set to zero, there would be no countermanding it. To supplement the above systems, McNamara commanded the installation of another system (perhaps erroneously) called PAL, which would be required to arm the missiles but was itself insufficient to launch the missiles. According to Dr. Bruce Blair, it was this 'PAL' system for which the codes were set to 00000000, rendering it effectively moot.
- suzzer99 4y ago
  There's a difference between releasing everything, and only releasing stuff Russia wants you to release, like Assange was doing.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    The proof that this argument is not the true reason why he was targeted, is that he was targeted for rape. When there is such a great discrepancy between means and meaning, it’s when motives are dishonest, couldn’t be admitted in public, and wouldn’t pass a common man’s test.
    - codehitchhiker 4y ago
      And the fact that three different women brought credible allegations and he avoided extradition on them until time ran out to prosecute him. He's gross. He's also a journalist and a hacker, not a whistleblower.
  - andirk 4y ago
    You should watch collateral murder and a million other thing released that #1 show atrocities, and what you take is a red scare cry? Nothing to see here because Russia?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jongjong 4y ago
    That's not true. Wikileaks was releasing all sorts of documents. I think the stuff about western governments just got a lot more attention because it broke through carefully crafted narratives and beliefs that people had about those governments. If some info about Russian corruption was released on Wikileaks, most Russians would be like "I already know most of these government people are corrupt, what is the news?"
    - suzzer99 4y ago
- jongjong 4y ago
  Snowden actually got a lot of support. I remember that even some high profile corporate executives expressed support... Though a cynical take on that would be that it was just to cover their own asses because they wanted to make themselves (and their companies/platforms) look like victims of government surveillance as opposed to facilitators.
  - kyawzazaw 4y ago
    Do you have sources to those executives expressing support?
    - jongjong 4y ago
      The support was indirect but it helped to divert attention away from the 'criminal' aspect of Snowden's actions... Which is more than Assange ever got. For example, I remember Marissa Mayer saying something about it at a critical time after the story broke. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/davos-2014-edward-snowden-spying-revelations-seriously-damaged-our-industry-admits-yahoo-s-marissa-mayer-9078719.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/davos-2014-... I think that's why a lot of Americans perceive Snowden much more favorably than Assange even though Assange technically never broke any laws.
      - codehitchhiker 4y ago
        I don't really think this is true. I view him unfavorably because he avoided extradition on rape, sexual assault, molestation, and sexual coercion charges until time ran out. I sympathize with him for cracking the admin password to help Manning get documents anonymously, but it doesn't overshadow that he'll never have a day in court for the women who brought credible criminal allegations against him.
  - P_I_Staker 4y ago
    I think this is true of other whistleblowers too. The "good" ones that break no laws and do everything by the book... but in the end, no one wants to hire them.
jiggywiggy 4y ago
What makes it worse is, whistleblowers are trouble makers often. They are difficult people, at best like Snowden, they lay low. It makes it easier to dismiss them. Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation, like the NSA, you have to be a pain in the ass. I don't mean that in a bad way. Normal sociable people just don't do that. So when a whistleblower breaks out, and they get chastised there almost is never support from within the organization for them.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - GalenErso 4y ago
    I disagree with the idea that we are run by psychopaths.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      Don't know where you live, but check what it takes to end up nominated as a candidate in one of the top parties in your country. It's either the wealthy and well connected elites or the unscrupulous psychos that end up lying, cheating and backstabbing their way to the top. The sane, honest people either get filtered out or end up converted by the toxic corrupt system. It's similar in other government or private organizations where power is at stake.
    - nostrademons 4y ago
      You must be one of those agreeable people.
      - GalenErso 4y ago
        Yes.
        4y ago
Loquebantur 4y ago
The narrative weirdly lacks, why his leak was "against power structures". The spin of the story has it, it was all about "spying against illegal activity". While really all that spying is just part of the objective to actively influence states. Not only passively observing your neighbors under the shower. Particularly civil societies. Of "allies" at first, but conveniently, you have five eyes, looking at each other. You don't in all seriousness spy on foreign leaders to "uncover child trafficking" or manipulate YT to "counter terrorism". Foiled plots are few and far between. Mass media manipulation and economic exploitation persist and are commonplace. A democratic society not subject to tight control seemingly is a very scary thing. Even more so when it is your own.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >The spin of the story has it, it was all about "spying against illegal activity". Doing anything against the current government is illegal in every country and always has been. The US rebelling against British rule was also illegal at the time. >A democratic society not subject to tight control seemingly is a very scary thing. Even more so when it is your own. Again, the "who watches the watchmen" question. Most of our western democracies are lacking checks and bounds. We can only vote who represents us, but we can't vote for what they do when in power. If we disagree with them we have to wait ~4 more years before we can vote them out. In that time they can do an insane amount of irreversible damage and there's no consequences for them.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > If we disagree with them we have to wait ~4 more years before we can vote them out Presidential elections are one among many elections. And elections are one component of democracy. The NRA is a potent example of grassroots power enforcing its policy views effectively and continuously. If there is an issue you care about, find like-minded people and see how they organise. If they don’t, organise them.
agumonkey 4y ago
Supporting whistleblower is very expensive too. Since big structures have means beyond any small group.. every attempt is paid in full by the source. We tried once on a subreddit, but even after 2 rounds of donation, this poor guy's life was burned to the ground 90%. (joblesness, lawyer fees, potential lawsuits, social anger from people supporting big corps, wife leaving him, no roof at time.. brutal) If they are to be helped, it has to be done with fine strategies and not a full frontal fight.
phailhaus 4y ago
Yeah, and it's why I think it's fundamentally impossible to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers. Organizations act in favor of self-preservation, like any living thing. Whistleblowers by definition act against them, so an organization will always benefit by removing them. Failure to do so will prolong the damage and encourage further transgressions.
- macrolocal 4y ago
  Although, silencing whistleblowers is as weak a strategy as security through obscurity.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - phailhaus 4y ago
    I disagree, it is an extremely strong strategy. You shut them up, they cannot inflict any more damage. The public can speculate what other secrets exist, but they can't know as they would if the whistleblower was kept around. The short-term negative publicity is tiny compared to the fallout if more information was leaked. This is why organizations basically always move to silence: It works.
    - macintux 4y ago
      It also dissuades other potential whistleblowers.
    - macrolocal 4y ago
      “As weak as” means “as strong as.” But in your scenario, weakness includes failing to adequately limit political or moral liability internally.
  - lll-o-lll 4y ago
    Yes exactly. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Unfortunately, it can take a very long time for the organisation in question to be exposed and then reformed. Just look at the child-abuse within pretty much every organisation that had access to children. However, that doesn’t make the fight fruitless; organisations can be reformed and it’s worth it for society as a whole. We just need much much stronger whistleblower protections.
trinsic2 4y ago
This is why I don't operate in these power structures. From 1995 to 2005 I worked for corporations and seeing it was harmful to my well being, I decide to provide computer services directly to the public. Now I set my own rules, and I work very hard to set my own ethical spaces where people are forced to do the right thing if they want to operate in my world. I have found that people want to do the right things, but that they need people around them for encouragement. Treat everyone, even the most hardened criminals like they have it with in them to change and all the need is people to believe in them. For me, the dead world of the labor force takes on a symbolic meaning. Words are like super powers, the have resonance and meaning. Look at the etymology of words and the source meaning will always give you the correct answer to what you are energetically putting your life force into. corporation (n.) > mid-15c., corporacioun, "persons united in a body for some purpose," from such use in Anglo-Latin, from Late Latin corporationem (nominative corporatio) "assumption of a body" (used of the incarnation of Christ), > noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin corporare "embody, make or fashion into a body," from corpus (genitive corporis) "body, dead body, animal body," also "a whole composed of united parts, a structure, system,community, corporation, political body, a guild" (from PIE root *kwrep- "body, form, appearance"). Corporations are dead things. Start small and make choices that slowly shifts your energy to people and things that actual have living essence like small business and endeavors that benefit the common good. We can't do in every part of our life, but just a slight shift can be like a cascade effect over time.
- lookdangerous 4y ago
  Any large group of people organized together for enough time forms a body - the body of tradition and regulation. A large body of text is also known as a corpus. Both the large groups and the large texts are dead in the sense that they do not change of their own power. They are static and closed to new information. Both text and groups must be re-animated by the individual.
- generic92034 4y ago
  While you may be less subject to corporate power structures the way you are operating now, you are still subject to all kinds of other power structures. As the GP has submitted, try working against the power structure of the country you are living in and you most likely will suffer greatly. The same even happens on lower levels (state, municipality, family?). And even regarding corporate power structures you are only avoiding a certain kind of their possible influences. For example, if a corporation buys up all water supply in your living area you can feel that influence, even if you are not working for them.
loldk 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colonwqbang 4y ago
> It is the same thing in corporations too [...] We have to be really careful with this sort of relativisation. Killing people in a foreign country is not the same thing as selling bad products or dealing with information in an inappropriate way, at home.
jvm_fan 4y ago
> It's actually probably worse to rock the boat and try to save a failing project, not only do you take it on yourself if it fails (which it likely will anyway, because they won't listen/the project is too far gone) but even if it succeeds you've stuck your head up and shown yourself to not be a yes-man. This is really bad career advice. There are certain situations where it makes sense to rock the boat, situations where it doesn't matter, and situations where it'll fuck you over This rule that you've come up with seems really overgeneralized. If I disagree with someone or someone disagrees with me, we reach consensus. If someone disagrees with me instead of just nodding at everything, it makes it easier to form a mental picture of what that person actually knows. Someone who just agrees with everything has something to hide This type of attitude is self perpetuating and creates an unproductive and political work culture
- readme 4y ago
  I rocked the boat to save a failing project and then I had to bust my ass working 24 hour stints for several months to make sure it succeeded while I watched incompetent people go on vacations. His advice is legit.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > This is really bad career advice. Depends entirely on where you work. In any place with 4+ layers of management it sounds like a reasonably good idea. You want to be seen as doing your best for the project, but not sticking your head out more than is reasonable. The project will fail, but you’ll be remembered as the one that almost made it succeed, and you’ll have more political capital to make the changes you desire going forward. Conversely, if you keep hammering at something when it is clear everyone doesn’t believe you or doesn’t share the same values, you are just making everyone hate you. Even if the project does somehow succeed.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
[dead]
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Transgressions in favor of the state are one thing, you'll get a slap on the wrist at most, even personal benefit and promotion in some cases Simply wistleblowing to report legal breaches by your employer can sometimes ruin your career.

by paulmd 4y ago

HeckFeck 4y ago

That's exactly the problem. You know they are speaking an essential truth when you look at the feathers ruffled by Snowden, Assange and those who follow in their path. They will get their due acclaim if we're lucky to have a more moral and free society in the future.

killjoywashere 4y ago
[flagged]
- confoundcofound 4y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. The very concept of freedom is based on a moral philosophy.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    There is a materialist sense of it too
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  The two are not mutually exclusive or opposites on a spectrum. You can have a society which is neither moral nor free. It is possible to have a society which is both more moral and more free than the one we have.
- dmbche 4y ago
  Hey, I'm a little baffled by your mention of Mogadishu...what are you refering? - for reference, the battle of mogadishu is the Black hawk down incident, and Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia.
- throwaway27391 4y ago
  I don't think handmaiden’s tale was a moral society. Hanging women on walls and raping them doesn't seem very moral. Oppression through purity propaganda more descriptive. A moral society wouldn't be oppressive and murderous.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    It depends on how you define "moral", I guess. The people in power in that story believed themselves to be following the highest moral code of them all. You and I would of course disagree with their morals, but I think that's just evidence that "moral code" is an invented thing, and is something people agree on, not an absolute truth.
phailhaus 4y ago
I am not a fan of the idea that "oh, the right people are mad, therefore it must have been a Good thing to do!" The same feathers would have been ruffled if Snowden had leaked our nuclear codes. The point is that he exposed wrongdoing, and the public agreed. There are plenty of people who are punished by the state that the majority does not believe are "speaking an essential truth". For example: domestic terrorists.
- myshpa 4y ago
  > leaked our nuclear codes You mean 00000000 ? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...
  - George83728 4y ago
    This story is a bit convoluted, mostly true but incomplete as the Ars article tells it. From what I can gather, the way the system was originally meant to work is that each Minuteman squadron had five Launch Command Centers (LLCs), each with two men in them who would have to simultaneously turn their keys. In order for the missiles to fly normally, at least two of the five LLCs would have to command a launch. The computers in the LLCs contained launch codes which would be sent to the missiles, and these codes were never set to 00000000. Disconcertingly, there was a 'backup' system that was meant to enable if the LLC lost electrical power, a single-vote timer. The single-vote timer would allow a single LLC (two men) to launch the missiles after a delay of at least one hour (during which time the order could be countermanded by one of the four other LLCs.) Sounds okay, except according to John H. Rubel these timers could be set to zero. So if the main power went out and the LLCs were running on backup power, a single LLC could have commanded the launch, and if the single-vote timer were set to zero, there would be no countermanding it. To supplement the above systems, McNamara commanded the installation of another system (perhaps erroneously) called PAL, which would be required to arm the missiles but was itself insufficient to launch the missiles. According to Dr. Bruce Blair, it was this 'PAL' system for which the codes were set to 00000000, rendering it effectively moot.
suzzer99 4y ago
There's a difference between releasing everything, and only releasing stuff Russia wants you to release, like Assange was doing.
- eastbound 4y ago
  The proof that this argument is not the true reason why he was targeted, is that he was targeted for rape. When there is such a great discrepancy between means and meaning, it’s when motives are dishonest, couldn’t be admitted in public, and wouldn’t pass a common man’s test.
  - codehitchhiker 4y ago
    And the fact that three different women brought credible allegations and he avoided extradition on them until time ran out to prosecute him. He's gross. He's also a journalist and a hacker, not a whistleblower.
- andirk 4y ago
  You should watch collateral murder and a million other thing released that #1 show atrocities, and what you take is a red scare cry? Nothing to see here because Russia?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jongjong 4y ago
  That's not true. Wikileaks was releasing all sorts of documents. I think the stuff about western governments just got a lot more attention because it broke through carefully crafted narratives and beliefs that people had about those governments. If some info about Russian corruption was released on Wikileaks, most Russians would be like "I already know most of these government people are corrupt, what is the news?"
  - suzzer99 4y ago
jongjong 4y ago
Snowden actually got a lot of support. I remember that even some high profile corporate executives expressed support... Though a cynical take on that would be that it was just to cover their own asses because they wanted to make themselves (and their companies/platforms) look like victims of government surveillance as opposed to facilitators.
- kyawzazaw 4y ago
  Do you have sources to those executives expressing support?
  - jongjong 4y ago
    The support was indirect but it helped to divert attention away from the 'criminal' aspect of Snowden's actions... Which is more than Assange ever got. For example, I remember Marissa Mayer saying something about it at a critical time after the story broke. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/davos-2014-edward-snowden-spying-revelations-seriously-damaged-our-industry-admits-yahoo-s-marissa-mayer-9078719.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/davos-2014-... I think that's why a lot of Americans perceive Snowden much more favorably than Assange even though Assange technically never broke any laws.
    - codehitchhiker 4y ago
      I don't really think this is true. I view him unfavorably because he avoided extradition on rape, sexual assault, molestation, and sexual coercion charges until time ran out. I sympathize with him for cracking the admin password to help Manning get documents anonymously, but it doesn't overshadow that he'll never have a day in court for the women who brought credible criminal allegations against him.
- P_I_Staker 4y ago
  I think this is true of other whistleblowers too. The "good" ones that break no laws and do everything by the book... but in the end, no one wants to hire them.

jiggywiggy 4y ago

What makes it worse is, whistleblowers are trouble makers often. They are difficult people, at best like Snowden, they lay low. It makes it easier to dismiss them. Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation, like the NSA, you have to be a pain in the ass. I don't mean that in a bad way. Normal sociable people just don't do that. So when a whistleblower breaks out, and they get chastised there almost is never support from within the organization for them.

Consultant32452 4y ago
[flagged]
- GalenErso 4y ago
  I disagree with the idea that we are run by psychopaths.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Don't know where you live, but check what it takes to end up nominated as a candidate in one of the top parties in your country. It's either the wealthy and well connected elites or the unscrupulous psychos that end up lying, cheating and backstabbing their way to the top. The sane, honest people either get filtered out or end up converted by the toxic corrupt system. It's similar in other government or private organizations where power is at stake.
  - nostrademons 4y ago
    You must be one of those agreeable people.
    - GalenErso 4y ago
      Yes.
      - 4y ago

Loquebantur 4y ago

The narrative weirdly lacks, why his leak was "against power structures". The spin of the story has it, it was all about "spying against illegal activity". While really all that spying is just part of the objective to actively influence states. Not only passively observing your neighbors under the shower. Particularly civil societies. Of "allies" at first, but conveniently, you have five eyes, looking at each other. You don't in all seriousness spy on foreign leaders to "uncover child trafficking" or manipulate YT to "counter terrorism". Foiled plots are few and far between. Mass media manipulation and economic exploitation persist and are commonplace. A democratic society not subject to tight control seemingly is a very scary thing. Even more so when it is your own.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>The spin of the story has it, it was all about "spying against illegal activity". Doing anything against the current government is illegal in every country and always has been. The US rebelling against British rule was also illegal at the time. >A democratic society not subject to tight control seemingly is a very scary thing. Even more so when it is your own. Again, the "who watches the watchmen" question. Most of our western democracies are lacking checks and bounds. We can only vote who represents us, but we can't vote for what they do when in power. If we disagree with them we have to wait ~4 more years before we can vote them out. In that time they can do an insane amount of irreversible damage and there's no consequences for them.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > If we disagree with them we have to wait ~4 more years before we can vote them out Presidential elections are one among many elections. And elections are one component of democracy. The NRA is a potent example of grassroots power enforcing its policy views effectively and continuously. If there is an issue you care about, find like-minded people and see how they organise. If they don’t, organise them.

agumonkey 4y ago

Supporting whistleblower is very expensive too. Since big structures have means beyond any small group.. every attempt is paid in full by the source. We tried once on a subreddit, but even after 2 rounds of donation, this poor guy's life was burned to the ground 90%. (joblesness, lawyer fees, potential lawsuits, social anger from people supporting big corps, wife leaving him, no roof at time.. brutal) If they are to be helped, it has to be done with fine strategies and not a full frontal fight.

phailhaus 4y ago

Yeah, and it's why I think it's fundamentally impossible to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers. Organizations act in favor of self-preservation, like any living thing. Whistleblowers by definition act against them, so an organization will always benefit by removing them. Failure to do so will prolong the damage and encourage further transgressions.

macrolocal 4y ago
Although, silencing whistleblowers is as weak a strategy as security through obscurity.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- phailhaus 4y ago
  I disagree, it is an extremely strong strategy. You shut them up, they cannot inflict any more damage. The public can speculate what other secrets exist, but they can't know as they would if the whistleblower was kept around. The short-term negative publicity is tiny compared to the fallout if more information was leaked. This is why organizations basically always move to silence: It works.
  - macintux 4y ago
    It also dissuades other potential whistleblowers.
  - macrolocal 4y ago
    “As weak as” means “as strong as.” But in your scenario, weakness includes failing to adequately limit political or moral liability internally.
- lll-o-lll 4y ago
  Yes exactly. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Unfortunately, it can take a very long time for the organisation in question to be exposed and then reformed. Just look at the child-abuse within pretty much every organisation that had access to children. However, that doesn’t make the fight fruitless; organisations can be reformed and it’s worth it for society as a whole. We just need much much stronger whistleblower protections.

trinsic2 4y ago

This is why I don't operate in these power structures. From 1995 to 2005 I worked for corporations and seeing it was harmful to my well being, I decide to provide computer services directly to the public. Now I set my own rules, and I work very hard to set my own ethical spaces where people are forced to do the right thing if they want to operate in my world. I have found that people want to do the right things, but that they need people around them for encouragement. Treat everyone, even the most hardened criminals like they have it with in them to change and all the need is people to believe in them. For me, the dead world of the labor force takes on a symbolic meaning. Words are like super powers, the have resonance and meaning. Look at the etymology of words and the source meaning will always give you the correct answer to what you are energetically putting your life force into. corporation (n.) > mid-15c., corporacioun, "persons united in a body for some purpose," from such use in Anglo-Latin, from Late Latin corporationem (nominative corporatio) "assumption of a body" (used of the incarnation of Christ), > noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin corporare "embody, make or fashion into a body," from corpus (genitive corporis) "body, dead body, animal body," also "a whole composed of united parts, a structure, system,community, corporation, political body, a guild" (from PIE root *kwrep- "body, form, appearance"). Corporations are dead things. Start small and make choices that slowly shifts your energy to people and things that actual have living essence like small business and endeavors that benefit the common good. We can't do in every part of our life, but just a slight shift can be like a cascade effect over time.

lookdangerous 4y ago
Any large group of people organized together for enough time forms a body - the body of tradition and regulation. A large body of text is also known as a corpus. Both the large groups and the large texts are dead in the sense that they do not change of their own power. They are static and closed to new information. Both text and groups must be re-animated by the individual.
generic92034 4y ago
While you may be less subject to corporate power structures the way you are operating now, you are still subject to all kinds of other power structures. As the GP has submitted, try working against the power structure of the country you are living in and you most likely will suffer greatly. The same even happens on lower levels (state, municipality, family?). And even regarding corporate power structures you are only avoiding a certain kind of their possible influences. For example, if a corporation buys up all water supply in your living area you can feel that influence, even if you are not working for them.

loldk 4y ago

[dead]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

colonwqbang 4y ago

> It is the same thing in corporations too [...] We have to be really careful with this sort of relativisation. Killing people in a foreign country is not the same thing as selling bad products or dealing with information in an inappropriate way, at home.

jvm_fan 4y ago

> It's actually probably worse to rock the boat and try to save a failing project, not only do you take it on yourself if it fails (which it likely will anyway, because they won't listen/the project is too far gone) but even if it succeeds you've stuck your head up and shown yourself to not be a yes-man. This is really bad career advice. There are certain situations where it makes sense to rock the boat, situations where it doesn't matter, and situations where it'll fuck you over This rule that you've come up with seems really overgeneralized. If I disagree with someone or someone disagrees with me, we reach consensus. If someone disagrees with me instead of just nodding at everything, it makes it easier to form a mental picture of what that person actually knows. Someone who just agrees with everything has something to hide This type of attitude is self perpetuating and creates an unproductive and political work culture

readme 4y ago
I rocked the boat to save a failing project and then I had to bust my ass working 24 hour stints for several months to make sure it succeeded while I watched incompetent people go on vacations. His advice is legit.
Aeolun 4y ago
> This is really bad career advice. Depends entirely on where you work. In any place with 4+ layers of management it sounds like a reasonably good idea. You want to be seen as doing your best for the project, but not sticking your head out more than is reasonable. The project will fail, but you’ll be remembered as the one that almost made it succeed, and you’ll have more political capital to make the changes you desire going forward. Conversely, if you keep hammering at something when it is clear everyone doesn’t believe you or doesn’t share the same values, you are just making everyone hate you. Even if the project does somehow succeed.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

[dead]

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> Transgressions in favor of the state are one thing, you'll get a slap on the wrist at most, even personal benefit and promotion in some cases Simply wistleblowing to report legal breaches by your employer can sometimes ruin your career.