4 ms·

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 th

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 3y ago
[flagged]
- GalenErso 3y ago
  I disagree with the idea that we are run by psychopaths.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y 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 3y ago
    You must be one of those agreeable people.
    - GalenErso 3y ago
      Yes.
      - ldhough 3y ago
        Bit of an ironic stance for someone with the name Galen Erso to take ;)
hourago 3y ago
> whistleblowers are trouble makers often ... Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. Most "troublemakers", as you call them, that I have known are people deeply moral and worried about their peers and society. I have seen two types, thou. Some have such a strong moral compass that will fight for what is right even knowing that it will have consequences. And the naive ones that think that, as they are morally right, the structures of power will recognize their sins and correct the situation. None of them were anti-social. But that is just my personal experience.
nullc 3y ago
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
- jiggywiggy 3y ago
  At times it's justified to be unreasonable
  - lazide 3y ago
    It’s rarely the comfortable choice however.
southernplaces7 3y ago
>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. You're making way too simplistic a generalization here. Some sociable people can be sociable and friendly with a group until that group changes and they decide that it no longer fits their morality. They can still be contrarians, and then make waves anyhow. You absolutely don't have to be an introverted, hard nosed loner to end up being a whistleblower or contrarian troublemaker. This sounds a bit more like wishful fantasy for people who are socially inept trying to paint it as more noble. If anything, a sociable, open person is more likely to have the kind of self assured personality that makes them decide it's not a problem to disagree among their peer group whenever it becomes necessary. Read more history, it's full of troublemakers who were also sociable.
- andirk 3y ago
  A very social person is probably less likely to speak out against their peers because they have become friends with them and their power somewhat lies in those people liking them.
  - jiggywiggy 3y ago
    I also think it's part of their character to be agreeable, not just that they are friends.
    - andirk 3y ago
      Good mention. Recently I was saying a gal I know's friends are "all yes men" when they discuss personal issues w/ each other. I was suggested a better term is that they are "supportive". Same thing, but yeah, they just agree with the person. Critical thinking takes a back seat to making the other person feel validated.
watwut 3y ago
Are they really? And frankly, I have seen enough amoral contrarians, contrarians just for the sake of having fun to understand why they are dismissed. And actual real world lite "whistle-blower" I have Deen was not like that.
jvm_fan 3y ago
> Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. Where does this line of thinking come from? It isn't true because e.g. MLK, Malcolm X It sounds like you're trying to psychologize whistleblowing or activism Where did you learn this from? Did you grow up in an authoritarian regime or something?
- dang 3y ago
  Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit? You broke the rules pretty badly here, and also in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35766457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35766457. We're trying to avoid flamewars to the extent possible. You can make your substantive points without doing that.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation... you have to be a pain in the ass. I am confused - people who are good and social have no principles and value? They have no backbone to stand up for them? This is like the worst definition of social - like amoral sociopaths desperate to fit in.
- lazide 3y ago
  If Nazi Germany produced anything of value at all, one can hope it was clear evidence that a large portion of the population does indeed meet that definition. Certainly enough to run a state, prosecute a world war, and run a massive economy rivaling other world powers.
sammalloy 3y ago
> Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character That’s an interesting observation, and in my experience working in small businesses and large enterprise organizations, it’s entirely and totally wrong. Some of the worst people I’ve ever known in the workplace kiss up to the boss and to people in power while running the company into the ground. These are not good people. It’s actually a kind of evil in a way, as they present a likable "go along to get along" persona and facade while doing a terrible job. I would much rather be surrounded by humble yet candid truth tellers, who tell it like it is with empathy and compassion and care.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  I agree. I think GP meant "good" like you'd use it to describe a dog. obedient.
- diego_sandoval 3y ago
  I think parent comment meant good with the group as in "follows the social rules without questioning them and does what is expected of them", not as in morally good.

Consultant32452 3y ago

[flagged]

GalenErso 3y ago
I disagree with the idea that we are run by psychopaths.
- ChuckNorris89 3y 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 3y ago
  You must be one of those agreeable people.
  - GalenErso 3y ago
    Yes.
    - ldhough 3y ago
      Bit of an ironic stance for someone with the name Galen Erso to take ;)

hourago 3y ago

> whistleblowers are trouble makers often ... Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. Most "troublemakers", as you call them, that I have known are people deeply moral and worried about their peers and society. I have seen two types, thou. Some have such a strong moral compass that will fight for what is right even knowing that it will have consequences. And the naive ones that think that, as they are morally right, the structures of power will recognize their sins and correct the situation. None of them were anti-social. But that is just my personal experience.

nullc 3y ago

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

jiggywiggy 3y ago
At times it's justified to be unreasonable
- lazide 3y ago
  It’s rarely the comfortable choice however.

southernplaces7 3y ago

>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. You're making way too simplistic a generalization here. Some sociable people can be sociable and friendly with a group until that group changes and they decide that it no longer fits their morality. They can still be contrarians, and then make waves anyhow. You absolutely don't have to be an introverted, hard nosed loner to end up being a whistleblower or contrarian troublemaker. This sounds a bit more like wishful fantasy for people who are socially inept trying to paint it as more noble. If anything, a sociable, open person is more likely to have the kind of self assured personality that makes them decide it's not a problem to disagree among their peer group whenever it becomes necessary. Read more history, it's full of troublemakers who were also sociable.

andirk 3y ago
A very social person is probably less likely to speak out against their peers because they have become friends with them and their power somewhat lies in those people liking them.
- jiggywiggy 3y ago
  I also think it's part of their character to be agreeable, not just that they are friends.
  - andirk 3y ago
    Good mention. Recently I was saying a gal I know's friends are "all yes men" when they discuss personal issues w/ each other. I was suggested a better term is that they are "supportive". Same thing, but yeah, they just agree with the person. Critical thinking takes a back seat to making the other person feel validated.

watwut 3y ago

Are they really? And frankly, I have seen enough amoral contrarians, contrarians just for the sake of having fun to understand why they are dismissed. And actual real world lite "whistle-blower" I have Deen was not like that.

jvm_fan 3y ago

> Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. Where does this line of thinking come from? It isn't true because e.g. MLK, Malcolm X It sounds like you're trying to psychologize whistleblowing or activism Where did you learn this from? Did you grow up in an authoritarian regime or something?

dang 3y ago
Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit? You broke the rules pretty badly here, and also in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35766457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35766457. We're trying to avoid flamewars to the extent possible. You can make your substantive points without doing that.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation... you have to be a pain in the ass. I am confused - people who are good and social have no principles and value? They have no backbone to stand up for them? This is like the worst definition of social - like amoral sociopaths desperate to fit in.

lazide 3y ago
If Nazi Germany produced anything of value at all, one can hope it was clear evidence that a large portion of the population does indeed meet that definition. Certainly enough to run a state, prosecute a world war, and run a massive economy rivaling other world powers.

sammalloy 3y ago

> Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character That’s an interesting observation, and in my experience working in small businesses and large enterprise organizations, it’s entirely and totally wrong. Some of the worst people I’ve ever known in the workplace kiss up to the boss and to people in power while running the company into the ground. These are not good people. It’s actually a kind of evil in a way, as they present a likable "go along to get along" persona and facade while doing a terrible job. I would much rather be surrounded by humble yet candid truth tellers, who tell it like it is with empathy and compassion and care.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
I agree. I think GP meant "good" like you'd use it to describe a dog. obedient.
diego_sandoval 3y ago
I think parent comment meant good with the group as in "follows the social rules without questioning them and does what is expected of them", not as in morally good.