4 ms·

> Historically speaking I can't see this as even being in the top 100 evil things the FBI has done. Perhaps, but we can't change the past: we can only fight ag

> Historically speaking I can't see this as even being in the top 100 evil things the FBI has done. Perhaps, but we can't change the past: we can only fight against what is happening in the present to try to get a better future.

isr 1y ago
Ok then. This, while bad, is not even in the top 50 of evil deeds the FBI is CURRENTLY doing ...
- pegasus 1y ago
  List not fifty, but just ten of those, I'd like to know.
  - isr 1y ago
    If you're in public denial about the FBI not being the righteous force for "peace, justice & the american way (whatever the heck that is)", despite the copious publically available evidence & reporting (by independent journalists) to the contrary, then ... no, you really don't want to know. (all this, over what was mostly a tongue in cheek response anyway ...)
    - pegasus 1y ago
      I think neither "righteous" nor "evil" are appropriate words in this context. It's a real-world institution with the expected biases, missteps of authority, episodes of getting embroiled in political machination, etc. Demonizing it is just as naive as idealizing it. And there's probably much more of the former than the latter today, when a lot of unearned, easy cynicism is either unconsciously performative, or even worse, the outcome of a caricatural conspirative worldview.
- toofy 1y ago
  i’m not entirely sure what you’re implying here. i could absolutely be wrong since your post was kinda vague, so forgive me if i’m wrong, but are you implying we shouldn’t attempt mitigation of bad things because other bad things are happening elsewhere?
  - isr 1y ago
    If you read the chain of posts I directly responded to, then there's nothing vague about what I said. Here, I'll help you out: That chain was in response to: >> We can not allow the FBI to work for Evil here > Historically speaking I can't see this as even being in the top 100 evil things the FBI has done. Perhaps, but we can't change the past: we can only fight against what is happening in the present to try to get a better future. So in that context, there's nothing "vague" about my somewhat tongue-in-cheek response. Neither, you'll find, is there any attempt by me to say that one SHOULDNT stop the FBI from doing anything bad. The pushback, by other chap & me, is about quantifying this particular misdeed as "evil", showing a remarkable lack of acknowledgement about the many, many, many other things the FBI has done (from its inception as a personal blackmailing operation by Hoover against US politicians - ring any bells?) and is doing, which are far, far worse than this "bad thing".
pksebben 1y ago
Probably a bit of a 'baby with the bathwater' situation here. At almost no point has that institution been a net positive - at times snooping on 'political dissidents' (like MLK Jr.), and at others bungling cases so bad they become moments of national shame (Ruby Ridge). You're never going to get a system with a clandestine domestic service running ethically for long, esp. not with qualified immunity. It's simply too attractive to dumb psychopaths with delusions of grandeur and concurrently not of interest to people with a strong sense of community or morals.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > At almost no point has that institution been a net positive The FBI's anticorruption work is good and necessary.
  - cgio 1y ago
    I assume that’s why the original argument is that it’s not been a net positive. I.e. the assumption is that lots of work can be good and necessary, while even more that is evil and excessive can end up with a net negative.
  - Hikikomori 1y ago
    Like that's happening under this administration, see tom Homan.
    - dashundchen 1y ago
      Or the Trump coin crypto rugpull and money laundering scheme. Or the open insider trading. Or the $400 million jet "gifted" from Qatar. This year has been one grift after another.
  - tremon 1y ago
    Anticorruption work is good and necessary. If the FBI's work was any good, they would be investigating the funding of the destruction of the White House, or AIPAC and Qatari influence in DC, not Comey and Obama. Right now, they are working for Evil.

isr 1y ago

Ok then. This, while bad, is not even in the top 50 of evil deeds the FBI is CURRENTLY doing ...

pegasus 1y ago
List not fifty, but just ten of those, I'd like to know.
- isr 1y ago
  If you're in public denial about the FBI not being the righteous force for "peace, justice & the american way (whatever the heck that is)", despite the copious publically available evidence & reporting (by independent journalists) to the contrary, then ... no, you really don't want to know. (all this, over what was mostly a tongue in cheek response anyway ...)
  - pegasus 1y ago
    I think neither "righteous" nor "evil" are appropriate words in this context. It's a real-world institution with the expected biases, missteps of authority, episodes of getting embroiled in political machination, etc. Demonizing it is just as naive as idealizing it. And there's probably much more of the former than the latter today, when a lot of unearned, easy cynicism is either unconsciously performative, or even worse, the outcome of a caricatural conspirative worldview.
toofy 1y ago
i’m not entirely sure what you’re implying here. i could absolutely be wrong since your post was kinda vague, so forgive me if i’m wrong, but are you implying we shouldn’t attempt mitigation of bad things because other bad things are happening elsewhere?
- isr 1y ago
  If you read the chain of posts I directly responded to, then there's nothing vague about what I said. Here, I'll help you out: That chain was in response to: >> We can not allow the FBI to work for Evil here > Historically speaking I can't see this as even being in the top 100 evil things the FBI has done. Perhaps, but we can't change the past: we can only fight against what is happening in the present to try to get a better future. So in that context, there's nothing "vague" about my somewhat tongue-in-cheek response. Neither, you'll find, is there any attempt by me to say that one SHOULDNT stop the FBI from doing anything bad. The pushback, by other chap & me, is about quantifying this particular misdeed as "evil", showing a remarkable lack of acknowledgement about the many, many, many other things the FBI has done (from its inception as a personal blackmailing operation by Hoover against US politicians - ring any bells?) and is doing, which are far, far worse than this "bad thing".

pksebben 1y ago

Probably a bit of a 'baby with the bathwater' situation here. At almost no point has that institution been a net positive - at times snooping on 'political dissidents' (like MLK Jr.), and at others bungling cases so bad they become moments of national shame (Ruby Ridge). You're never going to get a system with a clandestine domestic service running ethically for long, esp. not with qualified immunity. It's simply too attractive to dumb psychopaths with delusions of grandeur and concurrently not of interest to people with a strong sense of community or morals.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> At almost no point has that institution been a net positive The FBI's anticorruption work is good and necessary.
- cgio 1y ago
  I assume that’s why the original argument is that it’s not been a net positive. I.e. the assumption is that lots of work can be good and necessary, while even more that is evil and excessive can end up with a net negative.
- Hikikomori 1y ago
  Like that's happening under this administration, see tom Homan.
  - dashundchen 1y ago
    Or the Trump coin crypto rugpull and money laundering scheme. Or the open insider trading. Or the $400 million jet "gifted" from Qatar. This year has been one grift after another.
- tremon 1y ago
  Anticorruption work is good and necessary. If the FBI's work was any good, they would be investigating the funding of the destruction of the White House, or AIPAC and Qatari influence in DC, not Comey and Obama. Right now, they are working for Evil.