7 ms·

The mistake wasn't in not blowing the whistle but it was taking a job with this kind of organization in the first place. Yeah the solution is to not put yourse

by Teever 6mo ago

The mistake wasn't in not blowing the whistle but it was taking a job with this kind of organization in the first place. Yeah the solution is to not put yourself into a position where you need to make these choices. The fuel for the fire that are organizations like the CIA are people who don't have moral qualms or who have flexible ones. The less people who work for these organizations the better.

anonymousiam 6mo ago
I never worked directly for them. I was a contractor. If all the people of conscience quit, they are left with a workforce without a conscience, which I guess is pretty much what they have now, at least in certain areas.
- Teever 6mo ago
  Yes that frees the people with a conscience to work on endeavours that challenge these corrupt institutions. That’s a good thing. It isn’t really a radical or counterintuitive thing to say ‘don’t do evil work for evil people.’ People who give mealy mouth excuses like ‘I was just following orders’ or ‘I was just a contractor’ are part of the problem.
  - try_the_bass 6mo ago
    > Yes that frees the people with a conscience to work on endeavours that challenge these corrupt institutions. That... Isn't really how that works in the real world, though. What happens when people with conscience leave legitimate institutions is that they lose legitimacy. Now you have a legitimate institution with power and no conscience, and a myriad of non-legitimate institutions with little power and some conscience. This is a strictly worse situation to be in.
    - Teever 6mo ago
      That sounds great in theory, but how did it work out in practice? It's been thirteen years since Snowden, and twenty years since Mark Klein, and there have been no real reforms in the system, people continue to work for them, and with them and it's only gotten worse. The course of action that you suggest is exactly what has lead America into a Mad King scenario with big tech oligarchs and theocratic running the show with China on the cusp of becoming the world hegemon. People keep chasing that carrot, keep working for the man and the end result is that they to chase that carrot a little bit harder, burning them out until the man replaces them with someone new just as eager to chase that carrot a little harder. And all along the way the noose around all of us tightens a little bit more the temperature outside gets a little bit hotter and America's grip on the world weakens. Where does this go?
      - try_the_bass 6mo ago
        I don't know, I think the Left's attitude of making civil institutions socially radioactive has contributed more to the decay than people burning out from within. You speak as if "the man" is by definition "on the wrong side" (i.e. lacking conscience), but there is no "man", just a body of civil servants trying to do what they think is right, for varying definitions of right. After all, isn't that what folks were out protesting during the DOGE days, when whole departments were eliminated? Your argument assumes its conclusion, and thus is circular. I agree with the issue of folks trying their best and burning out--but this is why it's important that the people replacing them be just as hungry to do the right thing, if not more so. However, it's been a tactic in politics recently to call entire departments corrupt, and insinuate that anyone who wants to work for them are likewise so. But I don't understand the logic of doing this. If, for example, you think "all cops are bastards"... Wouldn't you want more people who think like you to become cops, instead of fewer? Wouldn't you rather run into your best friend in a cop's uniform, than someone you don't know? Why, then, would you vilify the entire organization, and make it clear you could never stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who would dare want to be a police officer? Wouldn't that make it less likely that someone who thinks the same as you would consider joining? And yet the need for police persists; thus by vilifying them, your end up increasing the concentration of people who don't think like you. This seems, like my statement above, a strictly worse situation, and seems to be exactly what has played out in many jurisdictions! You can apply the same line of thinking to all parts of the government, with similar results. In fact, I'll go further: I think this dynamic better explains the rotting of our institutions than yours does. We should be encouraging people who think like us to work in the government, not discouraging them with pointless fatalism.
    - duskdozer 6mo ago
      They may not all simply be replaced, limiting what can be done without them. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/washingtonletter/november-25-wl/outside-the-gao-1125wl/ https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislativ...
    - DANmode 6mo ago
      > That... Isn't really how that works in the real world, though. It has in the past. What changed?
      - try_the_bass 5mo ago
        I don't think that's true. I don't think the world has ever worked the way the person I was replying to described it. Organizations are always reflections of the individuals of which they exist, in aggregate. I think that has always been true, and always will be true. It's sort of true by definition? I mean, unless you're talking about revolutions, I suppose, but that's usually the end result of the ruling class distilling their support structure too much?
  - fwipsy 6mo ago
    What about you, do you work for the EFF? If not, I'll give you an out - donate just $100. (I just did.) As a bonus you can even get the book this article is from.

by Teever 6mo ago

anonymousiam 6mo ago

I never worked directly for them. I was a contractor. If all the people of conscience quit, they are left with a workforce without a conscience, which I guess is pretty much what they have now, at least in certain areas.

Teever 6mo ago
Yes that frees the people with a conscience to work on endeavours that challenge these corrupt institutions. That’s a good thing. It isn’t really a radical or counterintuitive thing to say ‘don’t do evil work for evil people.’ People who give mealy mouth excuses like ‘I was just following orders’ or ‘I was just a contractor’ are part of the problem.
- try_the_bass 6mo ago
  > Yes that frees the people with a conscience to work on endeavours that challenge these corrupt institutions. That... Isn't really how that works in the real world, though. What happens when people with conscience leave legitimate institutions is that they lose legitimacy. Now you have a legitimate institution with power and no conscience, and a myriad of non-legitimate institutions with little power and some conscience. This is a strictly worse situation to be in.
  - Teever 6mo ago
    That sounds great in theory, but how did it work out in practice? It's been thirteen years since Snowden, and twenty years since Mark Klein, and there have been no real reforms in the system, people continue to work for them, and with them and it's only gotten worse. The course of action that you suggest is exactly what has lead America into a Mad King scenario with big tech oligarchs and theocratic running the show with China on the cusp of becoming the world hegemon. People keep chasing that carrot, keep working for the man and the end result is that they to chase that carrot a little bit harder, burning them out until the man replaces them with someone new just as eager to chase that carrot a little harder. And all along the way the noose around all of us tightens a little bit more the temperature outside gets a little bit hotter and America's grip on the world weakens. Where does this go?
    - try_the_bass 6mo ago
      I don't know, I think the Left's attitude of making civil institutions socially radioactive has contributed more to the decay than people burning out from within. You speak as if "the man" is by definition "on the wrong side" (i.e. lacking conscience), but there is no "man", just a body of civil servants trying to do what they think is right, for varying definitions of right. After all, isn't that what folks were out protesting during the DOGE days, when whole departments were eliminated? Your argument assumes its conclusion, and thus is circular. I agree with the issue of folks trying their best and burning out--but this is why it's important that the people replacing them be just as hungry to do the right thing, if not more so. However, it's been a tactic in politics recently to call entire departments corrupt, and insinuate that anyone who wants to work for them are likewise so. But I don't understand the logic of doing this. If, for example, you think "all cops are bastards"... Wouldn't you want more people who think like you to become cops, instead of fewer? Wouldn't you rather run into your best friend in a cop's uniform, than someone you don't know? Why, then, would you vilify the entire organization, and make it clear you could never stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who would dare want to be a police officer? Wouldn't that make it less likely that someone who thinks the same as you would consider joining? And yet the need for police persists; thus by vilifying them, your end up increasing the concentration of people who don't think like you. This seems, like my statement above, a strictly worse situation, and seems to be exactly what has played out in many jurisdictions! You can apply the same line of thinking to all parts of the government, with similar results. In fact, I'll go further: I think this dynamic better explains the rotting of our institutions than yours does. We should be encouraging people who think like us to work in the government, not discouraging them with pointless fatalism.
  - duskdozer 6mo ago
    They may not all simply be replaced, limiting what can be done without them. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/washingtonletter/november-25-wl/outside-the-gao-1125wl/ https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislativ...
  - DANmode 6mo ago
    > That... Isn't really how that works in the real world, though. It has in the past. What changed?
    - try_the_bass 5mo ago
      I don't think that's true. I don't think the world has ever worked the way the person I was replying to described it. Organizations are always reflections of the individuals of which they exist, in aggregate. I think that has always been true, and always will be true. It's sort of true by definition? I mean, unless you're talking about revolutions, I suppose, but that's usually the end result of the ruling class distilling their support structure too much?
- fwipsy 6mo ago
  What about you, do you work for the EFF? If not, I'll give you an out - donate just $100. (I just did.) As a bonus you can even get the book this article is from.