zlacker

>>lawles+(OP)
Corruption is not merely something someone in power enacts in their choices; it is a rot that eats out the society from the inside.

As individuals realize that nakedly appeasing the autocrat wins favor, they voluntarily corrupt themselves and others in hopes of advantage.

More and more of the society enters the grip of this force and weakens until the truly valuable things—its resources, minds, institutions—are annihilated, stolen, and displaced by a hierarchy of criminals or warlords. This is how nations sink. It’s the story of many in Africa, South America, Russia—and now it is our own.

>>ordina+ks
> As individuals realize that nakedly appeasing the autocrat wins favor, they voluntarily corrupt themselves and others in hopes of advantage.

When I pointed out that this is the work culture in most American corporations, I was told that is a feature, not a bug, because US government and most big tech at the time preached values in line with average white middle-class Californian. Now that this is no longer the case, the mindset of appeasing the leader is suddenly a problem.

The whole situation was preventable, but everyone was too high on ZIRP to notice. We could've used the good times to establish good cultural values, but we didn't. Freedom of speech and other foundations of democracy were already rotting long ago but nobody cared. We could've used the good times to allow better dialogue between different political fractions, but we didn't. At some point democrats honestly believed they would simply never lose power again, making it seem pointless to talk to republicans. Now that the money dried out, people suddenly start asking questions and talking about "muh big values".

I have zero empathy.

>>anal_r+Sv
I’m curious which specific problematic values do you think were being adhered to and preached in the past, that was comparable to what’s happening in CECOT, and wasn’t opposed?

>>hshdhd+bg1
It's not that it's comparable, but it's rather direct evolution of. US social contract has a huge grey area where you can get royally screwed even though you've done nothing illegal. For example, in most places in the US employees can be fired for expressing political opinions, and most people have their entire lifehoods tied to their employers. As in, saying "I think there are two genders"* was literally a fireable offense in many companies, and you'd be left without income, without medical insurance. So naturally there were a lot of topics that people simply chose not to talk about, effectively voiding freedom of speech unless you're so rich you don't need a job.

This issue was not addressed when democrats were in power. They could've passed laws that protect freedom of speech, but they chose not to, because it allowed them to get rid of problematic republicans.

Now that the machine has turned against democrats and you're not allowed to talk about certain topics important to democrats like climate change or CECOT, it's somehow a big fucking problem.

* I purposefully chose a statement that is highly controversial. It would be really cool if we could have social dialogue about controversial things in order to reach a widespread social consensus, instead of having extremist opinions boil in people.

>>anal_r+Ol2
If I'm understanding your example correctly, these types of firings are possible thanks to Right-to-work laws. Which political party introduced and continues to advocate for Right-to-work? Which has generally opposed Right-to-work and has supported workers unions, which would protect workers from arbitrary firings?

>>the_ga+jo2
You meant at will employment? So called right to work laws are about relations of unions and non members.