zlacker

[parent] [thread] 11 comments
1. ordina+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-23 05:48:48
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.

replies(3): >>anal_r+y3 >>throww+JI >>lifest+Dw4
2. anal_r+y3[view] [source] 2025-12-23 06:38:58
>>ordina+(OP)
> 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.

replies(2): >>benter+oh >>hshdhd+RN
◧◩
3. benter+oh[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-23 09:38:43
>>anal_r+y3
> 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.

It is a bit analogous to many of us worrying about Google and others getting so much power. The arguments were quickly dismissed with: "But these folks are responsible, don't be paranoid". The problem with this kind of thinking is, once the power balance changes, you find yourself in a situation you'd never put yourself now. You cannot make Google unlearn what they know about you. You cannot unsend the photos you privately shared on Messenger and force Meta to untrain their facial recognition models. Now all these things you considered a convenience given to you for free can be used against you, and the extend and direction of the abuse is correlated with who is in power.

4. throww+JI[view] [source] 2025-12-23 14:27:23
>>ordina+(OP)
Expanded and unbleakified:

Corruption is not just the immoral acts of an elite few; it is a parasite that hollows out society from within.

When the mainstream realizes that sycophancy toward the autocrat is rewarded, some willingly sacrifice their principles for short-term benefits, burrowing into the system like worms in an apple.

Yet, parasites cannot survive without a compliant host. To kill the infestation, we must cut off the food source: our passiveness. This begins with everyday refusals—denying the petty bribe, rejecting the convenient lie, and defending the honest colleague. By maintaining high ethical standards in our own spheres of influence, we starve the corrupt hierarchy of the dead matter it needs to grow.

We must also make the terrain uninhabitable for them. These organisms thrive in the dark, protected by silence. Therefore, we must actively expose them: documenting abuses, funding media samaritans, and organizing locally to demand transparency. When integrity becomes the standard again, the host becomes hostile to the parasite, isolating the invaders rather than letting them multiply.

Without this resistance however, the society weakens until its greatest assets—its resources, minds, and institutions—are cannibalized by a regime of criminals. This is how nations collapse. We have seen this story in Africa, South America, and Russia. This plague is now upon us. But history is not destiny. We possess the power to stop it. We only need the will to use it.

replies(1): >>hshdhd+rN
◧◩
5. hshdhd+rN[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-23 15:07:48
>>throww+JI
Well said.

America isn’t used to corruption. It hasn’t seen societal level rot that corruption can bring since at least WW2.

It’s a deeply damaging phenomenon.

◧◩
6. hshdhd+RN[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-23 15:10:04
>>anal_r+y3
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?
replies(2): >>the_ga+BC1 >>anal_r+uT1
◧◩◪
7. the_ga+BC1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-23 20:16:52
>>hshdhd+RN
“Both sides!” guys should be taken about as seriously as Homer Simpson. Their political commentary is completely vibes based. No basis in reality.
◧◩◪
8. anal_r+uT1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-23 22:10:33
>>hshdhd+RN
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.

replies(1): >>the_ga+ZV1
◧◩◪◨
9. the_ga+ZV1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-23 22:28:56
>>anal_r+uT1
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?
replies(1): >>pseuda+FZ1
◧◩◪◨⬒
10. pseuda+FZ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-23 22:53:52
>>the_ga+ZV1
You meant at will employment? So called right to work laws are about relations of unions and non members.
replies(1): >>the_ga+n42
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
11. the_ga+n42[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-23 23:29:44
>>pseuda+FZ1
Ah yes. You're right. I've mixed these terms up in my brain.
12. lifest+Dw4[view] [source] 2025-12-24 22:57:08
>>ordina+(OP)
> As individuals realize that nakedly appeasing the autocrat wins favor, they voluntarily corrupt themselves and others in hopes of advantage.

> displaced by a hierarchy of criminals or warlords

The problem is that initially it all looks straightforward and easy. Revealing even, because finally solution is not that complicated anymore. Only afterwards things turn unpredictable and violent, but then it's already irreversible.

[go to top]