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.
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.
> 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.
- deport or jail you without due process
- ignore the law in service of its own ends
- punish its enemies, pardon its allies
- ignore the constitution
- install loyalists in centers of power, oust dissenters
- suppress media which challenges its hold on power
- commit crimes
- enrich its friends
- declare its "plenary authority" to do the above
Brother, you are looking for the deep state under every rock and it is out in the sunshine, smiling at you.
You’re talking about Trump who is publicly demanding certain people be prosecuted, so point 1 is wildly invalid.
Point 2 is highly debatable, and the mass cruelty of the current administration is considered by many to be worse than what it’s replacing. It’s certainly a stretch to call that corruption.
Point 3: again, with Trump you’re talking about a 79 year old man who can’t stay awake through a recorded meeting.
Point 4: there’s nothing, nothing in 21st or 20th century U.S. presidential politics compared to the vast sums of money being directed into Trump’s family pockets.
They would start to pardon criminals that conducted acts they like and fire the people that investigated those crimes.
They would try to bring everybody to jail that oppose or upset them or have opposed them.
They win when challengers become too rare because others are afraid of the consequences to oppose.
What the Trump administration did regarding the Capitol storming on January 6th tells you everything you need to know. They strive for power and nothing else.
I believe you're trying to say the real oppressors were liberals and ideas like people having civil rights that were enforced were somehow oppressing others. Look at what Republicans are doing in reality right now that they're in charge in the us, they're doing all the things that you're worried about.
> 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".
> 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.
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?
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.
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?
If you find yourself sympathetic to Flock, you should ask yourself: do we have a right to any kind of privacy in a public space or is public space by definition a denial of any sort of privacy? This is the inherent premise in this technology that's problematic.
In Japan, for instance, there are very strict laws about broadcasting people's faces in public because there is a cultural assumption that one deserves anonymity as a form of privacy, regardless of the public visibility of their person.
I think I'd prefer to live in a place where I have some sort of recourse over when and how I'm recorded. Something more than "avoid that public intersection if you don't like it."
That's blatantly false. Look at the map, Russia has good relations with majority of its neighbours. It is only NATO and its vassals Russia has got sour relations and for that NATO has nobody else to blame than themselves. Had Russia been integrated into European security/economic structures from day one, we wouldn't be in the current mess.
EU has been a neighbour of Russia since a very long time as Finland joined EU in 1995. Not being a neighbour hasn’t been an option in a very long time as there are now several countries bordering it. Beside EU is not a military alliance so why should it matter?
Russia has only ever expanded, but since you seem to be wrong just about everything no surprise there.
Well, Putin did border agreements with China and gave them territory no so long ago.
I am sure "Putin is a foreign agent working against the interests of Russia and Russians (killing them by literal millions)" is not the response he waited to counter his narrative of "Putin defending poor Russia".
:-)
Spreading this expansion narrative is intellectually dishonest. For decades, the power balance has been such that Eastern Europe has sought to join Western cooperation platforms like the EU, against lukewarm reception from existing members.
France was cautious about East Germany joining the EU, fearing economic strain. Germany had reservations about Poland. Poland generally supports Ukraine's membership, but remains concerned about security and migration. And so it goes.
Attempts to depict this as the EU somehow forcing itself eastward are 100% pure bullshit. New members have generally had to fight an uphill battle to gain entry into the union. They are usually poorer, work for lower wages, and undermine the economies of existing members of the common market until economic development levels catch up in a few decades.
I think this has somewhat strawmanned “servant leadership,” which is more about humility in posture than purely intercepting annoyances and blockers, but nevertheless the conclusions are solid.
AGI is the new Marxism—a utopian dream unmoored from reality, which does not account for the nature of people, economics, states, or even nature itself. A fantasy society that will never come to pass but, if attempted by fanatics, will probably do great damage.
I think this kind of low-effort, “religion bad haha” take is not really worthy of HN.
I’d rather read a meaningful comment about the value of an institution trying to sway people’s beliefs versus a machine, just as sharp a critique even, but at least with something thoughtful to contribute.
We aren't talking about religion as a whole but specifically the catholic church. Look up their track record in the topics I just mentioned. And flippant criticism of a religious authority is perfectly acceptable here just as it would be for a private company or the government or anyone else.
I'm pretty sure it's not. There's over half a dozen entries in the HN guidelines that ask for thoughtful and insightful posts and not "flippant criticism":
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
I think you’re thinking of TigerBeetle, not Clickhouse, which is a quite performant db with a fascinating simulation-tested story and proof of performance / safety.
Their speech was never in jeopardy, they just didn’t like its consequences. And now that they have the upper hand they will try to actively impose the same restrictions which they accused others of placing on them.
Victimhood distorts reality and leads to outsized reprisals.
> Their speech was never in jeopardy, they just didn’t like its consequences.
Can't you say the same about the Jimmy Kimmel situation? He's not in jail, he's free to speak, his employer just didn't want to back him up on it.
All of the arguments used to excuse cancel culture ("right to speech not to a platform", "it's a company censoring you, not the government", "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences") are now being leveraged by the right. Why did anyone think it would go any other way? Was the assumption that the left would own the cultural zeitgeist forever? This whole approach to politics was folly.
To play devil's advocate, ABC doesn't have a right to execute a corporate merger and this is what was threatened by the FCC. I don't know what the courts would think of this kind of argument and unfortunately we will probably not find out.
Regardless of that, it certainly seems like some kind of corruption.
I think you’re right on Kimmel while being wrong about TFA.
The president does not get to dictate broadcasting licenses on the basis of whether or not they criticize him but ABC is not required to platform Kimmel.
(I think it’s a bad move to deplatform people and bad for democracy but it’s been misconstrued into an issue of constitutional guarantees and it is not one.)
>All of the arguments used to excuse cancel culture ("right to speech not to a platform", "it's a company censoring you, not the government", "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences") are now being leveraged by the right.
Those arguments are correct though. Free speech doesn't guarantee a platform. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. The First Amendment does only apply to the government. None of this was controversial until the right decided shitposting their hot takes on black people and the Holocaust was a fundamental human right.
And they're being leveraged by the same right wing that wanted the government to seize control of social media platforms and force them to allow right-wing content and make moderation illegal. And Jimmy Kimmel's firing was due to pressure by the chair of the FCC, which isn't even the context in which those arguments were made and is an obvious violation of the First Amendment
> because they were being banned for their hot takes on black people and the Holocaust
This was the sales pitch, but it wasn't reality. People were being banned for much less severe speech than this kind of stuff and the window was slowly creeping towards less and less severe disagreements with the dominant narrative. I think bans for COVID stuff were particularly galling for many people[1].
There's a fair argument that the COVID situation was dire and required drastic action, but this can't be papered over in retrospect by saying that only holocaust deniers and racists were being banned.
OK, holocaust deniers, racists and anti-vaxxers. The point is, platforms always had a right to ban people, that was always the deal. And it still isn't the same as actual government oppression of free speech, which is clearly what's happening WRT this Charlie Kirk stuff. Even if you take the most cynical, negative interpretation of the COVID misinformation bans and "Twitter Files" to me this still seems categorically worse.
> Was the assumption that the left would own the cultural zeitgeist forever?
Yes, that was clearly the assumption. It's hard to blame them; that had been the case for 50+ years, and the early 2020s suggested that they had the system licked and would be fully in charge until their internal contradictions brought them down.
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.
reply