fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2287 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2287 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11. [tb]

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #327.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Or rather the reverse.

On the more strongly left blogs I follow I've seen people suggest that merely by joining the police/military/institution they have a real issue with you become complicit in its crimes.

Now I sort of see where they're coming from, because even the most well intentioned police officer might have to arrest someone for drug offences, or soldier have to follow deeply troublesome orders.

However this ignores the problem that these institutions will continue to exist whether or not you join, and by virtue of dismissing everyone on your side who joins, or encouraging them not to, you are going to leave these bodies staffed solely by the type of people you hate and breed toxic cultures.

Thoughts?

It's like voting, IMO. You're not going to change anything all by yourself, but you have to trust that you'll be part of a bigger aggregated force to change anything at all. But on the other hand, if people don't feel that they're part of a bigger force or that even a bigger force won't change anything, they're gonna get fed up and think "what's the point?"

Depends so much on the nature of the institution, the things that they do, the prospect for change, and especially on the exact nature of the objection to it that it's impossible to say in general.

You just made me imagine sjw cops.

Make this happen.

Well, it looks like the term SJW has lost all meaning now.

Yesterday I saw a poster on SF_Drama talking about those SJWs and I could not stop loling.

Which is to say, yes, yes it has.

I get the impression you and AYRT seem to think SJW was once something other than a derisive term used exclusive to mock the worthless people it describes. People like the author of the blog OP follows.

Well it was originally to mock a specific type of person.

It's like troll, nice guy, mansplaining or a million other words which had a set meaning until mission creep set in and suddenly disagreeing or posting an unpopular opinion has a dozen people screaming troll.

Too many variables to apply a blanket answer. More problematic to me is the inflexibility of the writer's view and your insistence that there are "sides."

because even the most well intentioned police officer might have to arrest someone for drug offences

I laughed. Seriously, I think you should consider rewording that. Perhaps you're talking about specific drugs? Because if a police officer in my city is a total fucking looney and has issues about arresting some assholes endangering other people by running a meth lab in their basement, I will deal with the meth lab myself and then move on to the cop.

people suggest that merely by joining the police/military/institution they have a real issue with you become complicit in its crimes.

That sort of generalization seems dangerously narrow-minded to me because it is rejecting reality. I'm not sure what you mean by 'institution' but I inferred you think all of these things are mostly corrupt, which is another generalization and one that I don't seen any validity to. Of course it varies by country/region/location/etc. but most military and police forces in the world are not corrupt. They have corrupt people in them, sometimes in major positions, but that doesn't mean the entire organization is corrupt.

you are going to leave these bodies staffed solely by the type of people you hate and breed toxic cultures.
Do you mean corrupt people? Or is this something else, like police officers who do not have a moral objection to arresting someone for drug offenses? If you're talking about corrupt people, I agree. Outside interference isn't usually as effective in overcoming corruption in military and police forces as internal interference. But if you're talking about the second kind of people, you've completely lost me on that one. Unless maybe you're talking about military and police in places where they are also the lawmakers? But I can't think of any place like that and that seems pretty unlikely.

I think if someone has a moral objection to carrying out lawful orders they may get while in the military, they should not join the military. If they do not agree with the laws the police are required to enforce, then they should not become a police officer. If someone were to join either the military or the police with the intent to not carry out their required, lawful duties because they have a moral objection to them, that person should be tried for sedition.

[ SECRET POST #2287 ]

Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within

Re: Changing the institution from within