Is anything tested and approved since the 1980s actually safe?
Any of it? Yes. All of it? No, and far from it.
Or did we recruit too many diversity hires into our FDA?
We did, but that's not even the primary problem. The FDA is another corrupt institution that leeched of us to protect the big corporations. The issue isn't diversity, it's corruption and greed.
Diversity is more of a side hustle or symptom of corruption and greed. It's an explicit representation of it, I suppose. Pure greed itself where a purely value-less enterprise exists only to sop money off the public and companies, as a sort of protection racket; but not the cause of corruption, for sure.
The issue isn't diversity, it's corruption and greed.
I want to ask a question in earnest to anyone who wants to answer this: How can you in good conscience truly suggest that this is "corruption" when these institutions were never pure in the first place?
These institutions need to be abolished in totality. They cannot be "fixed", for they were never broken. The idea they can be reformed when the foundation is so utterly rooted in control is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
If I had to venture a guess; people tend to assume that a certain level of corruption is baked into the cake to begin with, and only when it reaches past a certain point does it become a problem.
White American-type culture assumes a very low-level of corruption, which is why it's one of the few that tends to stress 'fairness'. Start moving outside of that, though, and hoo boy...
people tend to assume that a certain level of corruption is baked into the cake to begin with
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
For something to have been corrupted, it must have tainted something that was once considered to be pure in some fashion. If these institutions were always impure through having it "baked into the cake", it was never really corrupted, that's simply how it was made from the very start. The description of being corrupt inherently relies upon the notion that it's not meant to be that way, and that it was once not that way at all but instead pure in some fashion.
It's a misnomer. To call these institutions corrupt gives them the benefit that the only issue is how they've been misused, and not the fact that anyone using these institutions will inevitably be using the very same powers and abuses as before with little more than a self-appointed rationalisation of "legitimacy". The reality is that these institutions have always been festering cesspools, and they'll never be anything else, no matter who is in charge in any given hypothetical.
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
Except it wasn't.
When I say 'low level corruption', I'm referencing stuff like nepotism, social networks, 'who you know'. People(normies) assume that you pass through the ranks of organizations via meritocracy, when if you have any experience whatsoever with how this shit actually works, anyone past a certain level of power is either really, REALLY fucking good at their job(rare) or knew the right people and sucked the right dicks.
So when all this was originally setup, I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible that the best people would fill the positions and do the best job.
And maybe it even worked, for a short while.
Then reality hit. And hit hard.
Most of the time, this isn't noticed. It goes by, and works... kinda well enough. Yet the moment anyone learns about this, or encounters it, or is forced to accept it, I'd bet good money the very initial, instinctive reaction is 'This isn't fucking fair. This is wrong.'
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it. They don't notice. They can't, because they don't have to deal with it. And if they don't notice, is it... really that bad? (Answer: Yes. But others may disagree.)
That is a good point. I remember reading on America during the late 1800 and early 1900s, and how there were feuds and political fights. Politicians would win elections and move into areas of power while bringing their minions and allies in to take over control over key positions in cabinets and industries. Methinks America was always a bit shady.
...these institutions were never pure in the first place...They cannot be "fixed", for they were never broken.
For the record, I never said anything to the contrary in my post.
These institutions need to be abolished in totality...The idea they can be reformed when the foundation is so utterly rooted in control is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
Probably, yeah.
Also, something that was shitty can still become more corrupted. It's not mutually exclusive. These agencies are and always were crap...they've also become a more corrupted form of their original.
Any of it? Yes. All of it? No, and far from it.
We did, but that's not even the primary problem. The FDA is another corrupt institution that leeched of us to protect the big corporations. The issue isn't diversity, it's corruption and greed.
Diversity is more of a side hustle or symptom of corruption and greed. It's an explicit representation of it, I suppose. Pure greed itself where a purely value-less enterprise exists only to sop money off the public and companies, as a sort of protection racket; but not the cause of corruption, for sure.
I want to ask a question in earnest to anyone who wants to answer this: How can you in good conscience truly suggest that this is "corruption" when these institutions were never pure in the first place?
These institutions need to be abolished in totality. They cannot be "fixed", for they were never broken. The idea they can be reformed when the foundation is so utterly rooted in control is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
If I had to venture a guess; people tend to assume that a certain level of corruption is baked into the cake to begin with, and only when it reaches past a certain point does it become a problem.
White American-type culture assumes a very low-level of corruption, which is why it's one of the few that tends to stress 'fairness'. Start moving outside of that, though, and hoo boy...
You're not wrong, though.
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
For something to have been corrupted, it must have tainted something that was once considered to be pure in some fashion. If these institutions were always impure through having it "baked into the cake", it was never really corrupted, that's simply how it was made from the very start. The description of being corrupt inherently relies upon the notion that it's not meant to be that way, and that it was once not that way at all but instead pure in some fashion.
It's a misnomer. To call these institutions corrupt gives them the benefit that the only issue is how they've been misused, and not the fact that anyone using these institutions will inevitably be using the very same powers and abuses as before with little more than a self-appointed rationalisation of "legitimacy". The reality is that these institutions have always been festering cesspools, and they'll never be anything else, no matter who is in charge in any given hypothetical.
Except it wasn't.
When I say 'low level corruption', I'm referencing stuff like nepotism, social networks, 'who you know'. People(normies) assume that you pass through the ranks of organizations via meritocracy, when if you have any experience whatsoever with how this shit actually works, anyone past a certain level of power is either really, REALLY fucking good at their job(rare) or knew the right people and sucked the right dicks.
So when all this was originally setup, I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible that the best people would fill the positions and do the best job.
And maybe it even worked, for a short while.
Then reality hit. And hit hard.
Most of the time, this isn't noticed. It goes by, and works... kinda well enough. Yet the moment anyone learns about this, or encounters it, or is forced to accept it, I'd bet good money the very initial, instinctive reaction is 'This isn't fucking fair. This is wrong.'
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it. They don't notice. They can't, because they don't have to deal with it. And if they don't notice, is it... really that bad? (Answer: Yes. But others may disagree.)
That is a good point. I remember reading on America during the late 1800 and early 1900s, and how there were feuds and political fights. Politicians would win elections and move into areas of power while bringing their minions and allies in to take over control over key positions in cabinets and industries. Methinks America was always a bit shady.
For the record, I never said anything to the contrary in my post.
Probably, yeah.
Also, something that was shitty can still become more corrupted. It's not mutually exclusive. These agencies are and always were crap...they've also become a more corrupted form of their original.
This is true, but there is the implication, and statists will use that implication to try and make arguments for reformation over abolition.