Police who respond to critism with anger, refusals to enforce, refusal to allow a report or illegal endangering behavior
thinking that money or relation should aford the right to corse demand or accept work, keep the benifit/product/result and not pay. I think the issue with a system where money supports life and we create a gov biz diachotmy... some entities should probably be there to come down on those who don't want to pay after work is done. that should be gov but in the current model where state to state or country to country everyone is cutting taxes to attract the biz entities with money... when gov needs income and gets it mainly from taxing those employed.. it's not hard to see the ruling entity has incentive to be bad to the populous. it might be harder to see the ultimate ruling entity is usually the Corp. I guess there is an example of security through obscurity working
Gov or Gov officials who make laws against their constituency.
Gov or Gov officials who premote emotional arguments and spin rather than peer reviewed science or even attempts at logic and reason.
Gov and Gov Officials that make laws to absolve gov and police from liability and or culpability of their actions and words.
News that blurs logic and emotion or mainly relies on emotional arguments.
News websites that disable the ability to leave comments. one sided top down control attempting to elimate forms of discourse
anyone pushing ridgid dichotomies as the only options. psychology has a concept called splitting. all or nothing black and white thinking. it's a trait of the mentally ill and associated with cluster b personality disorders.
those that redefine history or re spin it.
for instance: Salem witch trials. yes it was predominantly women to suffer. how ever what created them was a justice system with out objective standards of evidence and a burden of proof resting on the accused.
anyone or group that encourages jumping to conclusions and does not discuss the human risk of attribution error.
example: if a man explains something in simple language he must be mansplaining to you.
you don't know that. he might be but with out evaluating more than is it just you, how much do you know about the topic? has he even once explained it to a peer college student or other employees who happen to be male in the same terms?
the risk is teaching you the boogie man is always there... you will always see him.
divide and conquer is not a new tactic. The applied psychology and sociology to it is somewhat new. Whether you believe the government is the problem or that they are mere puppets what holds true is whoever's ruling the last thing they want is you to trust the people around you enough to the point you might storm the castle with pitchforks and torches.
but another more American and or modern layer to this is corps are queen. aka we apear to have made industries out of abuse distrust and injury.
a lot of even edu goes through some level where corps have influence. next to energy knowlege is the capital.
what I mean is to some extent there's a reason to keep acadamia researching by valid standards but little reason to teach them. if people learned healthy interactions and or child rearing
social workers, psychologists, family court judges, court employees, lawyers, prision guards and police would all experiance either loss in demand leading to budget cuts or less customers and therfore lower profits.
historicly laws have been limited by acceptance of the masses.
when most of us get our news and what concerns us from very few sources with very little time and energy to think it through its bad enough.
when those sources mix emotion with reason or argue entirely with fear/emotion its worse.
when there is so little as for sources, emotional arguments become full blow scarlet letters and witch hunts...
but the last piece as I see it, possibly the one there's little hope of recovering from is normalizing cluster b in a population while news and Gov does all the above. a pop fractured divided and damaged... so dissociated from themselves that they will sell their children's future for a big Mac and tell you how that was in their best intrest for survival.
What's sick is when you find the words of Edward Burnais in the 20s or read the works of trist and emery. call it what you want but how to do what we observed and or how to avoid it or the effects of the path we seem glued to.. it's not likely by chance and 50 or more years ago the inputs and outoits/results were studied in detail.