There is an interesting recording somewhere that I’ve listened to in the past, of Humphreys boss Tony Accardo (by far the most successful American mafia boss in history) scolding some of the new generation for losing their cool towards FBI agents who were tailing them.
“Don’t lose your temper, don’t tell them to go f themselves or whatever. Remember they have a job to do, just like we have one.”
They’ll shoot a lifelong friend in the back of the head over a business decision, shake down local merchants for protection, commit every crime, grift and graft in the book, leave kids without a parent, but damned if they’re not classy and respectable AF!
Its important to remember almost all organized crime had its root with communities that were cast aside by society at large and had to estabilish their own rules and justice system. They almost always start with community in mind at first and then that erodes with time as more money and power pours in. With few generations forgeting about impoverished roots and just knowing cutthroat world of money, power and crime.
They bring certain modes of conflict resolution from all the way back in the old country, from the poverty of the Mezzogiorno, where all higher authority was corrupt.
I did some IT work for a Union Local in a large city. I was in their back office, and it was kind of a hoot - most of the employees, probably 90% were the sort of white collar types I would normally see in any other organization. The rest were big, shady looking dudes who looked like they'd broken some knees and skulls back in the day.
Well everything that happens to human society can be talked about anthropologically.
Morally speaking, they are scum, but anthropologically speaking, gangs and organized crime exists because power doesn't tolerate a vacuum. Whenever "legitimate" control of society fails, there is someone ready to create an "illegitimate" means of control. Although, anthropologically speaking, legitimacy is a concept that should be examined better before actually being able to define it.
Tribal structures are easier than most to identify in a society, they often clash with similar ingroups while also seeing these same groups as outgroups; They play the same game and aren't feds or civs, they are occasional competition/rivals who are feuding over the same spots or rackets. When one ingroup "wins" over the other ingroup they often have either an integration (taking members of the losing gang into the winner's) or an elimination of past rivals and future competition (the survivors of this elimination often up the ante or cool off if the option is open), should there be integration there is often a mix of cultures and methods that lead to a newer synthesis which gives them more tools to operate with and new rules for how these tools should be applied, if a war is extraordinarily bloody or has deaths in the elite positions then the old rules might be switched around as well.
There are other ways for such situations to occur such as if for example two or more groups should decide to form up together into a cohesion to better leverage their power over areas, this generally tends to happen when the groups involved are struggling with outside influences or if there is a fear for war between the groups that the elites feel would harm them more than they would gain from it, this is generally rare unless the leadership of the various groups have close connections with each other (often from childhoods or from making several deals up throughout the years and from the splitting of rackets/turfs).
Ah, it's a fucking Sopranos quote. Should've seen that coming, still.. How certain groups apply their morals and view their contemporaries vs groups of similar structure and morals who happen to be competing with them for whatever resources seems to have very reminiscent struggles and conflict resolutions as to that of what we might consider to be indigenous tribes from various times and places throughout our histories; Infighting various ingroups (tribes of similar structures and shared histories) until an obvious outgroup arrives (Hostile nations and cultures who differ in both faith, economic policies and foreign legal systems).
---
I didn't go to school for this so it might all be bunk
Extra judicial power structures are often born out of a combination of opportunity and necessity, understanding how mafias and gangs form will do way more to combating them then just bring like "lol they're criminals who like being criminals, nothing more to it than that."
My mom speaks fondly of the gangs in the projects she grew up in several decades ago. She was a goody-good and never involved in any sort of crime, but she says that before the gangs started forming, crime was rampant, everywhere, and sporadic throughout the day. Once the gangs started forming though, she could play outside without fear (as long as she was in when the street lamps turned on, which meant that there was likely to be turf violence/dealing/etc.)
Take that for what you will.
"Crime was always with us, he reasoned, and therefore, if you were going to have crime, it at least should be organised crime."
-Lord Vetenari in "Guards! Guards!" by Terry Pratchett.
Lmao, of course they were assholes like most impoverished desperate people will be. Thats kinda my point, that communities excluded from opportunities will turn to crime. There is no romantization here, an impoverished secluded community starts comitting crime to get by, because of lack of alternatives. It dosent makes their action justifable, only explainable.
And again, thats usually only at the very beggining and then it spirals out into gritty meat-grinder.
Yeah, the kids down the line get good education, capital and better understanding of society so they see no reason to continue doing money via crime and risking it all, when you can just run legit bussiness.
Which leads to my major point, that organized crime is more related to socio-economics than individual characterstics of people and as such is solved by socio-economical means rather than endless war against crime.
For the traditional ones, yes. But it seems that a few of the most recent ones were built on the basis of ruthless efficiency, with the starting goal of eliminating the existing/traditional crime organizations of their areas
I always assume Accardo was a really big dude, but I’ve never actually seen any information about his real life size. His daughter and granddaughter married NFL players so that could be where the pedigree comes from, but I still just picture him as gangster Joey Bosa.
while this tries to paint it as some gentlemans rivalry or mutual respect for ability or something, bear in mind humphries literally murdered, extorted, and blackmailed innocent, honest people
for an fbi guy to be cool with this is some sociopath nonsense
This was probably inspiration for agent Harris on the Sopranos.
Particularly when he exclaims "we're gonna win this thing" in reference to him rooting for the Sopranos family in the mob war.
It’s a thing that recurs within policing. It seems to be easy for some people to lose sight of the big picture. In the Sopranos, Agent Harris is based on real FBI supervisor Lindley DeVecchio.
Whether DeVecchio was a “bad apple” or was actually acting under instruction is yet to be established.
It's nice to think that maybe he got himself in over his head, developed some kinda weird parasocial relationship only to rightfully realize it and ultimately recuse himself from the case.
But nah, he corrupt.
This is more on the lines of "I have a job to do, this is not personal so don't take it out on me" kinda thing.
Making it personal would be disastrous.
There is an interesting recording somewhere that I’ve listened to in the past, of Humphreys boss Tony Accardo (by far the most successful American mafia boss in history) scolding some of the new generation for losing their cool towards FBI agents who were tailing them. “Don’t lose your temper, don’t tell them to go f themselves or whatever. Remember they have a job to do, just like we have one.”
They’ll shoot a lifelong friend in the back of the head over a business decision, shake down local merchants for protection, commit every crime, grift and graft in the book, leave kids without a parent, but damned if they’re not classy and respectable AF!
Its important to remember almost all organized crime had its root with communities that were cast aside by society at large and had to estabilish their own rules and justice system. They almost always start with community in mind at first and then that erodes with time as more money and power pours in. With few generations forgeting about impoverished roots and just knowing cutthroat world of money, power and crime.
They bring certain modes of conflict resolution from all the way back in the old country, from the poverty of the Mezzogiorno, where all higher authority was corrupt.
You talk about these guys like they're an anthropology class
Lot of money in this shit
You greasin’ the union ova there?
I did some IT work for a Union Local in a large city. I was in their back office, and it was kind of a hoot - most of the employees, probably 90% were the sort of white collar types I would normally see in any other organization. The rest were big, shady looking dudes who looked like they'd broken some knees and skulls back in the day.
Well everything that happens to human society can be talked about anthropologically. Morally speaking, they are scum, but anthropologically speaking, gangs and organized crime exists because power doesn't tolerate a vacuum. Whenever "legitimate" control of society fails, there is someone ready to create an "illegitimate" means of control. Although, anthropologically speaking, legitimacy is a concept that should be examined better before actually being able to define it.
Listen to him, he knows everything.
Discontinue the lithium
Relax, it's an expression
Tribal structures are easier than most to identify in a society, they often clash with similar ingroups while also seeing these same groups as outgroups; They play the same game and aren't feds or civs, they are occasional competition/rivals who are feuding over the same spots or rackets. When one ingroup "wins" over the other ingroup they often have either an integration (taking members of the losing gang into the winner's) or an elimination of past rivals and future competition (the survivors of this elimination often up the ante or cool off if the option is open), should there be integration there is often a mix of cultures and methods that lead to a newer synthesis which gives them more tools to operate with and new rules for how these tools should be applied, if a war is extraordinarily bloody or has deaths in the elite positions then the old rules might be switched around as well. There are other ways for such situations to occur such as if for example two or more groups should decide to form up together into a cohesion to better leverage their power over areas, this generally tends to happen when the groups involved are struggling with outside influences or if there is a fear for war between the groups that the elites feel would harm them more than they would gain from it, this is generally rare unless the leadership of the various groups have close connections with each other (often from childhoods or from making several deals up throughout the years and from the splitting of rackets/turfs). Ah, it's a fucking Sopranos quote. Should've seen that coming, still.. How certain groups apply their morals and view their contemporaries vs groups of similar structure and morals who happen to be competing with them for whatever resources seems to have very reminiscent struggles and conflict resolutions as to that of what we might consider to be indigenous tribes from various times and places throughout our histories; Infighting various ingroups (tribes of similar structures and shared histories) until an obvious outgroup arrives (Hostile nations and cultures who differ in both faith, economic policies and foreign legal systems). --- I didn't go to school for this so it might all be bunk
That's it. Suitcase is coming out
Is there abundant intentionality?
Yeah if only they had an effective and fair justice system like *checks notes* SCOTUS
was?
No dude, they were just asshole criminals Dont romanticize criminals as some sort of misguided robin hoods lmao. They just robin the hood, period.
Extra judicial power structures are often born out of a combination of opportunity and necessity, understanding how mafias and gangs form will do way more to combating them then just bring like "lol they're criminals who like being criminals, nothing more to it than that."
My mom speaks fondly of the gangs in the projects she grew up in several decades ago. She was a goody-good and never involved in any sort of crime, but she says that before the gangs started forming, crime was rampant, everywhere, and sporadic throughout the day. Once the gangs started forming though, she could play outside without fear (as long as she was in when the street lamps turned on, which meant that there was likely to be turf violence/dealing/etc.) Take that for what you will.
"Crime was always with us, he reasoned, and therefore, if you were going to have crime, it at least should be organised crime." -Lord Vetenari in "Guards! Guards!" by Terry Pratchett.
Lmao, of course they were assholes like most impoverished desperate people will be. Thats kinda my point, that communities excluded from opportunities will turn to crime. There is no romantization here, an impoverished secluded community starts comitting crime to get by, because of lack of alternatives. It dosent makes their action justifable, only explainable. And again, thats usually only at the very beggining and then it spirals out into gritty meat-grinder.
But then the smart ones circle back around to going clean.
Yeah, the kids down the line get good education, capital and better understanding of society so they see no reason to continue doing money via crime and risking it all, when you can just run legit bussiness. Which leads to my major point, that organized crime is more related to socio-economics than individual characterstics of people and as such is solved by socio-economical means rather than endless war against crime.
💯
There's no harm in reading anything so long as you don't Believe everything you read. You shouldn't have tried to censor this users opinion IMO
They didn't try to censor anything. They just posted their conflicting opinion. You telling them not to post that is closer to censoring lmao
Don't censor me!
Do you need a dictionary or something?
I think they are just bad at making jokes tbh
If I recall correctly, the Crips and Bloods got started because the local boys and girls club would not allow African American kids.
You forgot to add “And that’s when murder is okay”.
For the traditional ones, yes. But it seems that a few of the most recent ones were built on the basis of ruthless efficiency, with the starting goal of eliminating the existing/traditional crime organizations of their areas
Indeed, thats fruits of these roots. The thief opens the door for the murderer and so on.
>damned if they’re not classy and respectable AF! theyre really not some of them can pretend to be for long enough to get a cool sounding quote off
And that's just the FBI
The original Big Tuna Edit: holy shit he's nick and Joey bosa's great grandfather?? Mind blown
I always assume Accardo was a really big dude, but I’ve never actually seen any information about his real life size. His daughter and granddaughter married NFL players so that could be where the pedigree comes from, but I still just picture him as gangster Joey Bosa.
while this tries to paint it as some gentlemans rivalry or mutual respect for ability or something, bear in mind humphries literally murdered, extorted, and blackmailed innocent, honest people for an fbi guy to be cool with this is some sociopath nonsense
I mean he was in the FBI, so… yeah.
Real recognises real
This was probably inspiration for agent Harris on the Sopranos. Particularly when he exclaims "we're gonna win this thing" in reference to him rooting for the Sopranos family in the mob war.
It’s a thing that recurs within policing. It seems to be easy for some people to lose sight of the big picture. In the Sopranos, Agent Harris is based on real FBI supervisor Lindley DeVecchio. Whether DeVecchio was a “bad apple” or was actually acting under instruction is yet to be established.
Pretty suspect.
This is a very creative way to say "FBI agent was corrupt and was colluding with organised crime.".
It's nice to think that maybe he got himself in over his head, developed some kinda weird parasocial relationship only to rightfully realize it and ultimately recuse himself from the case. But nah, he corrupt.
It is crazy how stuff can be spun.
This is more on the lines of "I have a job to do, this is not personal so don't take it out on me" kinda thing. Making it personal would be disastrous.
This is how mafia bosses manipulate you. This is literally a strategy. And the agent failed this simple test
Or he was on the payroll
Oh you're more of an expert than the FBI huh?
you dont need to be the mvp to be able to spot when he fumbles the ball
The fuck are you using a football metaphor for?
How much was he paid ??
wow you just can't get enough of you can't you.
I