Provert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Pro" in Latin means "for" as in, for something.
"Vert" in Latin means "to turn".
"provert" in favor of turning (for turning).
Thus a Provert is a person who may, knowingly or accidentally, support or benefit from the changing of a victim's preferred moral state involentarily to one considered wrong by society. Likened to a stumbling block or a Pricker's contribution in witch trials. The end effect of the Provert is the creation of new perverts and criminals.
Example: A proverted interrogator (not knowing who is guilty in the group but needing results) will ask an innocent suspect, if the suspect is still stealing from his employer (a logical fallacy known as a compound question)(i.e., "are you still beating your wife"). If the suspect gives either a yes or no answer, the suspect will look guilty to his employer and make the interrogator look as if he is really accomplishing something. The result is the employer fires the innocent suspect as the culprit and the interrogator is paid for a job well done. A byproduct is the innocent suspect has been wrongly branded a thief and this rumor spreads and the innocent suspect is ruined.
Example: A proverted man in a bar, says to a unknown beautiful woman next to him, that the ugly person at the end of the bar is a pervert (this is slander because the provert just made it up and does not know the other man). The woman does not know either man, but assumes the first man (provert) is safe and trustworthy because he knows who the bad people are. However, the second ugly man should be avoided and ostracized. The result is the first man has a better chance than the second man to get the beautiful woman's phone number. A byproduct is the ugly man has been turned into a pervert and the rumor spreads and the second man is ostracized.
Another example: Functionaries select for questioning certain people more than other people for reasons they figure as “logical” or deliberate. After a while, enough “facts” have been proved that all said people are eventually found guilty. The more the select people are questioned, the more of a general rule they are found guilty. The problem is, that this thinking is more of a self fulfilling prophecy and no facts where properly checked if the select people are any different from other people. If the functionaries somehow benefit from this action, then they would be considered Proverts.
Large systems can also exhibit provertic tendencies. Such as complex overlapping laws that could cause other laws to be unintentally broken and creates a cascade effect. This can turn otherwise innocent people into criminals who pay multiple fines to the same legal system. If this cascade effect was done deliberately, then you can argue that this falls under the conflict theory of law. But, since this effect may be unintended, it may not fall under oppression since the “leaders” do not see or understand the problem created by these laws. An other example is multiple computer programs that conflict with each other. If the conflict is not beneficial to the system, it maybe seen as a problem and corrected. However, if the conflict seems "beneficial" to the system, it may be allowed or even expanded by users of the system.
