Rusty Logic Behind the Door

There are structures; on the surface, it appears to be a door, but its function is not to facilitate passage, rather to stop. When you stand in front of it, you're told that this is a "passage"; however, the key to this passage is not in the pocket of objective criteria that are equidistant to everyone, but in a whimsical list where you don't exactly know which name is written. Behind this door lies the mentality that, with an outdated desire for clerical control, paralyzes modern processes. Whatever you call it, whether a filter turned into arbitrariness...

The most disturbing aspect of this mindset is the unpredictable double standard in its operation. For some, the road is fully open; for others, it is simultaneously blocked by an invisible wall. Neither competence, merit, nor the quality of effort determines this. What often matters is a sense of belonging lost in the current conjuncture or a closeness compass that cannot be explained from an outside perspective. If rules do not set a precedent, then only a strange theater can be spoken of, not the existence of rules. This is an arbitrariness so unreasonable that rational mind cannot accept; and an imbalance so painful that conscience cannot bear.

Perhaps the most painful point is that this logic is the biggest obstacle faced by those trying to do better. Because efforts to improve, advance, or rebuild derive their speed from justice and transparent appreciation. You tire not when your path is open, but when you do not know where and why it will be cut off. When this rusty logic takes root at the foundation of a standard that is being collectively elevated, unfortunately, it is not progress but mutual exhaustion that begins. Because in this environment, which turns into a blind fight, people spend their energies not on producing but on breaking through invisible shields. And this situation mercilessly consumes not only individual efforts but also the possibilities of a shared future.

Here, within the limits of diplomatic politeness, I want to say that this way of thinking is an outdated instrument whose lifespan has expired. Behind every justification put forward to defend it, there is nothing but the comfort of an old habit. It is a ground where, fitting for a mature community, professional operation, and most importantly, human dignity; where not intentions but concrete contributions are discussed, and which works with the same clarity for everyone.

To put it gently: this mentality can neither be sanctified as a legacy of the past nor find a brick in building the future. Every discourse that tries to present this injustice, disguised as a guard in front of that door, as a virtue, is, at best, far from reasonableness. More explicitly, this way of thinking is merely about trapping not only others but also our own potential behind the walls we build with our own hands.

And it should be known that no progress has been made by passing through a door whose key is only in someone’s pocket. True passages open when you realize the strange locks placed on your horizon and start to redraw your path by collectively ignoring that door. What is unacceptable is not being condemned to this rusty logic; it is facing sentences that try to justify it while still attempting to make it seem reasonable.