I only learned that I was raised by a major league narcissist with anger management problems after I met my wife. She has training in clinical counseling and helped me realize that soooo much of my personality and habits can be traced back to my upbringing. Turns out my grandfather treated him the same way.
Generational trauma is a cruel monster that many of us never learn about. That’s a damn shame too.
Psychology graduate students are so desperate to make up ideas to get their PhD. not surprised if every one of these authors is a right wing nepotism baby
Yes it could just be the perception. In American films and TV everyone seems to have a lawyer, there’s the whole “lawyer up” reddit meme and I’ve been given so much advice on reddit about things I should/shouldn’t do to avoid getting sued (like sweeping the pavement outside my house! This seems to come up so often). The only time I know of people using solicitors here regularly are to buy houses and to finalise divorce.
What you read on reddit and watch on tv/movies isn’t at all how reality actually is here lol. You do legal stuff when you have to, it’s expensive and a hassle, and it’s still best to settle things outside of court. Reddit says a lot of dumb things, the lawyer up thing is a meme since a redditor should really not be giving legal advice. That’s like when you discuss mental issues, people say to go to a therapist, it’s not any country specific. If anything, it’s the EU who has a lot more regulation, which means more courts involved.
If the majority of an entire generation has an anxiety disorder, it came from one of only a few places. If Millennials don’t have similar anxiety rates, the most likely culprit of rampant Gen Z specific anxiety is going to be caused by the Gen X parenting style.
Lol. Calm down snowflake. No reason to get offended. You have some big feelings about this but you don’t have to be a wuss about it. You can sack up and face them.
this. things like this are starting to annoy me. lets me clear. sexual abuse is worse than physical abuse which is worse than verbal abuse. The first should never happen in the least. Grabbing your childs arm roughly and yelling at them when about to touch something hot is fine and expected. Yelling at them and telling them to behave when they hit their sibling is fine.
Grabbing your childs arm roughly and yelling at them when about to touch something hot is fine and expected.
Is it really? Honestly I’d rather a child touch something hot and learn the lesson that it is unsafe than potentially learn the lesson the people charged with taking care of them are unsafe. I mean, I remember burning a finger on the stove when I was little. It sucked but I was and am fine. I was lightly verbally abused by my Dad exactly once (he apologized after), and it was much, much worse. I was verbally abused by teachers and peers, and it was much, much worse.
[edit: I retract the sentence “Honestly I’d rather a child touch something hot and learn the lesson that it is unsafe than potentially learn the lesson the people charged with taking care of them are unsafe.” It was poorly thought through and poorly worded. To be clear, I do not condone intentionally allowing a child to touch a stove to teach them it is dangerous. I also do not think that the threat of a child touching a stove justifies physically and verbally abusing a child, as OP said.]
using equivalency phrases on things that are very much not equivalent. Also scientific studies are great in the hard sciences but in the social sciences become very iffy. Doing some correlation on questionaires is not equivalent to measuring small changes in a large structure to measure gravitational effects.
Doing some correlation on questionaires is not equivalent to measuring small changes in a large structure to measure gravitational effects.
Where did anyone say this? You’re trying to sound knowledgeable about science, but all you’re doing is making up strawmen to argue against over and over
its a reply to iamthetots comment about scientific studies. one thing that is frustrating with federation is sometimes folks don't see all the people or parts of a convo
explain strawman argument and how my conversation fits into it because I do not believe my conversation has been one. Or not if you don't really believe its a strawman argument. Make some other comment if thats the case.
You’re completely misunderstanding everything written here. You created arguments that don’t exist in this article, and do not understand the definition of verbal or physical abuse, because the examples you give are not that
except that there is no hard line of where something moves into abuse. In the end my comment was that yes these are not equivalent. There is no level of sexual contact that is ok but there is a level of physicality and yelling that is ok as long as it is not type of constant thing. and physicality is way less ok than yelling and only should be used in rare, usually dangerous situations.
Ok, but again, you’re arguing against a strawman. Nothing you’re saying here is relevant to what I said about you misunderstanding the definitions of physical and verbal/emotional abuse as evidenced by you standing up and knocking down examples that are clearly not abuse
yeah but you are taking a whole conversation and not looking at my initial comment. you just don't get the jist of the whole and where it goes. you concentrate on the last thing said and take no context at all.
So where is the effin straw man in that. The news item that references the study equates sexual, physical, and verbal abuse as equivalent and my comment is woa. They are so not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grabbing your childs arm roughly and yelling at them when about to touch something hot is fine and expected. Yelling at them and telling them to behave when they hit their sibling is fine.
There is no one saying these things aren’t fine. They give examples of verbal/emotional abuse in the article and study and they are not this. You are creating a strawman argument no one is saying (grabbing your childs arm when about to touch something hot is fine; yelling at them and telling them to behave when they hit their sibling is fine) and using that as a reason to dismiss the conclusions of this study
My argument is about equivalency. When they make the statement they are equivalent they are saying they are equivalent. My argument is not about abuse vs not abuse. Its about equivalency. There is no level of sexual situations with a child that is not abuse. there is with verbal and physical. Again you just are throwing out context and trying to make it something its not.
A key attribute of childhood emotional abuse is the underlying adult-to-child perpetration of verbal abuse, which is characterized by shouting, yelling, denigrating the child, and verbal threats. These types of adult actions can be as damaging to a child’s development as other currently recognized and forensically established subtypes of maltreatment such as childhood physical and sexual abuse.
So you’re concluding that verbal/emotional abuse in no case can be as damaging to a child’s development as physical or sexual abuse?
Not as much as they can't be and should not be even put into the same class as actions. There is a level of vocality that is ok, there is a level of physicality that is ok, there is never a level of sexuality that is ok when talking adult to child interactions. I understand they are talking in the extreme in all cases but making these out to be the same, even if limiting to the extreme, is not ok.
This isn’t about the moral weight of one type of abuse over another, it’s only about the psychological impact of abuse on people who were abused as children. There is literally no one saying anything like “sexual abuse is the same as verbal abuse.” That is the strawman argument you created
except that when phrased that way it will in future. Your arguing in the context of this one little study and I am arguing from a moral position. I have seen it before and will see it again. This type of phrasing. Especially in the internet age of read headlines and not the details. Results in the strawman you speak of becoming reality. Equivalencies like this should never be made.
What are you even talking about… we’re literally talking about this study, you’re trying to critique it by saying verbal abuse isn’t as bad as physical or sexual abuse, meanwhile the study authors are measuring life outcomes and finding similarities between all of them. You started off trying to critique this as invalid science because it’s social science and now you’re here, saying your argument is based on morality. It’s ok to just say “I didn’t understand the study,” or “I didn’t read the study.” You don’t have to continue making stuff up based on your “gut.”
Man this is all over but lets see. I did not start off with social science critique. That came up in conversation. When a study or article is published into the public and on the internet it becomes more than an isolated thing. My comment chain started. From the begining. In talking about this is bad due to making equivalencies. Something that is a general comment and obviously had not been limited in scope the the study and nothing beyond. The article does not show the study and I don't care to read it or look into it further because again. The title. The equivalency suggested in it and the phrases used in the article. Should never be used.
The entire study is directly linked in the article! In the 3rd sentence!! You are literally forming all of these opinions based on the headline from the Guardian?! Lmfao
Even then, the headline is explicitly talking about psychological damage to victims, not a moral judgement or “which abuse is worse.” Sheesh
I actually found the link now so thank you but yeah im not arguing the study you are. Im arguing the use of language and its impropriety no matter the study finding. Hey just so you know I still find the conversation cool (if frustrating I think for both of us as we are talking from different perspectives) but the federated system after so many comments the notifications no longer get you to the place the comment is at. I had to do this one by clicking your user and looking at your last comments (pro trick for anyone using kbin website). So its possible I may not respond after this. Anyway I think I understand your stance about being against my stance but again I think your not really groking whay my point is about. this is the type of thing where I wish we were shooting the shit in a room verbally to hash out what the position really is.
“Yelling” at your child to get them to stop something, or not step into traffic, or not eat pills is one thing. That’s certainly not verbal abuse.
Shaming and berating your child for getting a C, telling them they are worthless, they are the reason Dad left, they are ugly is very different. This is clearly verbal abuse.
It’s conceivable that the sustained verbal abuse as I defined it could absolutely harm a child in a long term way, and cumulatively have an impact similar to physical abuse.
Verbal abuse when I was growing up was backed up with the threat of physical abuse. And having been bit and hit by my dad, and seeing my mom and older brother hit by my dad, those verbal threats carried a lot of weight.
I’ve walked on eggshells around my dad and every man that reminded me of him my whole life. It’s affected my relationships and made it impossible to hold down a job as most bosses have the same authoritarian streak my dad did.
So yeah, verbal abuse is damaging. Rather it’s equivalent to other forms of abuse I can’t say. But it took me 44 years and a skilled emdr therapist to finally heal enough that I don’t feel overwhelmed whenever I get emotional.
And for much of the last fifteen years I’ve been trying to find a therapist that took my trauma seriously and knew how to help me with it. So many misdiagnosis (anxiety, substance use, and depression were symptoms, but not the diagnosis that helped). Many suicide attempts. Many psych meds that didn’t help. Many many years feeling unheard by the medical establishment.
In some ways, it’s easier to have a source of trauma to point to and say “that’s the cause,” so you can address and treat it.
I was verbally abused. My inner dialogue was one of critisism, guilt and shame, that I didn’t realize until well into adulthood. I thought that was how everyone talked to themselves.
If I had been physically abused, I would have known about it. Much less insidious to the mind.
E: Was also just thinking about triggers. If you were a victim of physical trauma, your triggers might be very obvious. With verbal trauma, for me anyway, they were much less obvious. To think back, I went years and years having fight or flight reactions for no obvious reason, often manifested as anxiety or poor impulse control, wasted so many days just feeling anxious instead of working on myself. One trigger for me is loud voices. Had no idea until well into adulthood things started making sense. Damn near had a panic attack one day when a chef started yelling at the line cooks while I was waiting for my order.
absolutely. verbal abuse doesn’t leave anything physical behind, which makes it much harder to pinpoint the cause and effect. so you might be feeling depressed and anxious but not understand why because dissociative amnesia become your normal response to verbal abuse.
You miss-read (or didn’t read) the article if that’s your take-away. It’s saying the long-term effects can be roughly the same. It’s not equivocating the actions themselves.
I’m saying it’s a sensationalized headline. it’s meant to draw you in with a wild statement to make you angry and then the article is something completely different.
They’re not equivocating the malice of verbal abuse vs. sexual abuse. They are equivocating the damage this kind of abuse can do to children, which their research supports. There’s no reason to take offense as if they were taking a stand on the non-severity child sexual abuse, which they are not.
While what you and I feel doesn’t matter much, we truly need a scientific study of this. Oh, wait! That’s what this was. Please defer to objective consensus…
Headline is completely jacked from AP. Should be Judge aims to restore voting rights to under-represented voters due to GOP illegally gerrymandering predoniminatly black Alabama districts
You are kind of owned, since these red states fucking up just means that more of your tax money will go to saving these idiots from themselves through federal aid
Red states are a luxury we can’t afford anymore. They need to pull themselves up by their freedom bootstraps and start turning a profit, or the spigot turns off.
while it’s true that the majority of the electricity generated in WA is hydroelectric, we also dont get much in the way of heat. I used my AC for about 4 weeks this year. if we had the same levels of heat as some parts of TX, our electricity would not be as cheap as it is now.
The problem hasn't been during the day. The supply and demand has a lag (sun comes out and its still cool and sun goes down and its still hot). The hottest part of the day has been about 6pm and then solar power starts declining before power use. That's been when the shortages have been.
Texas has plenty of power. Their problem is the delivery network. Their prices surge because power can’t be delivered to everybody, not because there isn’t enough for everybody.
I need you to explain this further? The price goes up because the demand on the grid goes up, and as the price goes up, typically additional generation comes online to take advantage of higher rates. I’m not saying it’s a good system by any means, but I don’t understand what you mean saying “power can’t be delivered to everybody”
I’m abreast of this specific grid situation, and there’re absolutely improvements that need to be made, and also no, it’s not “a shambles.” Yes, there was a bottleneck this time, but also everyone’s power stayed on just fine
Give it a few months when they start dying of exposure. At least once a year I see stories about Texas’ power grid shitting the bed and people dying as a result.
If you had the same amount of heat, you’d have more sunlight hours and thus better conditions for solar power. If you had more wind, wind power etc.
There’s no scenario anywhere in the world where the entire energy consumption and more can’t be supplied via renewable sources. All that’s missing is the political will to go against the fossil fuel industry.
Texas actually does better in the renewable energy front than you may expect.
A quarter of the state’s energy is produced through wind and solar. The biggest bottleneck preventing more wind adoption is the capacity of transmission lines up and the lack of energy storage.
The advantage of natural gas is that it can be dry up pretty much anywhere and isn’t dependent on weather.
The biggest problem Texas has right now regarding energy (and housing costs, and inflation, and municipal planning, and traffic, etc) is its extremely rapid population growth.
Yes, the heat wave is historic and ERCOT is awful, but even in perfect weather the grid is being stressed from the sheer number of people and businesses moving here
While a lot of shitty things happened regarding ERCOT and that freeze (and ESPECIALLY the lack of response to prevent the next 2 freeze emergencies), Snovid was a perfect storm. And again a lot of the issues were from transmission problems when lines iced over and tress took out transmission lines.
We’re lucky the 2023 freeze was as short as it was, because it’s impact on the grid was almost as severe even though it was shorter and not nearly as cold. It was an ice event instead of snow, and had a much larger impact on trees and therefore transmission lines. Some people were without power for 3-4 times as long as with the 2021 storm despite it being a much milder event.
As an engineer, critical infrastructure should very much be designed with redundancy and failsafes to prevent failure from any reasonable risk. Cold weather impacting natural gas supply is reasonable risk that can have a catastrophic impact on people’s ability to heat their homes and it’s mind blowing how those failures have happened more than once in recent years. Utilities should be held to much higher standards and immediate action taken after failures to prevent the same from happening again.
Completely agree. But Snovid was a case of multiple system failures. It wasn’t just gas lines freezing,. It was increased demand, frozen equipment, inoperable windmills and solar panels, trees on transmission lines, road inaccessibility for repair crews, and informational gaps.
I’m glad I live in Washington state with our cheap renewable energy.
Texas has more renewable energy production than you do. In Q1 of 2022 Washington State generated 25 Million Megawatt hours of renewal energy and Texas generated 34.
Heard a piece of NPR about how our green grid is actually having a lot of trouble keeping up because climate change is fucking up our rainfall, and hence our hydro electric. Even if you do it right, you end up paying for the greed of everyone else.
I’m Gen X, not Gen Z, and I definitely feel like my Boomer parents pushed a “if you’re having mental health problems just shut up and deal with it quietly” attitude. When I told my father that I take medicine for anxiety, he thought I should stop taking it and just “stop feeling anxious.” Like there’s a big Off Switch to my anxiety that I forgot to flip.
Trust me, I wish it was that easy. I’d be flipping that switch off and duct taping over it until it couldn’t be turned back on. Sadly, it’s not that easy.
I fucking agree with her, but that doesn’t mean someone in power should ever make blatantly unconstitutional moves. Nobody should get to unilaterally make declarations like that, regardless of sentiment.
Well, we can take bets on whether or not this survives the first judge who sees it, or argue on whether or not believing someone being right should allow them to unilaterally ignore the constitution.
You know there are states where open carry is not allowed, right? It also doesn’t need to survive a judge, it needs to be in effect for long enough to curb violence. Whether that happens is a different question than its constitutionality. But I doubt that this is intended to pass our insane judicial system too to bottom.
This has zero chance of making it to the supreme court. There are enough right wing lunatics and “sane” judges who are terrified of said right wing lunatics that it will be struck down because apparently “the right to bear arms” means “the right to shove forty guns in your trousers on the way to mcdonald’s”
But albuquerque is suffering right now and it will take at least 30 days to get struck down. Which, if the cops could avoid being worthless sacks of shit for even once in their life, would accomplish the goal of calming everything down.
It’s both open and concealed carry banned. I personally agree with her, but that matters not, as government officials shouldn’t get to ignore parts of the constitution they dislike “just for a bit” and then go “oopsie ;)” once the courts confirm they’re ignoring the constitution.
This is why principled Americans want to see Trump in jail. Doesn’t matter if you feel good about your actions, the constitution matters more
Far too many people feel that Supreme Court opinions, no matter how ridiculous, are unquestionable determinations of constitutionality. The sacred right to carry guns for self-defense didn’t exist until 15 years ago.
The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants like Trump if he tries to illegally stay in power and protect vulnerable minorities like LGBTQ+ communities.
The problem is the Democrats have been successfully making guns scary to you, and now racist white Christofacists and cops maintain the monopoly on violence, so if you wanted to protest they can simply scare you away with threats (and sometimes actual) violence and because you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.
And there I thought the young man’s testosterone fantasy of you and your buddies successfully fighting off the best equipped army in the world armed only with your private gun stash was the domain of right wing loons.
With respect this is a straw man argument. You don’t address @BaroqueInMind’s point- that 2A is designed to protect against government overreach by people who would ignore the Constitution, and for self-defense.
Nobody wants to fight the US army with a basement gun stash.
No it isn’t (a straw man argument). The goal of the 2A really seems to have been (I am neither from the US, nor a scholar of US constitutional law) to protect againt government overreach but its “right to bear arms” as it is understood by the US Supreme Court, limited to personal posession of firearms for self-defense, in today’s reality of organized, weaponized police forces and standing federal armies with high tech weaponry is no longer working. On the other hand it is directly responsible for the largest number of gun deaths in a country that is not an active war zone.
As far as I see it, @BaroqueInMind was trying to make two points:
“The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants”
“(Without guns) you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.”
So his points are that the 2A guarantee his right to assassinate the President, if he decides that he is a tyrant and for armed resistance againt an executive force of the government.
I argued that fighting the US government’s forces with handguns and winning is a testosterone fantasy.
So where exactly is my Straw Man?
The 2A may have been meant to protect a “free state” but in today’s reality, it fails to achieve this goal. On the other hand, the laws arguing from it, have lead to the greatest number of civilian gun deaths outside an active war zone.
al-Qaeda + isis held off multiple nations military for almost 20 years.
Why would a civil war where half of your military isn’t blindly loyal going to be any better? Killing your friends and neighbors for the state is a lot different than killing someone you’ve never met before.
I know you’re not the original poster, but you are just confirming the argument wasn’t a straw man. The belief is that basements full of guns will effectively combat the US military
Your straw man is that it’s a testosterone fantasy, and that the idea is to fight off the US Army with someone’s basement guns. I’m saying the straw many is largely your representation of attitude.
Look at Al-Qaeda and ISIS. They had little more than AKs, no electronics more than cell phones, and they managed to drive us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So let’s agree that it is POSSIBLE for a weaker force to defend against a stronger force, albeit with higher loss rates, especially if the weaker force blends in with a civilian population.
However Al-Qaeda is a bad example. A much better one is the Bundy standoff from 5ish years ago. And that shows a big part of the usefulness of guns- increasing the cost of using force.
Now for the record Bundy was an asshole so don’t take this as me idolizing him. But the situation is a useful example.
Put simply- there was a dispute about whether Bundy was allowed to graze cattle on some public lands. Bundy claimed a legal ancestral right, government claimed ancestral rights were removed because endangered turtles lived on the lands, but the government would still allow him to graze the cattle for a steep fee. Bundy refused to pay, so the government sent in workers to seize his cattle.
Bundy and his followers then took up armed positions to defend the cattle. The message was simple- it will take a firefight to get you the cattle. Everybody (including Bundy and his followers) knew the government would probably win, a bunch of ranchers with guns isn’t going to fight off the National Guard. BUT, it would also mean a lot of blood spilled on both sides. As in, ‘think twice guys, is seizing a few cows worth another Ruby Ridge type fiasco?’
Fortunately cool heads prevailed, the government backed down and agreed to bring the issue back to the courts.
The lesson remains though. A bunch of armed ranchers ‘defended’ against the mighty US government without ever firing a shot, simply because them being armed raised the cost of using force against them. If they’d not been armed, the government would have sent in riot cops with batons to beat them all up and arrest them and that’d have been that.
And THAT is why I say that defending against tyrants is still a valid goal of 2A. Because defending against tyranny doesn’t even necessarily mean killing tyrants, sometimes it just means making oneself a harder target to tyrannize.
(And once again, I should clarify I’m not necessarily siding with Bundy. I’m just pointing out that from his POV the government was being tyrannical, and his resistance against what he saw as tyranny WAS effective.)
If you want to see what the reaction to an armed insurection would be, I reccomend the American Civil War. Or do you really think that today’s “tyranical government” is that much more restrained than Lincoln’s government was?
Do they really maintain a monopoly on violence though? Almost anyone can get a gun. Moreso now than most recent points in American history if I understand the recent decisions regarding constitutional carry. Whether you’re on the right talking about “urban crime” and how Chicago’s daily forecast is supposed to be a storm of bullets, or on the left trying to do something about nutjobs with AKs in elementary schools and grocery stores, it’s pretty easy to see the government doesn’t maintain a monopoly on violence.
And as we know something that is well-regulated only refers to it being in physical working order, not following any sort of rules or order, right? Cause the interpretation that the second amendment protects the unfettered right of individual gun ownership is not very old.
Also we should amend the constitution to repeal the second amendment because it’s a moral harm on our society.
StOP GaSLigHtIng PeOpLe on THe IntERNeT bY diSAGreeInG wITh mE
Sounds like you also have an understanding of history that’s no more than 50 years old. That’s one of the most argued over sentences in American history, down to its inception.
I know guns are super cool and stuff but try not to trip on all the dead bodies on your way to getting a fuckin clue mate
The New Mexico constitution also has a right to bear arms and it’s not specified for a militia. Article 6 part 2:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Please explain then. This is not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it’s the right of the people. They are two distinct sentences. Please tell me how the militia has any impact on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
The founders wanted the militias to provide the bulk of the country’s defense and to not have a standing army. Anyone who owned a gun had to register it so that it could be verified to be in working order in case a militia needed to be formed. That whole idea of having the militia provide for our defense failed pretty quickly when several uncoordinated militias got their asses handed to them by Natives in the Northwest Territory. The federal government moved towards having an actual standing army and the role of militias shrunk.
That is not correct. Several colonies/states had passed laws against open carry in the years before and after the founding of the US including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and North Carolina.
I think this is what we have governors and presidents for, to act quickly, less carefully than a legislature. Whether or not it’s struck down in court, it at least bring attention to the problem.
The ban was issued as part of a declaration of a public health emergency involving gun violence. There is a ton of precedent for public health and safety taking priority over all. The classic example is that it is constitutional for the government to prevent you from trying to exercise your First Amendment right to free speech by yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater.
This is no different from that: there is a public health and safety issue preventing people from trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights as embodied¹ by New Mexico law.
This is the sad truth. His followers will keep sending him money regardless of what he has done or gets convicted of. It will only stop when his entire organization is shut down and everyone around him is either in jail or banned from raising funds like this.
They also tried to attack some of the Republicans though. It’s easy to know Pelosi by name even for them and her office must be identified, I bet most wouldn’t be able to tell it’s her if they crossed her on the street.
Pelosi had one of the “hideaway” offices. They’re intentionally kept secret so no name on the door, no open registry of who has what office. The location would need to be leaked by someone in the know.
Not to mention the removal/disabling of panic buttons not that long before the insurrection, the gallows, trying to move Pence to a 2nd location, etc… This shit was planned and they absolutely knew. The insurrectionists are stupid, but they’re not so stupid they can’t follow a floorplan leaked to them by an insider(my money’s on boebert).
Okay I understand why some people might feel paranoid that this in preparation for some potentially imminent attack… but can someone explain to me why so many of these people are so worried about the message itself being pushed to their phone? Like they’re talking about draining their batteries to avoid it—but like, why though?
Yeah, that’s what got me. I mean, it’s about as close as you can get to the literal tinfoil hat thing (wearing tinfoil on your head to stop the government or aliens or whatever from beaming into your brain.
The message is sending a virus made by the world known hacker, Bill Gates. After this Microsoft and ThE gOvErNmEnT know everything you do and who you talk to and what about and what websites you visit and tiktoks you look at. First step of total world domination.
Holy shit. That’s exactly what I was thinking! At this point, it’s just a matter of time before they start to charge people with future crime. How else can Elton’s “Starlink” be explained? Sounds like a project codename to me. What is it linking to? Obviously not our phones. They are looking into your life—where you are and what you’re doing. They’ll use their algorithms to determine who they think might commit a crime in the coming weeks, or if the algorithm sees you breaking one of the coming lockdown laws. Also, you’re hunting Tom Cruise. Why doesn’t anyone else see this but us?
I suppose there is fear of it being abused (think 1984 telescreens you’re unable to turn off)? There was a test recently here in the UK and we had the same fears discussed. The noise was pretty awful so I just turned it off, but maybe people don’t realise you can disable it.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.