wonderingwanderer

Using logic and physiology to justify why a man or a woman should do a certain thing is certainly not a unique or original take…

I mean I see what you’re saying, and if I had a wife I would gladly take risks for her so that she didn’t have to. But I’ve been told in the past that I was being sexist for having that mentality. Sort of an “I’m not a delicate flower and I don’t need you to do things for me!” type of situation.

So, being amenable to disagreement as I am, I adjusted my mentality. Women can be heros in stories, and they can take risks and handle dangerous situations in real life, too.

That’s why I find it a bit jarring when suddenly it seems the feminist take has become “Actually, men should do dangerous things for the women in their lives.” It kinda just feels like they’re willing to argue any position that 1) disagrees with something a man says; and 2) is convenient for their purposes at a given moment.

It’s just not consistent, and I have a hard time feeling convinced by anyone whose argument is inconsistent…

“Seeking help isn’t a weakness!” Until someone actually seeks help, then it’s always “Well you just need to help yourself.”

Classic

But do they know why six was afraid of seven?

You made it old when you said it. Could you imagine your own parents making 420 jokes?

There were stories about people waking up from the Qult, and their recovery process was very much like the process of recovering from any other cult: long and difficult, and impossible without social support.

I never said they aren’t responsible for their choices, for fuck’s sake. That’s the opposite of what I said.

This post is about a website that helps people “leaving maga.” What the fuck are you trying to argue, that no one does that and we shouldn’t help them? Anyone who leaves maga is a plus, even if they’re still responsible for their own voting record.

You’re failing to distinguish between people trying to leave the cult, and people actively participating in it. Thus missing my point entirely.

I have no sympathy for any trump supporters when it blows up in their faces, but if they finally realize they were wrong and decide to try to do better, it doesn’t atone for voting for him three times, but it’s a start. And if you have any idea how democracies work, you should want resources to be available to them to help them find their way out of the muck and do better. Otherwise you’re just kicking them back into it and wondering why trump has so many supporters after they all go back to the cult.

We should seize on any opportunity to deprogram right-wingers. Unless you’re an essentialist who believes people can never truly change their opinions and beliefs?

If people had had more compassion on folks leaving the Qanon cult way back when, and actually offered resources to deprogram and reintegrate into society instead of just blaming them for falling for the propaganda in the first place and treating them like they’re inherently flawed people with no hope of recovery, then maybe so many of them wouldn’t have just settled right back in to other right-wing echo chamber.

They collectively had no where else to go, so why is anybody surprised that it turned out the way it did?

Because tens of thousands of people protesting and thousands of them getting murdered by the government is so culturally relative. It’s hard to say what that’s about, because of you know the language barrier.

Anyway, my point stands that if people from outside Iran can’t determine what the people of Iran want, then they shouldn’t be complaining about Iranians possibly having a democratic referendum so that they can decide collectively what sort of government to replace the current regime with…

In one of my earlier comments, I said:

Yes, and covert recording by definition is done without the knowledge or consent of the one being recorded. It should be illegal everywhere, but some states have single-party consent laws which allow it.

In other words, I already distinguished between knowledge and consent because if I thought they were the same thing then it would have been redundant to mention both.

Anyway, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You’re basically saying you shouldn’t need someone’s consent to film them in public, but you can’t film them without they’re knowledge because it would mean you don’t have their informed consent? So you don’t need their consent, but you do?

Or are you just using this logical inconsistency to justify it when it doesn’t inconvenience anyone you care about, while still reserving enough room to condemn it when it inconveniences someone you do?

Single-party consent laws do not require the persons being recorded to have knowledge they’re being recorded. Hence, my criticism was of normalizing covert recording.

Adding a caveat that you don’t need consent to record someone, but you do need to inform them that they’re being recorded, doesn’t make any sense. Someone could stick a camera in your face and follow you around as long as they say “You’re being recorded.” People can’t just “walk away” under those circumstances, short of avoiding ever going out in public.

Also, saying she could have “altered the way in which she approached the interaction” sounds a lot like victim blaming. Just because someone doesn’t effectively respond to a situation does not imply they consent to it.

My point is that it presents more potential for harm than potential for good.

If single party consent is totally fine, then what’s the issue with the original post in question?

https://sopuli.xyz/post/40232627

One thing I’ve learned is that if it can be abused, the authorities will abuse it unless laws are passed to stop them. And even then they’ll try to change the laws or abuse it secretly.

Ken McCallum, the MI5 director general, previously warned of “clandestine, coercive or corruptive … interference activity”, and highlighted the case of Christine Lee, a lawyer whom MI5 issued a warning to MPs about in January 2022, accusing her of being engaged in “political interference activities” on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party.

How’s it feel being so obviously wrong?

Porque no los dos?

They just know the Charlie Kirk shooter wrote it on their bullet casings, so they assume it’s something an “antifa terrorist” would sing…

Well, they’re half-right…

“That person doesn’t sound american!”

Imagine if they start deporting Italians to Eswatini, FROM ITALY!

“Well he was olive-toned!”

Do you also support CCTV and flock cameras, then? Because that’s the same argument used to justify those.

“Be afraid of crime. Let the authorities spy on you. Now you’re protected.” What about when the authorities abuse their power? Who’s going to protect you then?

(For the record, I believe all public officials should be required to give up some of their expectations of privacy as a condition of working as a public official. The public requires a level of trust in them that it doesn’t require of ordinary private citizens. They should have to submit financial statements, and they should also have to declare unconditional consent to be recorded by anyone in any given moment, except in confidential spaces like homes, offices, briefing rooms, etc.)

But the thing is, in order to catch a bike thief on video, you have to already be recording either them or the bike, and since it’s nearly impossible to predict, the chances of catching it on camera are slim. Unless you use ubiquitous area cameras pointed at all the bike racks. And even then, if they’re casual enough or hide their face then no one would know they’re stealing it except the owner of the bike, or no one would be able to identify the person who stole it.

I don’t think giving the authorities (or the hive mind, for that matter) unrestricted access to constant recordings of every public space is a sensible idea, because it’s too prone to abuse. That’s how you get a surveillance state, like the USSR or america right now. They misinterpret a movement of your hand and label you “antifa terrorist” and you get flagged for closer scrutiny, where everything they observe you doing is then run through interpretive filters that are biased towards describing you as a terrorist.

Whoever is analyzing those recordings is going to be paranoid to some degree, or their algorithms are going to hallucinate patterns that aren’t there, or someone is going to get vindictive and use the power to abuse anyone they don’t like. Do you want every twitch, gesture, or facial expression being labelled and categorized by AI and then saved into a profile of you that some unknown spook can access at any time? Then when you notice plain clothes agents scoping you out, they get a screenshot of your face looking nervous and label it as “definitely guilty,” and they close in on you tighter and tighter until either your anxiety takes over and you’re labeled as paranoid/psychotic, or they push you into a panic attack and label your conduct “disorderly” and use it as a pretext to make an arrest?

The whole thing is too prone to abuse, and it’s not even an effective deterrent for crime prevention. I can’t agree with it. Better to build community trust and economic empowerment to address crime from the root causes; that’s the only method that’s been shown to significantly reduce crime.

Holy fucking shit.