I think that if you went to a psychologist they could diagnose you with a legitimate preoccupation with this kind of thing
I think that if you went to a psychologist they could diagnose you with a legitimate preoccupation with this kind of thing
You think they get it from gay people having Facebook on their phone
You think that gay people will be lynched because they have Facebook downloaded on their phone.
And you think that will happen to gay people because they use tiktok
What exactly do you think the anti gay hate groups are going to do?
Are things like that happening though? With the insurance?
I mean if the police want to come to my door and shoot me in the head or find a reason to brand me as a felon any day they can basically already do that. That goes for about anyone. It doesn’t really seem to matter if any data brokering company also happens to tag me as maybe being gay or having a 90% chance of supporting Palestine over Israel or similar
I dunno. I just feel like a lot of the argument are contingent on envisioning some imminent future wherein every Western country turns into a completely fascist police state with like concentration camps - but also they can only get their information on local demographics based off of data sold by social media companies? And foreign ones at that? And even in this situation you’re not really doing anything about it but just trying to lie low and hope no one discovers you’re an atheist or whatever until you die of old age?
It kind of reminds me of Pascals Wager. You know that one? Where it goes “ooo you have to believe in god because what if you don’t and the Christian god is real… you go to hell!?”. Like. Yeah, sure. I guess that could happen. But most people will shrug their shoulders at it, not really convinced. It requires a lot of assumptions
I’m going to be honest, I’m kind of of this mindset.
I haven’t yet had a decent argument made to me regarding why I should personally care if TikTok or whatever has like… my age gender and what types of books I read and what apps I have on my phone.
It’s my understanding that they really didn’t. The American Revolution was won in part because the Americans more often “adopted Native tactics” (I.e. attacking from tree lines, on paths on unsuspecting units moving from place to place, aiming for officers, etc).
The big Napoleonic blocks were done, but often just out of honor and so officers had some sense of “control” over the battle so they could both easily pull out before it descended into a large brawl where they might actually be killed
I appreciate unions, but I often feel like this website gets out of touch with them.
Many jobs simply do not lend themselves to having a union. They’re too niche, the employees are scattered around, there’s no willing union representation, etc. “These guys should just join a Union!! And if they have to - by golly, form one themselves!” Always comes off to me like such a reductive take on how complex a lot of working/employment systems are, and where unions can and cannot benefit.
It often pushes up on just being idealogical grandstanding rather than legitimately listening and understanding case by case problems in employment