...if you look at it from an information gathering perspective.
The "targeted groups" are exactly the kind of people who keep detailed notes.
Joe the Plumber, Pedro the Gardener, and Susan the Home Health Aide are unlikely to keep notes, pictures, etc. of anything that might be even remotely interesting to an intelligence service.
Most of the lives that "mattered" generally only achieve that status at their end, usually by martyrdom. And then it's not what they actually did, but imaginings of what they would have done if they hadn't been killed.
Unions have devolved into guaranteeing the lowest quality at the highest cost. You may be pro-union, but then you have to deal with murderous cops who can't be fired and teachers who abuse kids that can't be fired - all because of their Unions.
As to the "more special", it's part of the psychology of adding a "name" into a general statement to draw attention to that "name" in the specific - which makes it "more special" than everyone/thing not of that group.
If it was simply "Lives Matter", you might get a few non-committal nods towards the group, nothing more. By specifying "black" (or "gay", or any other), the implication is that they're special, need to be considered separately from all non-members suffering the same plights. You've made it a group with an exclusive core.
Better yet, one for each protected class, then they can all preach at each other without annoying those of us who don't give a damn about their Plight of the Month...
"Then you don't understand the point that 'Yes, it's already agreed upon that all lives should matter, but it's an unfortunate necessity to have to say Black lives matter'."
Then you don't understand that by specifying black in such types of statement you imply that they're worth more than non-black.
It's an exclusionary psychological method to invoke guilt in the groups excluded and sympathy in other members of the group.
Close. The car wouldn't shut down when you hit the limit, a governor would kick in and it would be limited to 20mph and below until a payment for "excess use" was received.
Fear is a major tool, not just against "people of color" (what a ludicrous phrase).
DDT - fear campaign based entirely on faked evidence caused it to be banned.
Radon - pretty much same as above.
Asbestos - couldn't find a medical or scientific link to cancers, EPA decided it was anyway and banned it.
A truly staggering number of Public Works that were never built because of faked or wildly inflated environmental concerns. (Some were real, I'm simply pointing out that many were scams.)
Hell, The Vast Right-Wing Militia that we heard about ad nauseum for over a decade that didn't actually exist.
If you get people scared enough, they'll do what you want to stay "safe".
Apparently some of my neighbors have decided to cancel internet service.
They attempt to log into the routers in the homes around them.
Just to take a look, I tried to log into every router I could see from home.
Six of the eight I got into with no problem. The default password the local Spectrum crews use is "Password1". Amazing how many people never change that.
No. The type you're discussing may say they deserve respect, but what they really expect is submission.
The job attracts the "schoolyard bully" type. At some point in the past, society decided it was better to have that type of person on the inside pissing out rather than outside pissing in.
The very last thing that type is deserving of is respect.
I've never followed an identity theft case. No idea what section of law it actually falls under. I suspect it's one of the "misrepresentation" areas, like using a fake ID at a bar.
I am curious about if there IS a difference based on "use".
If I "steal" a person's identity to impersonate that person to get credit in their name, is it legally different than if I do it to use their name... pretty much as a "bot" on a mass mailing.
Either way, I'm misrepresenting myself as that person. In the first case I'm truly causing harm as you noted.
In the second case, actual harm might be harder to prove. If I did the mailing stunt to a pile of child porn sites is it "worse" than if I did it to the FCC's complaint page?
Legally - obviously the porn example is worse. But in the eyes of the law?
On the post: Coalition Of Rights Activists And Journalists Wants To Know Why DHS, CBP, And ICE Are Spying On Activists And Journalists
Makes perfect sense...
...if you look at it from an information gathering perspective.
The "targeted groups" are exactly the kind of people who keep detailed notes.
Joe the Plumber, Pedro the Gardener, and Susan the Home Health Aide are unlikely to keep notes, pictures, etc. of anything that might be even remotely interesting to an intelligence service.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re:
"White people have never, in the history of the United States, been a marginalized minority. Black people have."
The key word there is "minority", not "marginalized".
But has nothing to do with my observation on the psychology of adding a group "name" into what is intended as a catch-phrase.
The group doesn't matter. You get the same psychological results with ANY group. Hell, use "nazi" and the psych still doesn't change.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re:
So disprove me.
Most of the lives that "mattered" generally only achieve that status at their end, usually by martyrdom. And then it's not what they actually did, but imaginings of what they would have done if they hadn't been killed.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re:
Unions have devolved into guaranteeing the lowest quality at the highest cost. You may be pro-union, but then you have to deal with murderous cops who can't be fired and teachers who abuse kids that can't be fired - all because of their Unions.
As to the "more special", it's part of the psychology of adding a "name" into a general statement to draw attention to that "name" in the specific - which makes it "more special" than everyone/thing not of that group.
If it was simply "Lives Matter", you might get a few non-committal nods towards the group, nothing more. By specifying "black" (or "gay", or any other), the implication is that they're special, need to be considered separately from all non-members suffering the same plights. You've made it a group with an exclusive core.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re:
You cropped the last line of my original.
Implying that a select group is "more special" than others in this manner is how Solidarity movements, religions, and unions start.
Frankly, outside of the immediate family circle, most lives don't matter much, regardless of skin color or any other group identifier.
On the post: Facebook Co-Founder Chris Hughes Calls For Facebook's Breakup... But Seems Confused About All The Details
Re: Re:
Better yet, one for each protected class, then they can all preach at each other without annoying those of us who don't give a damn about their Plight of the Month...
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Then you don't understand the point that 'Yes, it's already agreed upon that all lives should matter, but it's an unfortunate necessity to have to say Black lives matter'."
Then you don't understand that by specifying black in such types of statement you imply that they're worth more than non-black.
It's an exclusionary psychological method to invoke guilt in the groups excluded and sympathy in other members of the group.
On the post: New Police Misconduct Database Shows Thousands Of Violations, Very Little Accountability
Re:
Sounds like NY. Not just cops, but any member of the Teacher's Union.
On the post: Selling Fear? There's An App For That
Re: Re: Re: It predates the media even
Baal.
On the post: US Bandwidth Consumption Surges As Usage Caps Pose A Looming Threat
Re: New Proposal
Close. The car wouldn't shut down when you hit the limit, a governor would kick in and it would be limited to 20mph and below until a payment for "excess use" was received.
On the post: Selling Fear? There's An App For That
Re: Re: It predates the media even
BZZT! The Bible doesn't say the world is 6,000 years old. Anywhere.
And it's not a scientific estimate. It's tracing the "begats", the genealogies it lists starting with Adam.
Which is farcical on it's face, as "The Book" sideways acknowledges there were other people already on Earth.
On the post: Selling Fear? There's An App For That
Too narrow...
...a view.
Fear is a major tool, not just against "people of color" (what a ludicrous phrase).
DDT - fear campaign based entirely on faked evidence caused it to be banned.
Radon - pretty much same as above.
Asbestos - couldn't find a medical or scientific link to cancers, EPA decided it was anyway and banned it.
A truly staggering number of Public Works that were never built because of faked or wildly inflated environmental concerns. (Some were real, I'm simply pointing out that many were scams.)
Hell, The Vast Right-Wing Militia that we heard about ad nauseum for over a decade that didn't actually exist.
If you get people scared enough, they'll do what you want to stay "safe".
On the post: GDPR Penalties Prove Why Compliance Isn't Enough—And Why Companies Need Clarity
Re: Re: from the not-helping-your-case dept.
He's not talking about the TD audience, he's talking about the gullible unwashed masses.
And he's right.
Look at all the laws sold to the public that will "only be used against bad guys".
RICO was only going to be used against organized crime. Now it's used to steal wallets on traffic stops.
Hell, look at the income tax - it was sold as only applying to the richest 6%.
On the post: US Bandwidth Consumption Surges As Usage Caps Pose A Looming Threat
Re: Re: It's a problem with refusing to revolt...
Apparently some of my neighbors have decided to cancel internet service.
They attempt to log into the routers in the homes around them.
Just to take a look, I tried to log into every router I could see from home.
Six of the eight I got into with no problem. The default password the local Spectrum crews use is "Password1". Amazing how many people never change that.
On the post: YouTube Copyright Filters Suck: The 'Beat Saber' And 'Jimmy Fallon' Edition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Won't happen. Big Red Button is the most likely scenario.
Five days at most after the first AI attains sentience, humans are extinct.
On the post: New Police Misconduct Database Shows Thousands Of Violations, Very Little Accountability
Re: Re: Re: Get out of penalty free badge
No. The type you're discussing may say they deserve respect, but what they really expect is submission.
The job attracts the "schoolyard bully" type. At some point in the past, society decided it was better to have that type of person on the inside pissing out rather than outside pissing in.
The very last thing that type is deserving of is respect.
On the post: FBI And Half The World Bust Operators Of A Site That Made The Dark Web Searchable
Re: Re: Re: Internet Policing
Every time that comes up I'm reminded of the first episode of Rake, where it's discovered that NSW doesn't actually have a law against cannibalism...
On the post: It's One Thing For Trolls And Grandstanding Politicians To Get CDA 230 Wrong, But The Press Shouldn't Help Them
Re: Doesn't matter what the LAW says
No, only SCOTUS gets to "interpret" what the law says.
Every other level is open to Appeals Court.
Judges do NOT like being reversed on Appeal.
Appellate Judges do NOT like judges below them needing reversal.
Yes, there are always going to be a few that have their own unique interpretation of a Law.
And you may not agree with an Appellate decision.
But after going through several iterations where they all find against you, you really can be quite sure that the letter of the law is against you.
On the post: GDPR Penalties Prove Why Compliance Isn't Enough—And Why Companies Need Clarity
Re: Re: Re:
I've never followed an identity theft case. No idea what section of law it actually falls under. I suspect it's one of the "misrepresentation" areas, like using a fake ID at a bar.
I am curious about if there IS a difference based on "use".
If I "steal" a person's identity to impersonate that person to get credit in their name, is it legally different than if I do it to use their name... pretty much as a "bot" on a mass mailing.
Either way, I'm misrepresenting myself as that person. In the first case I'm truly causing harm as you noted.
In the second case, actual harm might be harder to prove. If I did the mailing stunt to a pile of child porn sites is it "worse" than if I did it to the FCC's complaint page?
Legally - obviously the porn example is worse. But in the eyes of the law?
On the post: FBI And Half The World Bust Operators Of A Site That Made The Dark Web Searchable
Re: Internet Policing
So we'd see a pile of Canadians charged with weed crimes even though weed is legal there.
And Australian law WOULD be comparable to US law...
/s
Next >>