Saw a friend's post that they are going to be limiting their activity on social media because they have to leave the country. Also saw a news source the other day about how so many companies are divesting from Persona and Flock, recently. And of course, all of my US folks should know about how the govt. is currently checking folks' social media when they re-enter the country.
I throw around calling things "scary" on this site quite a bit so I wanted to like actually talk about what it means for things to be scary. I think of it like thalassophobia, where you think of going no further, where there is this horrifying thing of: I am morbidly curious about where this is going. This seems so unsustainable or the pattern is repeating (see cults: why does 100rb also live on a boat?? brother it's so weird to me that the zizians did that too? not that they're the same but why do they have this same patron -- and that I like sailors, that I like nauticity,) this thing of I am afraid of being Like Them. Looking too far into this mirror will mess me up; swimming too deep in. And sometimes I'm struck by the normality of it all, when I see that the cult façade is nothing and these are just scared people, but other times what I am struck by is the trancelike state I enter while writing and my inability to articulate and if I could articulate, how similar would these things be? what are my deepstate brainthoughts? Brainsex, if you will.
If I'm being honest, the really scary thing is that I'm using words in the pattern that Sʜᴇ does. If you got here from the cult page, notice the link you got here: the quasi-lie, necessity of parsing what I'm saying to figure out what I mean by scary. Because you are not inside my brain, and so probably, less you're a cowboy, can't figure it all out.
Surveillance is the state in which my brain operates: constantly surveiling self. This is the thing of obsessive compulsive, where there's always some level of dissociation when you're not feeling your best. Will finish later. How is this like the US? bring it back folks
the balance to be had is between safety and expression. The act of expressing speech generally is a dangerous one, as Baudrillard examines in the beginning of Simulacra: simply by recognizing something you perpetuate its existence. That creates a really big argument for why we shouldn't acknowledge harmful speech, we should simply remove it. Interacting with it platforms it. But how do we teach what language is harmful? Should everyone just be expected to know it? ... and so on and so forth. The fascist effort is to limit the speech, it is to abridge the speech. See Schenck v. US. Yet there are legitimately children who are hurt on the internet, and they must be protected. It is my sincere belief, as it is of many on this side of the web, that largely the duty of child protection falls to the parents. When we're talking about mentality? When we're talking about the internet? That's not the govt.'s role. We've seen time and time again that destroying encryption and implementing unsafe age limits / ID scanners -->--> bad stuff happening. It is under this guise of protecting children. Yet then we still let AI models generate images of children.
See nationalism for more.