Checking in... Anxiety about current events

[Terabith]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

They have rejected following God to instead follow the political leader(s) of their choice.  Which has an added level of irony since Jesus Christ specifically rejected becoming a political leader in His time and instead chose to willingly go to the cross to pay the penalty for people's sins - thus paving the way for us to be in His eternal kingdom, not an earthly one.  They are dangerously ignorant Christians at best, and not really followers of Christ at the worst.  (Based on what the Bible says identifies a follower of Christ.)

It is literally blasphemy.  (And idolatry too.)  

[Scarlett]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

They have rejected following God to instead follow the political leader(s) of their choice.  Which has an added level of irony since Jesus Christ specifically rejected becoming a political leader in His time and instead chose to willingly go to the cross to pay the penalty for people's sins - thus paving the way for us to be in His eternal kingdom, not an earthly one.  They are dangerously ignorant Christians at best, and not really followers of Christ at the worst.  (Based on what the Bible says identifies a follower of Christ.)

I can’t even believe some of the things that are coming out of some people’s mouths.  This weekend I was chatting via text with an old friend.  We worked together in my life before ds almost 21 was born.  So I quit there 21 years ago.  We stay in touch.  We are FB friends. I never even knew her to be political although I did think she was religious.  I have seen a shift since 2016 and I hear all politics out of her and very little religion,,

So in our conversation I was asking her if she was thinking of retiring, if she had a plan, etc.  that led to a discussion about social security.....I told her until I went back to work a few years back I did not have enough credits because I had been out of the work force so long. She suddenly said, ‘sad you wouldn’t be eligible for ss but-an illegal can collect’.  
 

I mean what the heck. All I said was, ‘I don’t think someone who is here illegally can collect social security’.   I quickly moved the conversation on to something else but wow I felt like I was talking to a stranger.  
 

This is what things have come to.  She is not a close person to me....I can not talk to her and things are fine......but if she was my sister or my MIL.....,wow.  How do you keep up relationships with people who believe stuff like that??

[Ausmumof3]

edited actually as probably too political 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Katy]

11 hours ago, SKL said:

LOL I'm a female lawyer and I like things clean and organized.  The engineer in our house is the opposite, lol.  As for my kids, my more engineering-minded one is an even bigger slob than her auntie.

Don’t get me wrong, DH is an engineer and he was a huge slob when we first met. Though I think part of it was too much stuff without a home rather than dirty. I’m sure it was just the combination of my friends, not a generalization that could be applied to everyone. I became friends with our last adoption attorney and she seems highly organized, though we’re not so close I’d go poking through her pantry or anything. 

[Pen]

On 1/17/2021 at 8:00 AM, hopeallgoeswell said:

I watched part of a hearing with a military cyber security person. He explained how the machines are supposed to be set up in order to be secure, but due to how the instructions are actually written, security measures were effectively negated. 

I have been away for a few days. I know I was referring to election related hearings, but either I must have been mistaken as to the topic or else it has changed in the meantime

 

eta: aha ! I just figured out what you are talking about! Yes it does relate exactly to what I was talking about !!!! 😁

Edited January 25, 2021 by Pen

[Pen]

US Constitution: somewhere on these forums I saw references to US Constitution as not important and something that should be relegated to just historical status. I think possibly from @Not_a_Number and / or others. I had critical IRL things to deal with and still do, but had a moment and wanted to come back to post here.

 I have taken oaths to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Many other people have too. I and many others take this extremely seriously, and take the Constitution of the United States of America as a foundational law for our country.

I am making this statement in defense of the Constitution of the United States of America. 
 

Rather than disparage our Constitution I would suggest that you all start reading it. And teaching it to your children and whatever level they are capable of. 
 

My apologies to @Not_a_Number if it wasn’t you who was one of the people — it’s been several days with a bunch of difficult irl stuff 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Pen

[DoraBora]

I had to scroll to the top of this page to be sure I wasn't on the politics board.

[Not_a_Number]

8 hours ago, Pen said:

US Constitution: somewhere on these forums I saw references to US Constitution as not important and something that should be relegated to just historical status. I think possibly from @Not_a_Number and / or others. I had critical IRL things to deal with and still do, but had a moment and wanted to come back to post here.

I don't think anyone said that. That's a straw man. What people have consistently said is that given that the Constitution is a document that refers to a society that NO LONGER EXISTS, we need to interpret what it says, and that interpretive task is informed by historical precedent. 

ETA: I think I first heard the point of view that the Constitution requires some interpretation in a speech by David Souter at my SIL's law school graduation. So it's not like I'm making this perspective up... 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[MercyA]

@Not_a_Number, you're back! ❤️

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, MercyA said:

@Not_a_Number, you're back! ❤️

I'm always around, lol. I've just been on the education boards for a while. There were some math threads that needed input 😉 . 

[desertflower]

Folks - Please keep to topic at hand.  Take the politics to the politics board.  Thanks. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, desertflower said:

Folks - Please keep to topic at hand.  Take the politics to the politics board.  Thanks. 

The topic at hand is a seditionist mob that stormed the Capitol and caused anxiety. That mob was encouraged by certain people. Is naming those people political? 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[katilac]

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

The topic at hand is a seditionist mob that stormed the Capitol and caused anxiety. That mob was encouraged by certain people. Is naming those people political? 

It will certainly turn the thread political very quickly. We aren't supposed to discuss any politics on the boards whatsoever. We've been given a lot of rope in this rather extraordinary year, so let's try not to hang ourselves with it and get threads locked. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

It will certainly turn the thread political very quickly. We aren't supposed to discuss any politics on the boards whatsoever. We've been given a lot of rope in this rather extraordinary year, so let's try not to hang ourselves with it and get threads locked. 

They do seem to get locked eventually 😉 . It’s hard not to cross that line, especially since I don’t know what the lines are. What’s the definition of “politics”?

[katilac]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

They do seem to get locked eventually 😉 . It’s hard not to cross that line, especially since I don’t know what the lines are. What’s the definition of “politics”?

This board's definition is posts "that discuss the policies and politicians of the Democratic, Republican, libertarian, Tea Party, or other political parties." So, most recently on this thread, calling out politicians by name. Other stuff, too,  but the mods have been giving much more leeway than usual. I appreciate it, because a series of important and extraordinary events have occurred over the past year, so I do try to remember when I'm on the main boards and not overly push it. 

[Ausmumof3]

Seeing this thread is back up just wondering if everyone is feeling less anxious in general now?  Inauguration Day seems so worrying but went by smoothly, does it feel like the worst is over.  Dh reports that firearms shops here have had shops from the US calling trying to buy back ammunition (typically goes the other way).  Of course that’s a 3rd or 4th hand story by the time it gets on this thread (shop owner to dh to me to you) so take it for what it’s worth.

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Seeing this thread is back up just wondering if everyone is feeling less anxious in general now?  Inauguration Day seems so worrying but went by smoothly, does it feel like the worst is over.  Dh reports that firearms shops here have had shops from the US calling trying to buy back ammunition (typically goes the other way).  Of course that’s a 3rd or 4th hand story by the time it gets on this thread (shop owner to dh to me to you) so take it for what it’s worth.

I'm feeling somewhat cautiously optimistic. How's that for hedging bets? LOL

I think there's been an ammunition shortage here for a very long time. I don't doubt that the election outcome has made it worse, though.

[Katy]

I’m cautiously optimistic too. 

[katilac]

5 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Seeing this thread is back up just wondering if everyone is feeling less anxious in general now?  Inauguration Day seems so worrying but went by smoothly, does it feel like the worst is over.  Dh reports that firearms shops here have had shops from the US calling trying to buy back ammunition (typically goes the other way).  Of course that’s a 3rd or 4th hand story by the time it gets on this thread (shop owner to dh to me to you) so take it for what it’s worth.

I did feel much better once the inauguration went smoothly. Widespread issues would have indicated a very serious security problem to me.

[OH_Homeschooler]

6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Seeing this thread is back up just wondering if everyone is feeling less anxious in general now?  Inauguration Day seems so worrying but went by smoothly, does it feel like the worst is over.  Dh reports that firearms shops here have had shops from the US calling trying to buy back ammunition (typically goes the other way).  Of course that’s a 3rd or 4th hand story by the time it gets on this thread (shop owner to dh to me to you) so take it for what it’s worth.

Definitely! My sleep is much better. I'm excited that Biden is getting so much done so quickly. I'm excited to see how happy Fauci is to be working with the new administration. As a lot of people have been saying, I'm enjoying that the news is getting to be boring again. 

[SKL]

Well it hasn't all died down, only what was happening in DC has.  I guess it depends which part of the US you're looking at.

As for how I feel, it's about the same as 12 years ago.  Well, maybe a little better, because some important issues were recently brought out that will hopefully get some traction.  And the economy is actually pretty good in comparison (for now), despite the troubles of the past year.  And we haven't been warring around the globe as much in recent years.

Regarding the big emotions of 2-3 weeks ago, it has died down just like I predicted it would.  Most people believe (and it's probably true) that we don't need the extreme visible military presence in DC, if we ever did.

[desertflower]

16 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm always around, lol. I've just been on the education boards for a while. There were some math threads that needed input 😉 . 

It's a fine line.  It's hard for me to tell too.  But what Frances said above is obviously too political.

We can express our sorrow and shock over what happened at the capitol, but we can't name anyone for the blame.  That belongs to the politics board. 

Saying that you are happy that inauguration day went smoothly, I think is fine.  But saying one is happy that Biden is getting so much done is not - in my opinion.  Because this causes conflict with people who didn't vote for Biden.  They could always raise the issue of what he's getting done or have issue at how quickly and not thought out his executive orders are, etc. 

Thanks Frances and OH_Homeschoole for letting me use you guys for an example.

I haven't read the first 16 pages of this thread and don't plan too.  But if we continue to get reports that this thread is becoming political, we will have to lock the thread and advice you guys to go over to the politics board. 

[Spryte]

2 hours ago, kand said:

Really? There was a violent insurrection at the Capitol just a few weeks ago with promises of more coming. “Most” people don’t believe we needed to amp up security? I wonder why not?

“Most” must be dependent on the people one knows and the media one consumes.

Asking why not ramp up the security is a  very good question. 
 

 

As for the thread topic, I feel less adrenaline and immediate upset, but still feel stressed.  I feel there’s still the potential for violence to erupt, from people who believe in weird conspiracies.  And each time I hear of an arrest from the Capitol Riots, I instantly wonder if it’s a particular neighbor or two.  Which doesn’t say much for how safe I feel in our otherwise nice neighborhood.

[Sneezyone]

I can’t say my anxiety is gone. The identification of so many radicalized individuals with recent military experience hits close to home. DH has worked with people through the years who’ve made no secret of their racist sympathies but the violent overthrow of the government wasn’t something I truly entertained as possible. I’m hopeful that the new SecDef will make rooting those folks out a priority. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Spryte]

On 1/26/2021 at 3:48 PM, Spryte said:

 

As for the thread topic, I feel less adrenaline and immediate upset, but still feel stressed.  I feel there’s still the potential for violence to erupt, from people who believe in weird conspiracies.  

Quoting myself, which feels odd, but the report today from DHS reinforces the feeling I referenced above.  If you haven’t seen the report, here’s one link to an article about it.  It’s DHS, so take your pick of articles, left or right leaning about it.  It’s the report itself I find discouraging.  This one is WSJ, I’m sure someone will not like that resource, but there are many options.  https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-alert-for-domestic-extremists-11611770893

 

ETA: here’s the DHS report itself https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ntas/alerts/21_0127_ntas-bulletin.pdf in case the above is paywalled or distasteful to some.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Spryte

[Not_a_Number]

23 hours ago, Spryte said:

As for the thread topic, I feel less adrenaline and immediate upset, but still feel stressed.  I feel there’s still the potential for violence to erupt, from people who believe in weird conspiracies.

Yeah, same. I feel more relaxed but there's an undercurrent of stress. Which... is better than worrying about violence erupting in the near future, I guess. But it's still not my favorite thing. 

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Spryte said:

Quoting myself, which feels odd, but the report today from DHS reinforces the feeling I referenced above.  If you haven’t seen the report, here’s one link to an article about it.  It’s DHS, so take your pick of articles, left or right leaning about it.  It’s the report itself I find discouraging.  This one is WSJ, I’m sure someone will not like that resource, but there are many options.  https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-alert-for-domestic-extremists-11611770893

 

ETA: here’s the DHS report itself https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/ntas/alerts/21_0127_ntas-bulletin.pdf in case the above is paywalled or distasteful to some.

This has been an issue for a LONG time but didn’t get much traction once the memory of OKC receded. It was clear to those of us with eyes and a modicum of exposure to military and LEO life that radicalization was occurring. Military members are a very small fraction of the US population (max 5%) and yet they made up a very large percentage of people arrested in connection with the Capitol attack (15-20%). There have always been ‘a few bad apples’ but there has been a growing subset of ppl who sympathize with and were ultimately willing co-sign the behavior of bad actors. The few official reports that were allowed to be released said as much. Military members went on record saying this was a growing problem in official surveys.  It was swept under the rug for way too long and, IMO, the problem is still being downplayed. Now we all get to pay. Are most people great? Yes. Has the brass allowed this problem to fester and grow? Also yes.
 

The off-hours social media posts of members (and spouses) was totally ignored as an indicator of radicalization, for ex. The minority military spouse group I help moderate has over 9k members, most of whom are refugees from local command and independent groups. The incidents I’ve seen reported and discussed would curl your hair.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Danae]

The thing that has me taken aback is how many people seem to be lusting for televised extra-judicial executions.  

I thought everyone was horrified by ISIS beheading people on video. It's not something I would have expected to see people calling for in the US and being egged-on rather than shunned for it.   

 

[historically accurate]

1 minute ago, Danae said:

The thing that has me taken aback is how many people seem to be lusting for televised extra-judicial executions.  

I thought everyone was horrified by ISIS beheading people on video. It's not something I would have expected to see people calling for in the US and being egged-on rather than shunned for it.   

 

I think a lot of that stems from the fact that there is such a pervasive idea that the system (be it the government, the courts, Hollywood, the media) is "rigged". In many people's eyes, there is no way a high-ranking official would ever be found guilty because the Deep State would somehow cover it up. Pair that belief in widespread coverups with the horrifying crimes against children that Q-Anon believers think members of the government have perpetrated, and it's pretty easy to get to the idea that the only way to see justice served is to be the judge, jury and executioner. 

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, Danae said:

The thing that has me taken aback is how many people seem to be lusting for televised extra-judicial executions.  

I thought everyone was horrified by ISIS beheading people on video. It's not something I would have expected to see people calling for in the US and being egged-on rather than shunned for it.   

 

War criminals were pardoned. PARDONED. People who shot, stabbed, and/or tortured men, women and children without a second thought were rewarded. Out of control, animalistic behavior was treated as a badge of honor. Can anyone really be surprised that a certain swath of people find it easy to believe the victims inhuman and deserving of whatever comes their way?

Edited January 27, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Pam in CT]

re public lust for televised extrajudicial executions

3 hours ago, Danae said:

The thing that has me taken aback is how many people seem to be lusting for televised extra-judicial executions.  

I thought everyone was horrified by ISIS beheading people on video. It's not something I would have expected to see people calling for in the US and being egged-on rather than shunned for it.   

 

Maybe as a culture we've recently been Pavlovian-trained by Hunger Games- and Survivor- storylines, or hunt and assassinate video games, or the inside-a-reality-TV-show nature of the last few years.

Or maybe it's the same phenomenon as Sunday picnics to watch lynchings.

The core fantasy of the QAnon conspiracy always was an expected culmination in which the the perceived "enemies" would be rounded up, hauled before fast-tracked "martial courts" and publicly executed.  Bloodlust always was the organizing longing.

 

Dismaying for sure.  There were warning signs.

[Sneezyone]

19 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re public lust for televised extrajudicial executions

Maybe as a culture we've recently been Pavlovian-trained by Hunger Games- and Survivor- storylines, or hunt and assassinate video games, or the inside-a-reality-TV-show nature of the last few years.

Or maybe it's the same phenomenon as Sunday picnics to watch lynchings.

The core fantasy of the QAnon conspiracy always was an expected culmination in which the the perceived "enemies" would be rounded up, hauled before fast-tracked "martial courts" and publicly executed.  Bloodlust always was the organizing longing.

 

Dismaying for sure.  There were warning signs.

The thing is, there’s a significant risk that people will avert their gaze too quickly and view the absence of open conflict as an indicator of peace. We are not at peace. Members of Congress, of both parties, are at risk right now. A man was just arrested in DC yesterday bearing “big lie” propaganda and a gun. Someone called a sitting member of congress and his brother on an unlisted number to threaten violence (and described the neighborhood where these individuals lived). If folks really think things have died down and all is well I’d like to know what they’re smoking. Would that we could all check out so easily. We are witnessing the banality of evil.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

41 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The thing is, there’s a significant risk that people will avert their gaze too quickly and view the absence of open conflict as an indicator of peace.

I'm both finding myself less focused on the issue and am painfully aware that this is a consequence of nothing more than conspiracy fatigue. Just because I can't bear the stress anymore doesn't mean the world has gotten less dangerous. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Carol in Cal.]

On 1/12/2021 at 3:00 AM, Quill said:

The head company officials at Parler do not have a right to be hosted on Amazon Web Services, nor do they have a right to be hosted as an app by Apple. It is completely within a company’s rights to turn away business from another company. 

Suppose someone developed an app called, “InstaKink,” where users could post and seek videos and conversation displaying sexual kinks including bestiality, children, restraints, asphyxiation, etc. Does Amazon have the right to say, “No, we will not host that site; we believe it is harmful to society and some percentage of posts may be illegal activity”. Yes, they have that right. So does any other company of any size. 

Censorship has to do with the government’s restrictions of its citizens. It does not have to do with a non-government company. 

 

This is mostly true, but there is another question here, and it's inherent.

At what point do companies like Zoom, Facebook, Google, etc. become so ubiquitous and so necessary that they cross over into being essentially utilities or news outlets?  Or monopolies?  Like ATT?

[Pam in CT]

re what we are witnessing vs impulse to avert the gaze and "Move On!" too briskly

43 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The thing is, there’s a significant risk that people will avert their gaze too quickly and view the absence of open conflict as an indicator of peace. We are not at peace. Members of Congress, of both parties, are at risk right now. A man was just arrested in DC yesterday bearing “big lie” propaganda and a gun. Someone called a sitting member of congress’s and his brother on an unlisted number to threaten violence (and described the neighborhood where these individuals lived). If folks really think things have died down and all is well I’d like to know what they’re smoking. Would that we could all check out so easily. We are witnessing the banality of evil.

Right.  The root causes of the 1/6 insurrection to overturn the results of the election are all still there.

 

Including...

4 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

We live in a violent culture. The Feds executed a handful of people last year including a women who experienced horrific abuse as a child causing her to suffer from significant mental illness.

... this, which is itself a reflection of the same bloodlust. 

There were no federal executions at all from 2003 to 2020 -- throughout all those years, Presidents of both parties held a moratorium on capital punishment.  There were thirteen between 7/14/20 right up to 1/16/20.  Three in the week before the Inauguration.

Lisa Montgomery's was particularly horrific.  But the enthusiasm and speed for federal executions reflects the same bloodlust coming from the same principals as was evidenced in the coup itself.

 

 

re quiet before a dreaded second storm

14 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

I am honestly a bit spooked by the quietness of it all. I’m afraid it’s a calm before the storm atmosphere. I pray I am wrong. 

There are solid evidence-based reasons to be a bit spooked.

OTOH, there've been more than 80 arrests and the FBI are actively hunting for others who've shown up on surveillance cameras and other video feeds -- which means that a good number of the 1/6 coup participants are either subject to bail conditions, or trying to stay under the radar.  That doesn't solve for the root causes in the slightest, but it may well account for the quiet.

 

 

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is mostly true, but there is another question here, and it's inherent.

At what point do companies like Zoom, Facebook, Google, etc. become so ubiquitous and so necessary that they cross over into being essentially utilities or news outlets?  Or monopolies?  Like ATT?

Yes, I agree. They are acting as news outlets. But I'm not sure this opens them up to anything in particular. 

As for monopolies, I agree there, too. I'm all for breaking up monopolies. That's not really the usual stance of people currently complaining about these companies, though. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is mostly true, but there is another question here, and it's inherent.

At what point do companies like Zoom, Facebook, Google, etc. become so ubiquitous and so necessary that they cross over into being essentially utilities or news outlets?  Or monopolies?  Like ATT?

It’s a fair point but whether a company is monopolizing a market vs whether they can “censor” content or users are separate issues, right? 
I mean, it makes me a little bonkers when people conflate decisions on which content is permitted with “censorship”. We are “censored” in this site; if people don’t like that, they don’t have to use this site. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is mostly true, but there is another question here, and it's inherent.

At what point do companies like Zoom, Facebook, Google, etc. become so ubiquitous and so necessary that they cross over into being essentially utilities or news outlets?  Or monopolies?  Like ATT?

I love this question b/c I've long believed the Internet is a public utility and should be regulated as such, ensuring equal access for non-preferred (vs. paid/sponsored) content and equal broadband access for rural communities. That's not a popular opinion tho. Regulation wouldn't allow for the promotion of conspiracy theories for profit, nor would it permit the open sharing of falsehoods or state legislatures to outlaw local utilities from forming broadband cooperatives. I think Internet news sources should be subject to the same defamation rules that traditional media outlets are bound by.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Sneezyone
clarification

[Not_a_Number]

25 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I love this question b/c I've long believed the Internet is a public utility and should be regulated as such, ensuring equal access for non-preferred (paid/sponsored) content. That's not a popular opinion tho. Regulation wouldn't allow for the promotion of conspiracy theories for profit, nor would it permit the open sharing of falsehoods. I think Internet news sources should be subject to the same defamation rules that traditional media outlets are bound by.

Yep. Agreed. But I don't think people actually want that. 

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yep. Agreed. But I don't think people actually want that. 

I don't think so either but a girl can dream...

IMHO, Ajit Pai was a pimple on the butt of humanity and I'm glad to see him gone.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

It’s a fair point but whether a company is monopolizing a market vs whether they can “censor” content or users are separate issues, right? 
I mean, it makes me a little bonkers when people conflate decisions on which content is permitted with “censorship”. We are “censored” in this site; if people don’t like that, they don’t have to use this site. 

I think that it goes to the issue of how much control in that market any one company should have.  As a society, we have enacted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to prevent total dominance by any one company, and we have applied that to utilities.  It's not entirely that I think Facebook or whatever should not censor its content--it's that the bigger and more predominant any one company gets, the more dangerous it is to a civil society to let it make unilateral private decisions.  

By analogy, if Hobby Lobby were as big as Michaels, and if Michaels were gone, I would feel differently about their right to claim private company interest in defining their own health care plan.  They are still kind of medium sized, and they have reasonable competition, so it passes the sniff test for me.  But Facebook doesn't, so much.

On a related note, I still miss Netscape Navigator.  And I still think Microsoft is evil.  So there you go.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

I love this question b/c I've long believed the Internet is a public utility and should be regulated as such, ensuring equal access for non-preferred (vs. paid/sponsored) content and equal broadband access for rural communities. That's not a popular opinion tho. Regulation wouldn't allow for the promotion of conspiracy theories for profit, nor would it permit the open sharing of falsehoods or state legislatures to outlaw local utilities from forming broadband cooperatives. I think Internet news sources should be subject to the same defamation rules that traditional media outlets are bound by.

I agree, entirely.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

On a related note, I still miss Netscape Navigator.  And I still think Microsoft is evil.  So there you go.

I think it's realistic to expect any big company to be mostly motivated by its bottom line, and that's certainly how all of these companies behave. 

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I agree, entirely.

Funny thing is, when you talk to real people, there’s a lot of common ground on the topic. We tried using a ‘public’ Internet option in AR just for public schools (for Pete’s sake) and the knives came out. Cable companies teamed up with phone companies, lobbyists, and the esteemed Mr. Pai to defeat the efforts. They’re still robbing rural states/communities, schools and taxpayers blind as a result. They still haven’t gone the last mile to underserved communities/schools and, well, we can all see why that was important now... We started ringing alarm bells 10 flipping years ago. Makes me so mad. 
 

With any luck, we will see more antitrust enforcement in the years to come. We need it.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, kand said:

Do you use Firefox? I went from Netscape to Firefox and continue to use Firefox everywhere but on my phone (I have it on my phone, but I haven't gotten into the habit of it there yet).

I don't--it didn't always work for me, so I switched to chrome.

[Pen]

This is related to s€x  traffic - nonpartisan -  concern for children https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VfYiMPCh4L4

 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Pen
Better link

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I don't--it didn't always work for me, so I switched to chrome.

I do like Chrome 🙂 . It's super lightweight. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

If you're listening to this stuff, you are too deep into the conspiracy world. 

Quoted for truth, lol. 

[katilac]

 

6 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

We live in a violent culture. The Feds executed a handful of people last year including a women who experienced horrific abuse as a child causing her to suffer from significant mental illness. 

 

5 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

Lisa Montgomery's was particularly horrific.  But the enthusiasm and speed for federal executions reflects the same bloodlust coming from the same principals as was evidenced in the coup itself.

The death penalty discussion can't really be centered around whether we should execute a particular individual who experienced horrific abuse and then went on to commit a horrific crime - if we did not execute people who experienced horrific abuse and suffer from mental illness, that would de facto eliminate the death penalty. If we have the death penalty, then Montgomery was just as eligible for it as anyone else who received it, and arguably more than some: she had no cognitive challenges, she functioned well in daily life, her third husband was not only not abusive but loving and supportive to both her and her kids, no one pressured or coerced her to commit the crime, there was no doubt she did it, the crime was particularly heinous on several levels, the abuse she suffered as a child is very common among those who commit heinous crimes. So, if not her, then why anyone? That is the question to focus on, imo, rather than one violent murderer seeming more sympathetic to some than others. 

1 hour ago, Pen said:

This is related to s€x  traffic - nonpartisan -  concern for children https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VfYiMPCh4L4

About a minute in, he references "when the Wayfair scandal broke" and that's about all I needed to hear. I soldiered on for a several minutes and then skipped around some (let it not be said that I refuse to leave my bubble), and this is a very bad video. He tries to present himself as a victim of the worldwide pedophilia cabal because Amazon removed his film from their catalog after a year and a half, citing such corporate nonsense as making frequent changes and looking at performance metrics, when it is clearly a conspiracy to remove information about child sex trafficking. Never mind that a search for that term brings up page after page of results, just not his movie. 

And it is a movie, a fictional movie in the supernatural thriller genre, not a documentary. Amazon removed an independent film, a supernatural thriller that most people have never heard of, after about a year and a half. Not newsworthy, not a conspiracy. He's all over the place, but he's most clear and repetitious about one thing: Amazon removed his movie, but you can still see it at these outlets! Don't let Amazon keep you from seeing my important movie! Did I mention you should watch my movie? 

He looks disturbingly like Ferris Bueller's best friend. Also, he said that he witnessed all kinds of pedophilia and abuse in his 20 years in Hollywood, that he didn't 'partake' but it was all just right out there in the open. I'm pretty sure doing nothing about that makes him a heinous criminal himself. 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by katilac

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

 

 

The death penalty discussion can't really be centered around whether we should execute a particular individual who experienced horrific abuse and then went on to commit a horrific crime - if we did not execute people who experienced horrific abuse and suffer from mental illness, that would de facto eliminate the death penalty. If we have the death penalty, then Montgomery was just as eligible for it as anyone else who received it, and arguably more than some: she had no cognitive challenges, she functioned well in daily life, her third husband was not only not abusive but loving and supportive to both her and her kids, no one pressured or coerced her to commit the crime, there was no doubt she did it, the crime was particularly heinous on several levels, the abuse she suffered as a child is very common among those who commit heinous crimes. So, if not her, then why anyone? That is the question to focus on, imo, rather than one violent murderer seeming more sympathetic to some than others. 
 

Yeah, I agree with you there.

 

1 hour ago, katilac said:

About a minute in, he references "when the Wayfair scandal broke" and that's about all I needed to hear. I soldiered on for a several minutes and then skipped around some (let it not be said that I refuse to leave my bubble), and this is a very bad video. He tries to present himself as a victim of the worldwide pedophilia cabal because Amazon removed his film from their catalog after a year and a half, citing such corporate nonsense as making frequent changes and looking at performance metrics, when it is clearly a conspiracy to remove information about child sex trafficking. Never mind that a search for that term brings up page after page of results, just not his movie. 

And it is a movie, a fictional movie in the supernatural thriller genre, not a documentary. Amazon removed an independent film, a supernatural thriller that most people have never heard of, after about a year and a half. Not newsworthy, not a conspiracy. He's all over the place, but he's most clear and repetitious about one thing: Amazon removed his movie, but you can still see it at these outlets! Don't let Amazon keep you from seeing my important movie! Did I mention you should watch my movie? 

He looks disturbingly like Ferris Bueller's best friend. Also, he said that he witnessed all kinds of pedophilia and abuse in his 20 years in Hollywood, that he didn't 'partake' but it was all just right out there in the open. I'm pretty sure doing nothing about that makes him a heinous criminal himself. 

 

Thanks for watching that so that I didn’t have to...