I’ve read this article when it was posted before and my impression is it does EXACTLY the thing to non-rural voters as it warns the reader about doing to rural voters. I can quote the bits if you are going to force me to read it again, but I don’t see how anyone can fail to see that.

It also doesn’t change the fact that the party who might actually make their lives better is NOT the one they are voting for.

Also - racism (and bigotry generally)

But we gave Palestine a table to sit at in the UN! /s

I wonder if the cops threatened this guy with their weapons while he burned to death like they did that other poor soul.

My favorite was when she clearly (very clearly IMO) seemed about to say “…but this motherfucker…” and restrained herself.

Surprised the US didn’t block it somehow.

Man, it’s just a point of discussion. I literally said I’m not demanding it should be added.

And, in the examples I gave, at least two of them did stop the attacker before being killed by police.

It is, however, one of the outcomes, and is not represented. I’m not demanding it should be added, but I think it makes the “Good guy with a gun” argument even weaker.

No fucking way I’m pulling out my gun if I think there’s a >0 possibility Police are on the scene. Now I have to not only worry about taking care of the bad guy, but also about being shot to death by police.

Don’t forget when cops shoot the good guy with a gun!

Here are a few I could find quickly. There’s at least one more that I just happen to recall that didn’t come up because I can’t seem to remember where it happened. I think it was more recent than any of these. And I’m quite sure there are many more than that, this was just the most time I was willing to spend googling at the moment.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/560798-police-chief-hails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/

https://www.bet.com/article/eokrmr/black-man-kaun-green-disarm-shooter-shot-by-police

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/12/good-guy-with-a-gun-comes-to-rescue-police-kill-him/

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/nra-quiet-police-shoot-black-armed-good-guy-with-a-gun-alabama-ca37e7e5475a/

That bump in 2020 is kind of interesting. The reason seems obvious, but correlation does not equal causation and all that. It does make me wonder if a big chunk of people claiming to be unaffilated are doing so because they think it’s the correct answer to give, not because it’s actually true. (My theory being that the pandemic made them decide they better stop denying Jesus for awhile or whatever)

Telegram is the most realistic alternative to breaking Meta’s monopoly. You might like Signal very much, but nobody uses it and the user experience is horrible.

Joke’s on you, I use nothing by Meta, nor Signal, nor telegram. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with what I like or not.

This will likely change after Durov’s arrest, but it was nice while it lasted.

Why use a tool that relies on the goodwill of the operator to secure your privacy? It’s foolish in the first place.

The operator of that tool tomorrow may not be the operator of today, and the operator of today can become compromised by blackmail, legally compelled (see OP), physically compelled, etc to break that trust.

ANYONE who understood how telegram works and also felt it was a tool for privacy doesn’t really understand privacy in the digital age.

Quoting @possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip :

Other encrypted platforms: we have no data so we can’t turn over data

Telegram: we collect it all. No you can’t know who is posting child abuse content

And frankly, if they have knowledge of who is sharing CSAM, it’s entirely ethical for them to be compelled to share it.

But what about when it’s who is questioning their sexuality or gender? Or who is organizing a protest in a country that puts down protests and dissent violently? Or… Or… Or… There are so many examples where privacy IS important AND ethical, but in zero of those does it make sense to rely on the goodwill of the operator to safeguard that privacy.

Dear cops: Oh now we worry about unchecked power and lack of oversight in the deployment of surveillance technology? Please. May as well join the surveillance dystopia with the rest of us, you helped usher it in. Tell me again about your robot dogs and your Stingray devices why don’t you.

There is no big plan to weaken encryption or anything.

This may not be a symptom of such a plan, but there very much is such a plan.

Exportation of PGP and similar “strong encryption” in the 90s was considered as exporting munitions by the DoD.

it was not until almost two decades later that the US began to move some of the most common encryption technologies off the Munitions List. Without these changes, it would have been virtually impossible to secure commercial transactions online, stifling the then-nascent internet economy.

More recently you can take your pick.

Governments DO NOT like people having encryption that isn’t backdoored. CSAM is literally the “but won’t someone think of the children” justification they use, and while the goals may be admirable in this case, the potential harm of succeeding in their quest to ban consumer-accessible strong encryption seems pretty obvious to me.

As a bonus - anyone remember Truecrypt?

https://cointelegraph.com/news/rhodium-enterprises-bitcoin-usd-loan-bankruptcy

https://www.csoonline.com/article/547356/microsoft-subnet-encryption-canary-or-insecure-app-truecrypt-warning-says-use-microsoft-s-bitlocker.html

Is anyone even surprised anymore?

TBF the word OP was looking for was “improbable.”

I agree with you, but that’s where I perceive their viewpoint to come from. I actually think I did see at least one person say something like “it’s bad for gaza now, but will be better for gaza later” or something like that. Happy to be corrected by any folks of similar mindset who want to chime in though.

I think the viewpoint of those folks currently is essentially that Dems will see a direct line between their support of Israel (for example) in the current Gaza genocide event and the fact that they did not heed in any way the voices of progressives, leftists, and others, and realize when Trump wins (again parroting what I believe to be their viewpoint) they should be more inclusive of those groups the next time around.

I personally don’t think that’s a strategy that will have long term or short term benefits, because I don’t think politicians in general seem capable of strategizing to that level of nuance regarding public opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.

This is also why some very stupid self described leftists seem to have zero worry about the rise of fascism (even as they insist that they’re the only ones who truly take it seriously as a threat), they think “just do a socialism bro” will instantly fix everything as if economic hardship would never happen to a socialist society even within a vacuum.

I have to admit - I’m having a hard time picturing how this would be expressed. Any particular examples you can point to?

Could it be that racism creates conditions which lead to a higher frequency of situations which will reinforce racist stereotypes? Too much thinking involved, it makes more sense that the blacks are inherently different.

I have struggled to communicate what you said in your first sentence in less than paragraphs several times and failed. Thank you for giving me an example of how to say it succinctly. Let’s hope I can remember/replicate that the next time I try to get the concept across to someone.

Good call. Guess I’m going to have to go with this bit of awareness again. 😬

Those kids just need to condemn Hamas and then it will all stop, right?