The antiđŸš«-derailment🚃 & threadđŸ§” hijackingđŸ”« threadđŸ§” ⁉

There you go! I got your sentence even more correct now! Also turned it into a game!! :rofl:

3 Likes

I would, in some cases.
Like I said, I get their point, absolutely! But using violence against civilians is terrorism, no matter how understandable the reasons may be. If the IRA had only attacked the police or the army, I might not call it terrorism (and I think, most people won’t), but they attacked people who were simply at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Same like the RAF in Germany. People who had nothing to do with the political problems those terrorist groups were adressing.

If they had been successfull, they would be called “freedom fighters” or something like that, now. True. That’s why I said that violence may be a possible (very) last resort in some cases. But that doesn’t mean that this violence is something I approve


Yep. Exactly that.

This is a very good point, actually - people in fear are easier to control, and so, many political parties actually try to keep the population of their countries in a slight state of fear. Not enough to cause an uprising, but just enough they feel uncomfortable and are happy to let others decide what’s best for them.
In western societies, it’s usually a combination of fear and consumption. People can and should consume, because it’s great for economy and taxes and makes them short-time-happy enough to prevent dissatisfaction. And they should be in slight fear, because people in fear dislike change even more than “normal” people, and so, whoever has the power might keep it a bit longer.

Still I think there is a difference between putting bombs in shopping malls and using misinformation, rhetorical means and such.

3 Likes

Also that a fearful population will gladly support any claims from a figure of power that “addresses” such fears. Thus adding pressure in favour of the figure of power.

That said, it’s funny (on a very sad kinda funny) to see how much these governments are the actual main beneficiaries of Terror tactics employed against them.

I can’t think of a single moment in history where an organization begun employing terror tactics and then the population gave in to their demands.
But I can see hundreds of moments where the population gets together against them.

Terrorising someone into helping you is something that just does not exist. You can terrorise an individual into apathic submission. No more than that.
So when you terrorise a population, they will of course add pressure to their figure of authority to stop all that. (which is stage 1 of what a terrorist needs)


but then, unless the figure of authority replies with “oh, ok, let’s give them all my power and allow them to murder me”
 then any attempt at Terrorism can only backfire. because that’s the stage 2 that’s much needed for terrorist tactics to work, politically speaking, but that would absolutely never happen.

Realistically speaking, what’s far more likely is that once the population starts adding pressure to the leader, they leader will reply along the lines of: “I will protect you. I want to protect you. but for that, you need to give me even more power over you!”
 and then the frightened population will abide.

Add to that that many people instinctively fear things they do not know, this makes it sooo easy for governments to blame “the others”. Whoever that might be, anything that is “different” can be used for that


So true
 The RAF actually had some backing in the student’s protests in Germany, but they lost that backing more and more, the more violent they became

For terrorism to actually “work”, it has to overthrow the government and replace it - that’s what happens very rarely in civil wars, and usually it leads to an equally bad government

So there is just no point in that all.

What I like to think about, is, what would be the alternative way? Like, for example - some muslim countries were afraid that their way of life was threatened by the “west”. At the same time, due to global trade structures, both parts (islamic world and the “west”) were highly dependent on each other.
Easy way (for us) would be, hey, give up all those outdated ideas and make a step into present time - but that is just the “western” point of view, and would do them no justice

I just like to think that there must be a level-headed, calm, peaceful solution for something like that


1 Like

I’d take it so far as to say the large corporations own the media and the politicians.

Never forget the Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.

3 Likes

[quote=“NMCCW, post:2233, topic:5860, full:true”]

Ideologies are fed by :busts_in_silhouette: with their :brain:
People don’t own ideas, ideas own people!*

*Misquoted from Carl G. Jung

1 Like

heh, your broken Quote block, @Atilla, ended up flipping who said what, there. :thinking:

There is a big falacy there.
“Those who have too much, often convince themselves they never have enough.”
They’re but puppets, enslaved to their own rigid standards! even more of puppets than the ones with too little.

We sit and watch as a very rich person flies to 3 different countries in 2 days, and think: “oh, I wish I was that rich that I could fly anywhere we want”
 but we’re gazing at a mask.
Meanwhile, that same person only wanted to be home. It’s flying on a jet because it must, not because it wants to. All the while his family crumbles behind the weight of excess.

That angst is also part of the social reasoning behind the great divide between rich and poor. If the rich don’t flock together, if they don’t use that money to place themselves in an (illusory) position of power, then all that pressure. All the sacrifices they make just to get money, will have been in vain. Thus they will fall back into the void of their own existance.
It’s purely Ego playing the puppeteer.

Meanwhile the masses allow them to be placed into such position, again, for a coup of their own Egos: by accepting there is someone “superior”, and attributing such superiority to something as “easily obtainable (albeit hardly hoardable)” as money, we allow ourselves to no longer be “poor”. We see ourselves as simply “not that rich yet”.
We see ourselves as “special snowflakes” that have not been acknowledged yet. So to accept that the rich are above us, we are both accepting that we are special (thus fulfilling our ego), and also freeing ourselves from the need to take responsibility.

It’s basically a state of balanced sociological Enantiodromia, to keep up with @Atilla’s Jung references. :wink:

Oh, boy
 guess I went deep into that derail, huh? XD

3 Likes

Interesting bit of conversation at work today: during the coffee break, my boss asked me if he could touch my doNExT. He’s been intrigued by that particular implant since he saw me with the stitches and asked what had happened. I obliged of course, why not. Then during the entire coffee break the conversation revolved around implants and transhumanism.

At some point I mentioned Neil Harbisson and my boss revealed that he was color-blind. Nobody knew. And suddenly he seemed very taken with the idea. He said he always wanted to know what green was like.

He’s the technical type, and when he latches onto something, he usually sees it through. I sure hope he gets to experiment with colors. That’d be really interesting.

9 Likes

Has he tried the colour blind glasses?

That is some amazing tech right there

I’ll mention it to him. He really only mentioned he was color-blind. It’s not like he explained all he tried to see colors better. Not to mention, people here aren’t exactly known to be talkative, and tend to keep things to themselves :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I have considered getting them because I’m also colour-blind but from the test I took on their website they don’t even have a pair that could fully correct mine and damn they’re expensive :sweat_smile:

3 Likes

Thats a shame, that would be an amazing experience to have after years of not having that “capability”

Tough thing justify, especially if you don’t know what you are missing out on.

Imagine if you will, you had no idea about RFID implants, then one day you found out they existed and also what they could do for you, and THEN you took a leap of faith, got a bunch and realised how long you had lived with out them and wished you had done it sooner


Imagine if you will, you had no idea about Colourblind corrective glasses, then one day you found out they existed and also what they could do for you, and THEN you took a leap of faith, got a pair and realised how long you had lived with out them and wished you had done it sooner


Just saying

PLUS

There are probably cheaper versions to be found out in the www.

I guess I don’t get the point, if you lack the rod / cone structures in your eye related to specific colours, how would filtered glasses replace that?

I guess I can see how you might could shift shades of missing blue-green into red-yellow making them perceivable, but you’re still not seeing green.

Also if a person was both blue-green and red-yellow colour blind, it’d be pointless, right?

Or maybe this is for people who aren’t completely color blind? Mask out the dominant colours and the barely perceivable colours would stand out more?

EDIT,

Ah, I get it now.

By definition, people who were born without something don’t miss that feature, since they never had it. They’re probably annoyed that society isn’t always well suited for them, but they don’t long for something they never had.

I have a friend who was born without arms. We were discussing protheses one day: he told me his parents and the hospital tried to fit him with prosthetic arms during his entire childhood, until he was finally old enough to sternly tell them to quit torturing him with those devices and leave him be.

I asked him why he didn’t want the prosthetic arms, and he told me: “What would I do with them? I’ve never had arms. I don’t know what to do with them. You were born with two arms. Imagine if your own parents insisted that you wore a third artificial arm to “be normal”: would you try to use it? Of course not: you brain was never wired to make use of 3 arms in the first place!”

Most enlightening comment ever :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yes, and a great mindset; however that is not how I would feel, If I could have a third arm, I would take it, there has been many occasions where that would have come in handy [Pun]
Although it would be hard to buy clothes.

Also, If I was blind, I know I would long for sight, ( all the while accepting my “fate”) why wouldn’t I want an “extra sense”, Who would not want to experience something new and something that the majority of other people can?

If I could have the ability to unlock a door with a swipe of my hand, why wouldn’t I?

I guess it is a matter of perspective and comes down to the individual.

1 Like

But that’s where you’re wrong: congenital blind people long for the convenience of sight, but they don’t feel like they’re missing anything. And they most certainly don’t “accept their fate”.

I worked with a lot of blind people over the years as a voluntary worker (even learned Braille with them - don’t ask
 :slight_smile:) and I can tell you they’re perfectly comfortable being who they are.

People with acquired blindness however, that’s a different story: they lost something and had to come to terms with the loss.

Yeah but you didn’t miss it before you got it.

Actually, here’s something that’s been lingering in my mind lately, oddly enough: I haven’t had an implant go dead on me yet (fingers crossed) but I kind of feel mild distress at the mere thought. If I were to be “downgraded”, I don’t think I would take it too well
 Especially the doNExT that required quite a few weeks to settle down: if I were to lose that one, replacement would take time and a lot of trouble.

1 Like

For others maybe, But I know myself well enough, to KNOW that I would want/long for the ability / sense of sight.

I would treat it as the same as a superpower, I have never had one ( unfortunately ), but if I was offered the ability of a superpower, I would take it ( Full well knowing, it would come with great responsibility :spider::spider_web:)
I truly long for an actual superpower, well many actually, but I am not greedy, I would be happy with one.

Funnily enough, I have been meaning to make a superpower poll ( 2 actually ) for a few months now. I even have my list(s) ready to go

1 Like

I long for a real intimate human-machine interface personally. I really want that upgrade

Being that it’s still far in the future, I’m not a researcher with access to tech and medical facilities and I’m realistic, I would settle for my hare-brained muscle movement-based schemes. I could do it tomorrow if I finally decided to go see that Russian doctor, or that fearless body modder who said they could perform the mini-surgery I have in mind on me, but I’m too scared :slight_smile:

1 Like

Or sensible

Funny comment from a coworker today:

Me: “The product fails the test at distance slot 919. One slot represents 1.3 meters. So that’s like
 Hmm let’s see
 Roughly 1,200 meters.”
Him: “With all your implants, there isn’t even one that does calculator?”

Damn, he’s right actually :slight_smile:

3 Likes