Inspired by this post:
Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 12:57:15 PM
Quote from: Lynn on April 30, 2021, 12:53:30 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 02:40:32 PMCredits ARE money tho. Just imagine all our dearly beloved leaders just stoped printing money altogether and instead of several different currencies we had the earth credit. not paper, not coins but electronically stored in your account. It is still money.
I think that's the only way to really make post TOS work. Maybe there's an exchange rate built around a bunch of things that are in high demand but are not able to be replicated, or an energy based 'mega-credit' or the like. Even in a society in which you can replicate an unlimited number of blueberry muffins, you only have one original Mona Lisa, a limited number of houses/lots on a California skyline, and one Sisko restaurant.
Many Sci-Fi RPGs already do this, because there will always be scarcity, you might be able to solve it in almost everything, but you can't solve it in everything.
If we ever find ourselves in a far more equable reputation based economy, then I'll go back to being a conservative "capitalist" that thinks the current system is good enough.
Sure hardcore socialist think rep economies are just capitalism, but it's a practical step in the right direction.
A whole discusion erupted with Rhedyn devolving more and more into a puritanical fascist.
How can someone want to implement the Chinese system and not think it's fascistic?
Idk man but it's obv a real and present danger against which extreme measures are necessary
Quote from: This Guy on May 02, 2021, 05:00:31 AM
Idk man but it's obv a real and present danger against which extreme measures are necessary
That there are people actually advocating for a dystopian fantasy like social rep systems makes me agree. That is a hill I'd gladly die on.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 02, 2021, 06:03:01 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 02, 2021, 05:00:31 AM
Idk man but it's obv a real and present danger against which extreme measures are necessary
That there are people actually advocating for a dystopian fantasy like social rep systems makes me agree. That is a hill I'd gladly die on.
Yeah but who are they, how much influence do they have, and at what point do you start preemptively takin em out.
Don't get me wrong being the piece of shit I am I wouldn't survive a social rep system but at what point do you let the rubber hit the road and the rounds into the firing chamber yanno
Right now if you're using a credit card in your day-to-day, you're already inside of a social credit reputation system. It isn't quite as explicit as China's yet but it's already there, and it's going to get a lot more noticeable & draconian.
The social credit system is basically inevitable once technology reaches a sufficiently networked & pervasive nature. Unless "we" (meaning, everyone who isn't a politician or mega-billionaire) actually demand a right to privacy, strong encryption, and data-ownership, humanity doesn't have a chance of avoiding this nightmare.
Quote from: Zelen on May 02, 2021, 07:25:20 PM
Right now if you're using a credit card in your day-to-day, you're already inside of a social credit reputation system. It isn't quite as explicit as China's yet but it's already there, and it's going to get a lot more noticeable & draconian.
The social credit system is basically inevitable once technology reaches a sufficiently networked & pervasive nature. Unless "we" (meaning, everyone who isn't a politician or mega-billionaire) actually demand a right to privacy, strong encryption, and data-ownership, humanity doesn't have a chance of avoiding this nightmare.
Mmm. Yes and no. Credit scores typically rely on your financial reliability, not your level of proper sociopolitical adherence.
That being said, certain banks have already gone full retard, helping comply with Operation Chokepoint for example. Prior to the current regime, there was a proposed rule that would bar banking institutions from refusing service for any reason other than legal or financial/fiduciary. As I understand it, that rule did not survive to implementation.
We already have a reputation-based economy. It's called capitalism. If someone produces something you like, they'll give it to you if you give them enough green sheets of paper to indicate your support. It's completely decentralized and voluntary, because if they want more green sheets of paper than you have or are willing to give them, you don't have to give themn any. That means only the people who produce things many people really want end up with lots of green sheets paper.
Quote from: Pat on May 02, 2021, 11:14:37 PM
We already have a reputation-based economy. It's called capitalism. If someone produces something you like, they'll give it to you if you give them enough green sheets of paper to indicate your support. It's completely decentralized and voluntary, because if they want more green sheets of paper than you have or are willing to give them, you don't have to give themn any. That means only the people who produce things many people really want end up with lots of green sheets paper.
Yeah, it's not clear what the difference of a reputation-based economy would be, if any. When I hear "reputation-based economy", my first thought is of potlatch among peoples of the American Pacific Northwest,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
https://umistapotlatch.ca/potlatch-eng.php
I don't know much about their economic system, though. Still, I'd want to research more into it to see more of what the differences are. It's unclear how the
Back when I ran Star Trek campaigns based on the original series, I took seriously that there wasn't any more money -- but there was still private property, so I concluded that under advanced computers, standard markets weren't necessary -- and in interstellar deals, the cultural gaps were so huge that no standards could be formed. Thus, trading was done by barter. Different institutions could all form their own forms of credits - thus Star Fleet had credits, but no one was obligated to take them.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 02, 2021, 10:11:47 PM
Quote from: Zelen on May 02, 2021, 07:25:20 PM
Right now if you're using a credit card in your day-to-day, you're already inside of a social credit reputation system. It isn't quite as explicit as China's yet but it's already there, and it's going to get a lot more noticeable & draconian.
The social credit system is basically inevitable once technology reaches a sufficiently networked & pervasive nature. Unless "we" (meaning, everyone who isn't a politician or mega-billionaire) actually demand a right to privacy, strong encryption, and data-ownership, humanity doesn't have a chance of avoiding this nightmare.
Mmm. Yes and no. Credit scores typically rely on your financial reliability, not your level of proper sociopolitical adherence.
That being said, certain banks have already gone full retard, helping comply with Operation Chokepoint for example. Prior to the current regime, there was a proposed rule that would bar banking institutions from refusing service for any reason other than legal or financial/fiduciary. As I understand it, that rule did not survive to implementation.
Well, but if the banks *can* refuse service, that is more of a reputation-based economy. The criticism of the "reputation-based economy" is that unpopular people starve -- but if unpopular people can be refused service at banks, grocery stores, and other institutions simply because they are unpopular, that emphasizes that there is a reputation-based economy.
Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2021, 01:55:43 AM
Well, but if the banks *can* refuse service, that is more of a reputation-based economy. The criticism of the "reputation-based economy" is that unpopular people starve -- but if unpopular people can be refused service at banks, grocery stores, and other institutions simply because they are unpopular, that emphasizes that there is a reputation-based economy.
In the example that Ghostmaker cited they weren't refused service because they were 'unpopular' they were refused service based on government order, not on a reputation-based economic choice.
Quote from: Pat on May 02, 2021, 11:14:37 PM
We already have a reputation-based economy. It's called capitalism. If someone produces something you like, they'll give it to you if you give them enough green sheets of paper to indicate your support. It's completely decentralized and voluntary, because if they want more green sheets of paper than you have or are willing to give them, you don't have to give themn any. That means only the people who produce things many people really want end up with lots of green sheets paper.
Except for people who win the lottery, stock brokers, people who are born into wealth, etc.
Just because socialism is worse that doesn't mean that capitalism is suddenly this shining beacon of unbridled meritocracy where ONLY the people who produce things make money and earnings are a direct reflection of your actual productivity and contribution to society. It just means that you have avenues to make your own money. In theory. If you megacorps don't squash you down and the government and cultural institutions aren't hijacked by a bunch of snowflake weirdos.
Quote from: VisionStorm on May 03, 2021, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 02, 2021, 11:14:37 PM
We already have a reputation-based economy. It's called capitalism. If someone produces something you like, they'll give it to you if you give them enough green sheets of paper to indicate your support. It's completely decentralized and voluntary, because if they want more green sheets of paper than you have or are willing to give them, you don't have to give themn any. That means only the people who produce things many people really want end up with lots of green sheets paper.
Except for people who win the lottery, stock brokers, people who are born into wealth, etc.
Just because socialism is worse that doesn't mean that capitalism is suddenly this shining beacon of unbridled meritocracy where ONLY the people who produce things make money and earnings are a direct reflection of your actual productivity and contribution to society. It just means that you have avenues to make your own money. In theory. If you megacorps don't squash you down and the government and cultural institutions aren't hijacked by a bunch of snowflake weirdos.
Those who win the lottery are what percentage?
Inheritors... Well mostly they end up going down on the economic ladder within THREE generations.
Stock Brokers... While I agree they are mostly leeches... They ARE providing a service that someone is willing to pay for. If we think their line of work is detrimental to the sociaety or the majority of it is irrelevant.
As for the megacorps, yeah, we need to do something about it, because they are meddling in the elections of the world.
The bigger problem IMHO are the weirdos, we need to make government and corporations stop listening to them.
Reputation based economies ARE dystopian hellholes. That's been one of the key elements in most dystopian fiction, aka you can be denied basic goods and services for wrongthink.
It's why cyberpunk often has two economies - the main market and the black market - and the more dystopian the setting, the more endangered the black market becomes.
As for old Star Trek, its commie factor mostly depended on who was writing which episode. I have no idea how far into retard land the new series has gone, but I won't be surprised if pushing the Federation to become a woke commiebitch utopia are the marching orders going forward.
One of the funny things about the newer Star Trek is that the writers are desperate to:
(a) Portray all of the old Trek as awful
(b) Glorify all of the woke elements of new Trek
What ends up happening is that everything in the setting seems to be increasingly portrayed as being under the guidance of this secretive, evil, authoritarian faction (Section 31, etc). The irony is that this is actually exactly how the woke people function, it's wish fulfillment for them. They just don't realize they are the bad guys in their own stories.
To distinguish: Everybody has a reputation and that's normal, ethical, and fine. If a restaurant serves you shit food, and the waiters fart in your face, you spread the word to others, and possibly leave a review on yelp. That's 100% fair and ethical.
However, reputation systems track that sort of review across all aspects of their lives. And add in algorithms or a set of ethics demanded by the state, and you have an invasive system that cross-references you at every aspect of your life and turns every citizen into a snitch, that are encouraged to snitch on each other.
Now that's just social credits. Reputation in the sense that it replaces all currency is just effectively centrally planned socialism. It encourages corruption and shmoozing.
It means generally some 'reputable' council decides if you deserve a restaurant or not. So by bribing them with whatever (and there will always be bribes), becomes the only way of accessing resources.
In a very real way, the Soviet Union was a status/reputation-based economy. Some 'reputable' people decided all aspects of your life, and since you couldn't put in extra effort or balance your capital in an official manner, you did bribes in an unofficial manner.
Has anybody seen the Soviet film 'Garage'? It goes very much into how such a system works. How something as basic as making a garage for a bunch of scientists becomes a nightmare with people turning on each other in the process, and how everybody really is the victim in such a system.
Maybe in the modern-day, it would be a bit different because the most popular influencers are a bunch of tools. And that's why Rhedyn brought up the requirement of squashing free speech and 'proper education' so that the influencers would be what the state needed to be.
Star Treks' economics are just hand-waved and just assume that what the fundamental change is in the average PERSON. The idea is that it's not so much that a system made people better, but better people made a better system regardless of underpinnings. When it got all anti-money that was just stupidity on the writer's parts. It's like an idea that not having toilets will make people poop less. 'We have outgrown the need for toilets so we don't have them anymore.
Because human greed is limitless, no matter the replicators and near infinite energy. Some credit systems would have to be implemented for access and special privileges.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 03, 2021, 08:29:16 PM
Star Treks' economics are just hand-waved and just assume that what the fundamental change is in the average PERSON. The idea is that it's not so much that a system made people better, but better people made a better system regardless of underpinnings. When it got all anti-money that was just stupidity on the writer's parts. It's like an idea that not having toilets will make people poop less. 'We have outgrown the need for toilets so we don't have them anymore.
Because human greed is limitless, no matter the replicators and near infinite energy. Some credit systems would have to be implemented for access and special privileges.
God yes! I keep thinking of the scene in City on the Edge of Forever where Kirk says-
"Let me help. A hundred years or so from now, I believe, a famous novelist will write a classic using that theme. He'll recommend those three words even over I love you."
That bit where Picard says, "We have outgrown money, we work to better ourselves," I always wanted to say to him, "And yet you are still the Captain, people go to die on your orders, and you have a bigger cabin than everyone else."
Fuck you, Picard, you champagne socialist, you.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 03, 2021, 08:29:16 PM
Now that's just social credits. Reputation in the sense that it replaces all currency is just effectively centrally planned socialism. It encourages corruption and shmoozing.
If 38 years of D&D has taught me anything, it's that a sufficiently-complex system will be gamed by its users to abuse its good intentions. :)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 03, 2021, 11:13:13 PM
That bit where Picard says, "We have outgrown money, we work to better ourselves," I always wanted to say to him, "And yet you are still the Captain, people go to die on your orders, and you have a bigger cabin than everyone else."
Man that's on the money.
TNG to me has some of the most preachifying of all the series. Even with its blegh ending, DS9 all the way.
QuoteIf 38 years of D&D has taught me anything, it's that a sufficiently-complex system will be gamed by its users to abuse its good intentions. :)
Its human nature to maximize our benefits from ANY system. It's folly to assume that people won't.
'I want my son to attend college' is a reasonable desire, and if your son attending college depends on some bureaucrat deciding, your gonna do what your gonna do. And because the system is inefficient everywhere and works against human nature shortages are everywhere. When everybody is hungry, everybody is happy to take a bribe.
It was funny to me when I watched the film 'Garage' with my grandmother (from the USSR), because a character came onscreen that was visibly high status, and I was confused about what she did. Turns out she was a regional manager for a grocery store. And she had the authority at a meeting (a meeting of scientists at an institute mind you) like a megacorporate head. Because in a system like that, the one who controls the food controls EVERYTHING.
Socialists always rage against abusive corporations, but while I dislike the corporations as well, reputation-based systems have all the disadvantages of abusive mega-entities, plus the disadvantages of being mega inefficiency and creating mini dictators as well as large ones.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 03, 2021, 08:29:16 PM
To distinguish: Everybody has a reputation and that's normal, ethical, and fine. If a restaurant serves you shit food, and the waiters fart in your face, you spread the word to others, and possibly leave a review on yelp. That's 100% fair and ethical.
However, reputation systems track that sort of review across all aspects of their lives. And add in algorithms or a set of ethics demanded by the state, and you have an invasive system that cross-references you at every aspect of your life and turns every citizen into a snitch, that are encouraged to snitch on each other.
This was more the norm throughout history. You couldn't run a store in a small town without people knowing about how your family is, and whether you turn up to church, and a hundred other parts of your life -- and small towns and farms were 90+% of the people in history. The ability to be a total asshole online with no consequences is an unusual exception of the modern age.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 03, 2021, 08:29:16 PM
Star Treks' economics are just hand-waved and just assume that what the fundamental change is in the average PERSON. The idea is that it's not so much that a system made people better, but better people made a better system regardless of underpinnings. When it got all anti-money that was just stupidity on the writer's parts. It's like an idea that not having toilets will make people poop less. 'We have outgrown the need for toilets so we don't have them anymore.
Because human greed is limitless, no matter the replicators and near infinite energy. Some credit systems would have to be implemented for access and special privileges.
I disagree. Yes, there will be some sort of economic system -- but I think it is possible for human behavior to improve. This exactly like how critics three centuries ago said that democracy and free speech couldn't work, because it is human nature to be violent and dominate. But human social behavior today is better in many many ways compared to pre-Enlightenment times. There are some things that haven't changed as much, but it is possible to picture improvement.
In the bigger picture, some societies have been far worse to their people -- and had people behave far worse to each other.
Yes, it's hand-wavey to suggest that society could be better like -- but that's what much of science fiction is... postulating things that don't exist at present. I think picturing that everything would work exactly the same is unnecessarily limiting. I like a lot of cyberpunk with its megacorps, but it shouldn't be the only type of science fiction future.
Greetings!
*Laughing* I think we will soon be in an age where people routinely deal with others with a lead pipe. The rich, the academics, the self-righteous elites and the smug--none will be spared.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hahaha yes, we will kill all the intellectuals probably.
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 03:56:50 AM
Hahaha yes, we will kill all the intellectuals probably.
So things will work out pretty good for you :/
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 01:48:56 AMThe ability to be a total asshole online with no consequences is an unusual exception of the modern age.
I find the way you frame the argument to be very disingenuous. That cancel culture or social credit systems are just responses to online asshattery.
The very major difference is that the reputations you mentioned were tangible nearby things by people with a motive to remember and interact with you. Social credit systems see you as an automated cog within the system and depersonalize you. They can control what you can do all over the country, but you in response have no control or even idea who said what about you.
QuoteI disagree. Yes, there will be some sort of economic system -- but I think it is possible for human behavior to improve.
I have very little respect for this train of thought because of the millions that have died for it. I don't view humans in general as bad. I don't believe once we purge enough humans or brainwash them enough they will be 'better people'.
I think people are largely 100% the same as they were before, we just have enough systems and technology to make certain decisions now that people in the past couldn't take. And I'm not a misanthrope that hates humans because they aren't 'good' enough for some criteria.
That said, I don't disbelieve that maybe humans will find some larger social structure to be better in some way, but it will be from bottom to top, not top to bottom. And certain things will remain fundamental to the human experience.
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 01:48:56 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 03, 2021, 08:29:16 PM
To distinguish: Everybody has a reputation and that's normal, ethical, and fine. If a restaurant serves you shit food, and the waiters fart in your face, you spread the word to others, and possibly leave a review on yelp. That's 100% fair and ethical.
However, reputation systems track that sort of review across all aspects of their lives. And add in algorithms or a set of ethics demanded by the state, and you have an invasive system that cross-references you at every aspect of your life and turns every citizen into a snitch, that are encouraged to snitch on each other.
This was more the norm throughout history. You couldn't run a store in a small town without people knowing about how your family is, and whether you turn up to church, and a hundred other parts of your life -- and small towns and farms were 90+% of the people in history. The ability to be a total asshole online with no consequences is an unusual exception of the modern age.
The ability to arbitrarily declare someone an asshole in the world-stage, for EVERYONE to see (not just people in a small town), and enact punitive action against them from across the globe, based on spurious accusations* alone without trial or oversight, is also an unusual exception of the modern age.
We don't live a hundred years ago in a small town we can always escape from if things go south to restart our life someplace else. We live in the Information Age, where everything is interconnected across the globe, and everyone's personal details are backed up in a database somewhere, like a centralized permanent record of them. And just because "things were (presumably) always that way throughout history" (assuming that's even true or consistently so) that doesn't mean that therefore they should be that way, which is a naturalistic fallacy.
*sometimes based on simple misunderstandings alone or even things they objectively never said, with online records SHOWING that they never said it.
Quote from: yancy on May 04, 2021, 04:54:54 AM
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 03:56:50 AM
Hahaha yes, we will kill all the intellectuals probably.
So things will work out pretty good for you :/
No shit right, everybody's all like "You're gonna lose in the purge," but not this time!
This is what reputation based economies look like. In the video there was clearly a bad guy, it was the guy holding the camera, and in the story there's actually two bad guys, the asshole holding the camera and Tariq "Wash yo ass" Naseed.
A small town isn't comparable with this level of surveillance, where things you said in the past as a joke can be dug up to destroy your life forever and everywhere you go.
And it is disingenuous to even try and compare the two.
Or take what happened to Gina Carano: She likes and shares some post saying we shouldn't demonize and dehumanize those who think different because that leads to genocide and is fired, and the corporation, the media and her colleagues try to destroy her life and make her unemployable anywhere at any time.
If you think any of this is okay YOU are the baddies.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 01:57:41 PM
If you think any of this is okay YOU are the baddies.
You keep saying this around a buncha assholes who already agree with you and it keeps having zero impact on the world accordingly way to take a stand dude.
Quote from: VisionStorm on May 04, 2021, 09:53:14 AM
We don't live a hundred years ago in a small town we can always escape from if things go south to restart our life someplace else. We live in the Information Age, where everything is interconnected across the globe, and everyone's personal details are backed up in a database somewhere, like a centralized permanent record of them. And just because "things were (presumably) always that way throughout history" (assuming that's even true or consistently so) that doesn't mean that therefore they should be that way, which is a naturalistic fallacy.
*sometimes based on simple misunderstandings alone or even things they objectively never said, with online records SHOWING that they never said it.
For most people in history, it was really really difficult to just pick up and move to a completely new place where no one knew you. It's roughly equivalent today to deleting all your online accounts, moving, and changing your name and career -- which is all possible, but very difficult.
I'm not arguing that this is good. But many people were saying that reputation was only a thing for 21st century online liberals or explicitly communist countries. But I think it's far broader and more normal than that. Reputation has been hugely important in both historical and current societies, and it's not clear to me exactly how a "reputation-based economy" would be different or how it would work. For me to judge whether something is good or bad, I first need to understand how it works and thus what it would be like for most people.
Off topic but need to address this and will not do it in the gaming forum so...
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 02:04:24 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 12:07:02 AM
Quote from: trechriron on May 03, 2021, 11:36:42 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 03, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
Also, no, we don't live in a patriarchy, we live in a meritocracy.
Cool delusion bro.
So you have any evidence that we do?
Here's an article I haven't read that exists to annoy you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Mexico)
Self reporting BS with no fucking evidence isn't evidence of jack shit.
Criminals rape and murder women, whooop de doo. They kill 10 men for every woman they murder, but that's not news worthy because Asteroid hits earth women most affected.
When you define as "gender violence" asking your wife why the fuck did she spent the money for groceries in the casino and now there's nothing to eat, but not when she asks you why did you spent your salary drinking with your buddies you can go fuck yourself (and I mean the ones making the definitions but you too).
When you define crimes of "sexual violence" as a woman self reporting a man was looking at her with "libidinous eyes". A "crime" where there's no way to prove it was even commited, and where there's no fucking damage being done.
When you define "feminicide" in a way, but if a woman murders a man and fullfills all the exact same characteristics there's no equivalent aggravated charge.
But then you come and cry about living in a patriarchy.
When mexican women can buy a gun (if they manage to get the SEDENA to say yes) at age 18, without ever doing military service, but a man has to either do said military service or wait till he's 45.
When mexican women can get their University title without doing military service but men can't.
When mexican women could vote, get a passport, work in government without doing military service but men couldn't until a few years ago.
When Female Genital Mutilation is a crime but Male Genital Mutilation isn't.
And then you come and cry about living in a patriarchy, you can go fuck yourself.
When you define rape in such a way that a woman can't rape a man unless she inserts something in his anus, when you define it in such a way that leats female pedos off the hook for rape, when you define it in suh a way that it lets lesbian rapists off the hook.
And then you come and cry about living in a patriarchy, you can go fuck yourself.
When you define intra-family violence as gender violence leaving off the hook lesbian perpetrators and female perpetrators when the victim is male.
And then you come and cry about living in a patriarchy, you can go fuck yourself.
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 02:18:41 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on May 04, 2021, 09:53:14 AM
We don't live a hundred years ago in a small town we can always escape from if things go south to restart our life someplace else. We live in the Information Age, where everything is interconnected across the globe, and everyone's personal details are backed up in a database somewhere, like a centralized permanent record of them. And just because "things were (presumably) always that way throughout history" (assuming that's even true or consistently so) that doesn't mean that therefore they should be that way, which is a naturalistic fallacy.
*sometimes based on simple misunderstandings alone or even things they objectively never said, with online records SHOWING that they never said it.
For most people in history, it was really really difficult to just pick up and move to a completely new place where no one knew you. It's roughly equivalent today to deleting all your online accounts, moving, and changing your name and career -- which is all possible, but very difficult.
I'm not arguing that this is good. But many people were saying that reputation was only a thing for 21st century online liberals or explicitly communist countries. But I think it's far broader and more normal than that. Reputation has been hugely important in both historical and current societies, and it's not clear to me exactly how a "reputation-based economy" would be different or how it would work. For me to judge whether something is good or bad, I first need to understand how it works and thus what it would be like for most people.
Was it as difficult to move away to a place where no one knew you as trying and deleting all your digital footprints, changing your name is?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 02:22:39 PM
Off topic but need to address this and will not do it in the gaming forum so...
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 02:04:24 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 12:07:02 AM
Quote from: trechriron on May 03, 2021, 11:36:42 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 03, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
Also, no, we don't live in a patriarchy, we live in a meritocracy.
Cool delusion bro.
So you have any evidence that we do?
Here's an article I haven't read that exists to annoy you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Mexico)
Self reporting BS with no fucking evidence isn't evidence of jack shit.
Criminals rape and murder women, whooop de doo. They kill 10 men for every woman they murder, but that's not news worthy because Asteroid hits earth women most affected.
When you define as "gender violence" asking your wife why the fuck did she spent the money for groceries in the casino and now there's nothing to eat, but not when she asks you why did you spent your salary drinking with your buddies you can go fuck yourself (and I mean the ones making the definitions but you too).
When you define crimes of "sexual violence" as a woman self reporting a man was looking at her with "libidinous eyes". A "crime" where there's no way to prove it was even commited, and where there's no fucking damage being done.
When you define "feminicide" in a way, but if a woman murders a man and fullfills all the exact same characteristics there's no equivalent aggravated charge.
But then you come and cry about living in a patriarchy.
When mexican women can buy a gun (if they manage to get the SEDENA to say yes) at age 18, without ever doing military service, but a man has to either do said military service or wait till he's 45.
When mexican women can get their University title without doing military service but men can't.
When mexican women could vote, get a passport, work in government without doing military service but men couldn't until a few years ago.
When Female Genital Mutilation is a crime but Male Genital Mutilation isn't.
And then you come and cry about living in a patriarchy, you can go fuck yourself.
When you define rape in such a way that a woman can't rape a man unless she inserts something in his anus, when you define it in such a way that leats female pedos off the hook for rape, when you define it in suh a way that it lets lesbian rapists off the hook.
And then you come and cry about living in a patriarchy, you can go fuck yourself.
When you define intra-family violence as gender violence leaving off the hook lesbian perpetrators and female perpetrators when the victim is male.
And then you come and cry about living in a patriarchy, you can go fuck yourself.
See, I said it'd annoy you.
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 01:57:41 PM
If you think any of this is okay YOU are the baddies.
You keep saying this around a buncha assholes who already agree with you and it keeps having zero impact on the world accordingly way to take a stand dude.
You keep making these "observations" on a board with a 'buncha assholes" and it keeps having zero impact on them way to take a stand dude.
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 01:48:56 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 03, 2021, 08:29:16 PM
To distinguish: Everybody has a reputation and that's normal, ethical, and fine. If a restaurant serves you shit food, and the waiters fart in your face, you spread the word to others, and possibly leave a review on yelp. That's 100% fair and ethical.
However, reputation systems track that sort of review across all aspects of their lives. And add in algorithms or a set of ethics demanded by the state, and you have an invasive system that cross-references you at every aspect of your life and turns every citizen into a snitch, that are encouraged to snitch on each other.
This was more the norm throughout history. You couldn't run a store in a small town without people knowing about how your family is, and whether you turn up to church, and a hundred other parts of your life -- and small towns and farms were 90+% of the people in history. The ability to be a total asshole online with no consequences is an unusual exception of the modern age.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 03, 2021, 08:29:16 PM
Star Treks' economics are just hand-waved and just assume that what the fundamental change is in the average PERSON. The idea is that it's not so much that a system made people better, but better people made a better system regardless of underpinnings. When it got all anti-money that was just stupidity on the writer's parts. It's like an idea that not having toilets will make people poop less. 'We have outgrown the need for toilets so we don't have them anymore.
Because human greed is limitless, no matter the replicators and near infinite energy. Some credit systems would have to be implemented for access and special privileges.
I disagree. Yes, there will be some sort of economic system -- but I think it is possible for human behavior to improve. This exactly like how critics three centuries ago said that democracy and free speech couldn't work, because it is human nature to be violent and dominate. But human social behavior today is better in many many ways compared to pre-Enlightenment times. There are some things that haven't changed as much, but it is possible to picture improvement.
In the bigger picture, some societies have been far worse to their people -- and had people behave far worse to each other.
Yes, it's hand-wavey to suggest that society could be better like -- but that's what much of science fiction is... postulating things that don't exist at present. I think picturing that everything would work exactly the same is unnecessarily limiting. I like a lot of cyberpunk with its megacorps, but it shouldn't be the only type of science fiction future.
I think the issue with Trek is that in TNG, Roddenberry leaned pretty hard into "We got rid of money, now everything is better!" It's a huge handwave and a children's level view of money being bad because rich people suck.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2021, 04:13:24 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 01:57:41 PM
If you think any of this is okay YOU are the baddies.
You keep saying this around a buncha assholes who already agree with you and it keeps having zero impact on the world accordingly way to take a stand dude.
You keep making these "observations" on a board with a 'buncha assholes" and it keeps having zero impact on them way to take a stand dude.
Thanks bud, glad to see you're embracing the emptiness.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 01:57:41 PM
If you think any of this is okay YOU are the baddies.
Well yeah, some guy is going to purge everyone so obviously baddies.
Quote from: Shasarak on May 04, 2021, 05:08:16 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 01:57:41 PM
If you think any of this is okay YOU are the baddies.
Well yeah, some guy is going to purge everyone so obviously baddies.
You get it
The problem is and always will be the persistence of data plus having centralized ways to access all that data. If you can just look up a person and find out something they did 5 years ago and try to ruin their life over that, well, we don't need more of that. We need protections against that, ideally technological in nature so the capability for abuse is eliminated
I think privacy is pretty fundamental to living a normal human life and I don't care if it's an imposition on Facebook/Google/FBI/CIA. In fact I don't want them holding onto information pretty much at all.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2021, 04:17:29 PM
I think the issue with Trek is that in TNG, Roddenberry leaned pretty hard into "We got rid of money, now everything is better!" It's a huge handwave and a children's level view of money being bad because rich people suck.
Yeah. TNG Trek isn't very credible because it more-or-less erases a whole swath of human character traits. You occasionally see main cast characters with jealousy, greed, lust, arrogance, etc, but everything is cerebral-ized, milquetoast and detached.
In reality to succeed and become the kinds of competent people Trek portrays, you need to be driven by powerful needs to excel, be the best, push the boundaries. The types of people a deeply egalitarian society would produce are... pretty unlikely to be hyper-competent people driven to succeed and rise in the ranks of a military organization. People accuse Star Wars of being science fantasy, but Star Trek is definitely a deeper level of fantasy.
Quote from: Zelen on May 04, 2021, 07:45:26 PMThe types of people a deeply egalitarian society would produce are... pretty unlikely to be hyper-competent people driven to succeed and rise in the ranks of a military organization.
It's possible that within the federation if you want to be in a meritocratic system, you MUST join the military. Because everything else is regulated and overseen by beuracrats. So all the competent people go to Starfleet because nothing happens anywhere else.
How ironic.
I believe Gene actually stated this was the case for TOS in a book somewhere.
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2021, 04:13:24 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 01:57:41 PM
If you think any of this is okay YOU are the baddies.
You keep saying this around a buncha assholes who already agree with you and it keeps having zero impact on the world accordingly way to take a stand dude.
You keep making these "observations" on a board with a 'buncha assholes" and it keeps having zero impact on them way to take a stand dude.
Thanks bud, glad to see you're embracing the emptiness.
You merely embraced the emptiness. I was born in it. Molded by it.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 04, 2021, 08:31:41 PM
It's possible that within the federation if you want to be in a meritocratic system, you MUST join the military. Because everything else is regulated and overseen by beuracrats. So all the competent people go to Starfleet because nothing happens anywhere else.
How ironic.
I believe Gene actually stated this was the case for TOS in a book somewhere.
So does that make
Starship Troopers the prequel or the sequel of the TOS?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2021, 09:15:36 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 04, 2021, 04:13:24 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 01:57:41 PM
If you think any of this is okay YOU are the baddies.
You keep saying this around a buncha assholes who already agree with you and it keeps having zero impact on the world accordingly way to take a stand dude.
You keep making these "observations" on a board with a 'buncha assholes" and it keeps having zero impact on them way to take a stand dude.
Thanks bud, glad to see you're embracing the emptiness.
You merely embraced the emptiness. I was born in it. Molded by it.
Merely born in emptiness is weak, you never had a choice to love emptiness and become one with it, you've never fucked emptiness like I have.
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Merely born in emptiness is weak, you never had a choice to love emptiness and become one with it, you've never fucked emptiness like I have.
Why don't you and emptiness find a room.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 02:23:56 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 02:18:41 PM
For most people in history, it was really really difficult to just pick up and move to a completely new place where no one knew you. It's roughly equivalent today to deleting all your online accounts, moving, and changing your name and career -- which is all possible, but very difficult.
I'm not arguing that this is good. But many people were saying that reputation was only a thing for 21st century online liberals or explicitly communist countries. But I think it's far broader and more normal than that. Reputation has been hugely important in both historical and current societies, and it's not clear to me exactly how a "reputation-based economy" would be different or how it would work. For me to judge whether something is good or bad, I first need to understand how it works and thus what it would be like for most people.
Was it as difficult to move away to a place where no one knew you as trying and deleting all your digital footprints, changing your name is?
Historically, moving was much more difficult and dangerous than it is today. Transferring money and property was much riskier, and it was risky to move to a place without all the anonymous sources of information we have now. Further, strangers moving in with no connections were often viewed with suspicion.
The big problem both then and now is giving up all one's connections. Most people aren't willing to part with the life that they know. But if someone is willing to give up their previous life, then I think it's much easier now. There's no need to delete anything - they can just not log into those old accounts any more. Just fill in a bunch of forms to change name and transfer accounts.
As far as reputation goes - yes, it is frequently unfair. I hate both historical gossip-mongering and current social media gossip-mongering. I don't see it as a competition - they both suck. Plenty of old celebrities were ruined by scandal, or just by failing to play along with the right people. Careers have been destroyed by relentless and unfair gossip.
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 11:39:17 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 04, 2021, 02:23:56 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 02:18:41 PM
For most people in history, it was really really difficult to just pick up and move to a completely new place where no one knew you. It's roughly equivalent today to deleting all your online accounts, moving, and changing your name and career -- which is all possible, but very difficult.
I'm not arguing that this is good. But many people were saying that reputation was only a thing for 21st century online liberals or explicitly communist countries. But I think it's far broader and more normal than that. Reputation has been hugely important in both historical and current societies, and it's not clear to me exactly how a "reputation-based economy" would be different or how it would work. For me to judge whether something is good or bad, I first need to understand how it works and thus what it would be like for most people.
Was it as difficult to move away to a place where no one knew you as trying and deleting all your digital footprints, changing your name is?
Historically, moving was much more difficult and dangerous than it is today. Transferring money and property was much riskier, and it was risky to move to a place without all the anonymous sources of information we have now. Further, strangers moving in with no connections were often viewed with suspicion.
The big problem both then and now is giving up all one's connections. Most people aren't willing to part with the life that they know. But if someone is willing to give up their previous life, then I think it's much easier now. There's no need to delete anything - they can just not log into those old accounts any more. Just fill in a bunch of forms to change name and transfer accounts.
As far as reputation goes - yes, it is frequently unfair. I hate both historical gossip-mongering and current social media gossip-mongering. I don't see it as a competition - they both suck. Plenty of old celebrities were ruined by scandal, or just by failing to play along with the right people. Careers have been destroyed by relentless and unfair gossip.
Let me ask again, you would need to erase all your digital footprints, that means even photos of you, you would need to get a new legal identity and the papers to go with it, without the new one being able to be traced to the old one.
You would need to do the WITSEC stuff without the government intervening.
You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?
To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?
Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.
Quote from: Pat on May 04, 2021, 10:24:35 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 04, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
Merely born in emptiness is weak, you never had a choice to love emptiness and become one with it, you've never fucked emptiness like I have.
Why don't you and emptiness find a room.
I tried to find a room with emptiness but there was nothing in it so we just do it in the street instead
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 11:39:17 PM
Historically, moving was much more difficult and dangerous than it is today.
Thats why only white people used to do it.
The rest stayed home and complained about how risky it was.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 11:39:17 PM
Historically, moving was much more difficult and dangerous than it is today. Transferring money and property was much riskier, and it was risky to move to a place without all the anonymous sources of information we have now. Further, strangers moving in with no connections were often viewed with suspicion.
The big problem both then and now is giving up all one's connections. Most people aren't willing to part with the life that they know. But if someone is willing to give up their previous life, then I think it's much easier now. There's no need to delete anything - they can just not log into those old accounts any more. Just fill in a bunch of forms to change name and transfer accounts.
As far as reputation goes - yes, it is frequently unfair. I hate both historical gossip-mongering and current social media gossip-mongering. I don't see it as a competition - they both suck. Plenty of old celebrities were ruined by scandal, or just by failing to play along with the right people. Careers have been destroyed by relentless and unfair gossip.
Let me ask again, you would need to erase all your digital footprints, that means even photos of you, you would need to get a new legal identity and the papers to go with it, without the new one being able to be traced to the old one.
You would need to do the WITSEC stuff without the government intervening.
This is a false parallel. Simply moving to a new town in past ages was not the equivalent of witness security. People could still find out about a person's past. If after moving they lied about where they were from, nosy neighbors could write to that place to check on them -- and expose the lie. If they told the truth, their past would be exposed.
But this sort of over-the-top witness security isn't necessary. In the modern day, plenty of people do disappear without government witness security help. In the U.S., we have a huge number of missing persons. Common cases are criminals dodging the law, teens running away from their parents, and adults getting away from their spouse and/or family.
They don't have to delete every record of their past lives including all photos in order to disappear. I'm sure that even witness security doesn't delete all photos of the old identity. That's fictional action movie shit. They just change their look (i.e. hair style, clothes, and facial hair or makeup). Once in a completely different setting, they're not going to be recognized. Even people with famous faces have effectively disappeared. There are celebrities who dropped out - like after failing to toe the Hollywood line in the past, and ended up in ordinary careers unrecognized.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?
To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?
Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 11:39:17 PM
Historically, moving was much more difficult and dangerous than it is today. Transferring money and property was much riskier, and it was risky to move to a place without all the anonymous sources of information we have now. Further, strangers moving in with no connections were often viewed with suspicion.
The big problem both then and now is giving up all one's connections. Most people aren't willing to part with the life that they know. But if someone is willing to give up their previous life, then I think it's much easier now. There's no need to delete anything - they can just not log into those old accounts any more. Just fill in a bunch of forms to change name and transfer accounts.
As far as reputation goes - yes, it is frequently unfair. I hate both historical gossip-mongering and current social media gossip-mongering. I don't see it as a competition - they both suck. Plenty of old celebrities were ruined by scandal, or just by failing to play along with the right people. Careers have been destroyed by relentless and unfair gossip.
Let me ask again, you would need to erase all your digital footprints, that means even photos of you, you would need to get a new legal identity and the papers to go with it, without the new one being able to be traced to the old one.
You would need to do the WITSEC stuff without the government intervening.
This is a false parallel. Simply moving to a new town in past ages was not the equivalent of witness security. People could still find out about a person's past. If after moving they lied about where they were from, nosy neighbors could write to that place to check on them -- and expose the lie. If they told the truth, their past would be exposed.
But this sort of over-the-top witness security isn't necessary. In the modern day, plenty of people do disappear without government witness security help. In the U.S., we have a huge number of missing persons. Common cases are criminals dodging the law, teens running away from their parents, and adults getting away from their spouse and/or family.
They don't have to delete every record of their past lives including all photos in order to disappear. I'm sure that even witness security doesn't delete all photos of the old identity. That's fictional action movie shit. They just change their look (i.e. hair style, clothes, and facial hair or makeup). Once in a completely different setting, they're not going to be recognized. Even people with famous faces have effectively disappeared. There are celebrities who dropped out - like after failing to toe the Hollywood line in the past, and ended up in ordinary careers unrecognized.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?
To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?
Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
Good thing I didn't said that moving to another town in the past was the equivalent of WITSEC.
Right, they don't have to delete every record of their past lives, including photos, they just have to never be photographed again or hope that their new photos never reach the mob.
And they don't need to legally change their name nor get their papers with the new name, they just need to start working low wage jobs under tha table.
Yeah, you're not being disingenuous, you're just lying.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 11:39:17 PM
Historically, moving was much more difficult and dangerous than it is today. Transferring money and property was much riskier, and it was risky to move to a place without all the anonymous sources of information we have now. Further, strangers moving in with no connections were often viewed with suspicion.
The big problem both then and now is giving up all one's connections. Most people aren't willing to part with the life that they know. But if someone is willing to give up their previous life, then I think it's much easier now. There's no need to delete anything - they can just not log into those old accounts any more. Just fill in a bunch of forms to change name and transfer accounts.
As far as reputation goes - yes, it is frequently unfair. I hate both historical gossip-mongering and current social media gossip-mongering. I don't see it as a competition - they both suck. Plenty of old celebrities were ruined by scandal, or just by failing to play along with the right people. Careers have been destroyed by relentless and unfair gossip.
Let me ask again, you would need to erase all your digital footprints, that means even photos of you, you would need to get a new legal identity and the papers to go with it, without the new one being able to be traced to the old one.
You would need to do the WITSEC stuff without the government intervening.
This is a false parallel. Simply moving to a new town in past ages was not the equivalent of witness security. People could still find out about a person's past. If after moving they lied about where they were from, nosy neighbors could write to that place to check on them -- and expose the lie. If they told the truth, their past would be exposed.
But this sort of over-the-top witness security isn't necessary. In the modern day, plenty of people do disappear without government witness security help. In the U.S., we have a huge number of missing persons. Common cases are criminals dodging the law, teens running away from their parents, and adults getting away from their spouse and/or family.
They don't have to delete every record of their past lives including all photos in order to disappear. I'm sure that even witness security doesn't delete all photos of the old identity. That's fictional action movie shit. They just change their look (i.e. hair style, clothes, and facial hair or makeup). Once in a completely different setting, they're not going to be recognized. Even people with famous faces have effectively disappeared. There are celebrities who dropped out - like after failing to toe the Hollywood line in the past, and ended up in ordinary careers unrecognized.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?
To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?
Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
I've seen the opposite. Either a person has the fortitude to endure the scorn of people they once admired, liked, and/or loved, and deal with the fact that many will abandon them for being worse than Hitler, or flagelate themselves until the mob is finished sucking every last drop of self-esteem from them, leaving a husk of a person. And that's just online. I can't imagine going through something like that in real life.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 01:33:42 PM
I've seen the opposite. Either a person has the fortitude to endure the scorn of people they once admired, liked, and/or loved, and deal with the fact that many will abandon them for being worse than Hitler, or flagelate themselves until the mob is finished sucking every last drop of self-esteem from them, leaving a husk of a person. And that's just online. I can't imagine going through something like that in real life.
Yes, to many people it's pretty terrible. There are less physical consequences, but an interesting analogy would be medieval excommunication.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 01:33:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
I've seen the opposite. Either a person has the fortitude to endure the scorn of people they once admired, liked, and/or loved, and deal with the fact that many will abandon them for being worse than Hitler, or flagelate themselves until the mob is finished sucking every last drop of self-esteem from them, leaving a husk of a person. And that's just online. I can't imagine going through something like that in real life.
The closest real-life experience like this that I've seen is from gay and trans friends of mine -- especially those who came out in the 1980s and 1990s. Many were disowned by their families, faced scorn and derision in public, and cut off from their communities. Many had stories of getting beaten up at schools and bars. It sucks.
From the other side, I know my ex's teenage son got pushback for wearing his MAGA hat to his liberal Bay Area school - mostly isolation from peers and a lot of harsh lectures from his mother. I tried to stay supportive with him, but haven't had direct contact since our breakup.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 04, 2021, 11:39:17 PM
Historically, moving was much more difficult and dangerous than it is today. Transferring money and property was much riskier, and it was risky to move to a place without all the anonymous sources of information we have now. Further, strangers moving in with no connections were often viewed with suspicion.
The big problem both then and now is giving up all one's connections. Most people aren't willing to part with the life that they know. But if someone is willing to give up their previous life, then I think it's much easier now. There's no need to delete anything - they can just not log into those old accounts any more. Just fill in a bunch of forms to change name and transfer accounts.
As far as reputation goes - yes, it is frequently unfair. I hate both historical gossip-mongering and current social media gossip-mongering. I don't see it as a competition - they both suck. Plenty of old celebrities were ruined by scandal, or just by failing to play along with the right people. Careers have been destroyed by relentless and unfair gossip.
Let me ask again, you would need to erase all your digital footprints, that means even photos of you, you would need to get a new legal identity and the papers to go with it, without the new one being able to be traced to the old one.
You would need to do the WITSEC stuff without the government intervening.
This is a false parallel. Simply moving to a new town in past ages was not the equivalent of witness security. People could still find out about a person's past. If after moving they lied about where they were from, nosy neighbors could write to that place to check on them -- and expose the lie. If they told the truth, their past would be exposed.
But this sort of over-the-top witness security isn't necessary. In the modern day, plenty of people do disappear without government witness security help. In the U.S., we have a huge number of missing persons. Common cases are criminals dodging the law, teens running away from their parents, and adults getting away from their spouse and/or family.
They don't have to delete every record of their past lives including all photos in order to disappear. I'm sure that even witness security doesn't delete all photos of the old identity. That's fictional action movie shit. They just change their look (i.e. hair style, clothes, and facial hair or makeup). Once in a completely different setting, they're not going to be recognized. Even people with famous faces have effectively disappeared. There are celebrities who dropped out - like after failing to toe the Hollywood line in the past, and ended up in ordinary careers unrecognized.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?
To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?
Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
So if the "woke mob" is attacking someone...it is
their fault that they won't give up everything they know and love in order to escape?
Jesus, dude...go ahead and tell us how its the girls fault she got raped.
Every time I think you can't stoop any lower, you dig a hole under the fucking bar...
I get it. I know you post this shit in order to build up your 'social credit' score with the wokists. You are too smart to not see where all this leads and you have your history here that you can cash in. That may very well enable you to avoid the first few rounds of the woke cannibal frenzy. The disgusting part is that you do this from a self-preservation point of view with no pretense at actual principles.
At least the wokists
believe what they are preaching. I can forgive people who are misguided due to their religion. You on the other hand are the 80s televangelist version of woke.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 02:15:09 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 01:33:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
I've seen the opposite. Either a person has the fortitude to endure the scorn of people they once admired, liked, and/or loved, and deal with the fact that many will abandon them for being worse than Hitler, or flagelate themselves until the mob is finished sucking every last drop of self-esteem from them, leaving a husk of a person. And that's just online. I can't imagine going through something like that in real life.
The closest real-life experience like this that I've seen is from gay and trans friends of mine -- especially those who came out in the 1980s and 1990s. Many were disowned by their families, faced scorn and derision in public, and cut off from their communities. Many had stories of getting beaten up at schools and bars. It sucks.
From the other side, I know my ex's teenage son got pushback for wearing his MAGA hat to his liberal Bay Area school - mostly isolation from peers and a lot of harsh lectures from his mother. I tried to stay supportive with him, but haven't had direct contact since our breakup.
It goes beyond pushback. Children were being attacked for wearing MAGA hats.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-teen-maga-hat-bullies-bus-attack-video-hamilton-county
Perhaps that's why a notable amount of gay people are deserting the woke culture. Maybe they see echoes of the intolerance they once faced.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 02:45:17 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 02:15:09 PM
From the other side, I know my ex's teenage son got pushback for wearing his MAGA hat to his liberal Bay Area school - mostly isolation from peers and a lot of harsh lectures from his mother. I tried to stay supportive with him, but haven't had direct contact since our breakup.
It goes beyond pushback. Children were being attacked for wearing MAGA hats.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-teen-maga-hat-bullies-bus-attack-video-hamilton-county
Sure, I don't disagree that happens. I was just talking about what I have direct experience with -- i.e. what has happened to people that I personally know. I realize that there are news stories about more extreme behavior, but those are often not representative of typical experience.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 02:45:17 PM
Perhaps that's why a notable amount of gay people are deserting the woke culture. Maybe they see echoes of the intolerance they once faced.
Maybe. Overall, though, people have just been growing ever more partisan on both sides.
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 02:31:32 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?
To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?
Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
So if the "woke mob" is attacking someone...it is their fault that they won't give up everything they know and love in order to escape?
Jesus, dude...go ahead and tell us how its the girls fault she got raped.
Every time I think you can't stoop any lower, you dig a hole under the fucking bar...
Fuck you, moonsweeper. That's not what I said, and if your head wasn't completely up your asshole, that would be obvious to you as well.
GeekyBugle claims that it was easy to escape mob condemnation a hundred years ago, but somehow you don't take that as him condoning lynch mobs back then. But of course, he can do no wrong since he's on your side.
Take your fucking strawman bullshit and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.
I don't condone hate mobs either a hundred years ago or today. What I disagree about is that whether today's Internet hate mobs are so much worse than the hate mobs of a hundred years ago.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 04:52:41 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 02:45:17 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 02:15:09 PM
From the other side, I know my ex's teenage son got pushback for wearing his MAGA hat to his liberal Bay Area school - mostly isolation from peers and a lot of harsh lectures from his mother. I tried to stay supportive with him, but haven't had direct contact since our breakup.
It goes beyond pushback. Children were being attacked for wearing MAGA hats.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-teen-maga-hat-bullies-bus-attack-video-hamilton-county
Sure, I don't disagree that happens. I was just talking about what I have direct experience with -- i.e. what has happened to people that I personally know. I realize that there are news stories about more extreme behavior, but those are often not representative of typical experience.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 02:45:17 PM
Perhaps that's why a notable amount of gay people are deserting the woke culture. Maybe they see echoes of the intolerance they once faced.
Maybe. Overall, though, people have just been growing ever more partisan on both sides.
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 02:31:32 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?
To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?
Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
So if the "woke mob" is attacking someone...it is their fault that they won't give up everything they know and love in order to escape?
Jesus, dude...go ahead and tell us how its the girls fault she got raped.
Every time I think you can't stoop any lower, you dig a hole under the fucking bar...
Fuck you, moonsweeper. That's not what I said, and if your head wasn't completely up your asshole, that would be obvious to you as well.
GeekyBugle claims that it was easy to escape mob condemnation a hundred years ago, but somehow you don't take that as him condoning lynch mobs back then. But of course, he can do no wrong since he's on your side.
Take your fucking strawman bullshit and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.
I don't condone hate mobs either a hundred years ago or today. What I disagree about is that whether today's Internet hate mobs are so much worse than the hate mobs of a hundred years ago.
Keep saying that right up to the point where the beast turns on you. Maybe it'll be kind as it devours you.
I mean, I don't see how someone can be this dense. Geeky is pointing out how much harder it is to try and 'start over' when you try to escape your past (for good or bad reasons) nowadays.
But these are your words, son: "I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind."
So basically you should just go Galt to evade the mob, even if they're wrong?
How about a new idea: when people camp out on my lawn and harass me, I call the cops and tell them 'get rid of them or I deal with them. You have 30 minutes'. And then hang up.
Remember, flowerbeds need fertilizer too.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 05:50:57 PM
I mean, I don't see how someone can be this dense. Geeky is pointing out how much harder it is to try and 'start over' when you try to escape your past (for good or bad reasons) nowadays.
Right. So since he claims it was easier to escape your past in the old days, he's blaming everyone a hundred years ago who failed to escape their past. I mean, it's their own fault that they failed to move out and were lynched, right?
Just like how I said that it's easier to escape your past in the present, therefore I'm blaming everyone in the present who failed to escape their past.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 05:56:10 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 05:50:57 PM
I mean, I don't see how someone can be this dense. Geeky is pointing out how much harder it is to try and 'start over' when you try to escape your past (for good or bad reasons) nowadays.
Right. So since he claims it was easier to escape your past in the old days, he's blaming everyone a hundred years ago who failed to escape their past. I mean, it's their own fault that they failed to move out and were lynched, right?
Just like how I said that it's easier to escape your past in the present, therefore I'm blaming everyone in the present who failed to escape their past.
Seriously? This is why people get pissed with you. He's not BLAMING anyone.
You, on the other hand, are definitely doing so.
Again: should people have to abandon everything to escape a mob? Yes or no?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 05:59:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 05:56:10 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 05:50:57 PM
I mean, I don't see how someone can be this dense. Geeky is pointing out how much harder it is to try and 'start over' when you try to escape your past (for good or bad reasons) nowadays.
Right. So since he claims it was easier to escape your past in the old days, he's blaming everyone a hundred years ago who failed to escape their past. I mean, it's their own fault that they failed to move out and were lynched, right?
Just like how I said that it's easier to escape your past in the present, therefore I'm blaming everyone in the present who failed to escape their past.
Seriously? This is why people get pissed with you. He's not BLAMING anyone.
You, on the other hand, are definitely doing so.
Again: should people have to abandon everything to escape a mob? Yes or no?
No, people 100 years ago should not have to abandon everything to escape a mob.
No, people today should not have to abandon every everything to escape a mob.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 06:02:52 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 05:59:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 05:56:10 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 05:50:57 PM
I mean, I don't see how someone can be this dense. Geeky is pointing out how much harder it is to try and 'start over' when you try to escape your past (for good or bad reasons) nowadays.
Right. So since he claims it was easier to escape your past in the old days, he's blaming everyone a hundred years ago who failed to escape their past. I mean, it's their own fault that they failed to move out and were lynched, right?
Just like how I said that it's easier to escape your past in the present, therefore I'm blaming everyone in the present who failed to escape their past.
Seriously? This is why people get pissed with you. He's not BLAMING anyone.
You, on the other hand, are definitely doing so.
Again: should people have to abandon everything to escape a mob? Yes or no?
No, people 100 years ago should not have to abandon everything to escape a mob.
No, people today should not have to abandon every everything to escape a mob.
I suggest you start practicing that sentiment, then.
It's a lot easier to face a mob when you have allies and friends, rather than alone.
Because make no mistake: the taste for blood is not something a mob ever, ever gives up willingly.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 06:05:59 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 06:02:52 PM
No, people 100 years ago should not have to abandon everything to escape a mob.
No, people today should not have to abandon every everything to escape a mob.
I suggest you start practicing that sentiment, then.
It's a lot easier to face a mob when you have allies and friends, rather than alone.
Because make no mistake: the taste for blood is not something a mob ever, ever gives up willingly.
I'm not clear what you're saying I should do differently. I support tolerance, free speech, and dialog between different sides - both online and in real life.
As for allies and friends - my friends are the people who don't form mobs, and who don't instantly jump to misreading me into their partisan prejudices.
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 02:31:32 PM
I get it. I know you post this shit in order to build up your 'social credit' score with the wokists. You are too smart to not see where all this leads and you have your history here that you can cash in. That may very well enable you to avoid the first few rounds of the woke cannibal frenzy. The disgusting part is that you do this from a self-preservation point of view with no pretense at actual principles.
That's way over the top. I've certainly been frustrated by interactions with John Kim, but jumping to the conclusion that it's some grand plot to get in with some undefined crowd elsewhere is ... well, it's a conspiracy theory. It's creating an elaborate set of hidden motivations and actions to explain fairly straightforward behavior. Kim seems to be an old school liberal. Not in the classic liberal sense, but in the old 80s era liberal sense. Not woke, and in fact opposed to some of their tactics, but sympathetic at least with the professed motives of social justice. And that bleeds through.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 06:05:59 PM
It's a lot easier to face a mob when you have allies and friends, rather than alone.
Where's that Captain America quote, about standing like a tree?
Or how about the greatest hero in the MCU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMjnqhn4ycg
(Hint: It's not the guy in spandex.)
Fuck mobs. Fuck bending the knee. Fuck taking sides because fear needs numbers. We need more people to stand up, and do what's right. Even when the world's against them.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 04:52:41 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 02:45:17 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 02:15:09 PM
From the other side, I know my ex's teenage son got pushback for wearing his MAGA hat to his liberal Bay Area school - mostly isolation from peers and a lot of harsh lectures from his mother. I tried to stay supportive with him, but haven't had direct contact since our breakup.
It goes beyond pushback. Children were being attacked for wearing MAGA hats.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-teen-maga-hat-bullies-bus-attack-video-hamilton-county
Sure, I don't disagree that happens. I was just talking about what I have direct experience with -- i.e. what has happened to people that I personally know. I realize that there are news stories about more extreme behavior, but those are often not representative of typical experience.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 05, 2021, 02:45:17 PM
Perhaps that's why a notable amount of gay people are deserting the woke culture. Maybe they see echoes of the intolerance they once faced.
Maybe. Overall, though, people have just been growing ever more partisan on both sides.
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 02:31:32 PM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 11:59:06 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 12:00:47 AM
You think that is equally difficult than moving away 100 years ago? Hell make it just before the internet, what is more difficult?
To escape a toxic town, maybe without any money and to go elsewhere to start anew or right now to try and escape from the woke mob?
Stop being disingenuous, you know the answer is right now it's more difficult.
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply disagree. As far as I can tell, it's not difficult to escape the woke mob. The problem isn't that the mob track people down who disappear. It's that targets are unwilling to drop their careers and other ties, just as people in history were unwilling to move out of the only place they have known and leave their friends and family behind.
So if the "woke mob" is attacking someone...it is their fault that they won't give up everything they know and love in order to escape?
Jesus, dude...go ahead and tell us how its the girls fault she got raped.
Every time I think you can't stoop any lower, you dig a hole under the fucking bar...
Fuck you, moonsweeper. That's not what I said, and if your head wasn't completely up your asshole, that would be obvious to you as well.
GeekyBugle claims that it was easy to escape mob condemnation a hundred years ago, but somehow you don't take that as him condoning lynch mobs back then. But of course, he can do no wrong since he's on your side.
Take your fucking strawman bullshit and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.
I don't condone hate mobs either a hundred years ago or today. What I disagree about is that whether today's Internet hate mobs are so much worse than the hate mobs of a hundred years ago.
I never said anything about Geeky's statement. However if you want me to, then I will. It
was easier to move and leave your life a hundred years ago. His comment about the internet (although I would use the term World Wide Web in this case) is dead on. Did you or did you not reference friends in the 80s and 90s creating an entirely new life...the 80s and 90s, before the rise of social media...hmmm.
Go ahead.
Are you ready to give up your PhD and education? How about your credit rating? Good luck getting any job that requires a background check...what about your SSN...how much info is that tied to? Good luck getting a job without that...
Unless you are advocating working under the table or pursuing criminal activity?
Look at the people you reference as successful at fleeing in the current era criminals (already on the run), teenagers (no real employment/credit/education history) leaving their parents, and celebrities (who in this day and age may have enough to disappear and live a quiet life even if not up to their previous standard), spouses fleeing their partner (not being driven out by a mob so a much smaller trail, maybe criminal depending on the situation).
What about someone who gets targeted because they ask a question, donates to the wrong cause, or accidentally lets people know their political affiliation? Do they ditch their kids or take them into hiding? How much harder is that? How do you explain to your 10 year old that they can't ever see their old friends again?
It isn't like some people have been denied financial services, housing, or other services for their political views...oh wait...
Quote from: Pat on May 05, 2021, 07:01:48 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 06:05:59 PM
It's a lot easier to face a mob when you have allies and friends, rather than alone.
Where's that Captain America quote, about standing like a tree?
Or how about the greatest hero in the MCU?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMjnqhn4ycg
(Hint: It's not the guy in spandex.)
Fuck mobs. Fuck bending the knee. Fuck taking sides because fear needs numbers. We need more people to stand up, and do what's right. Even when the world's against them.
True, but it is harder for people to do when the mob will target their children/families. Most don't understand yet that submitting won't protect their families. (although they are starting to learn)
I consider myself lucky since I don't have to worry about that one.
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
I never said anything about Geeky's statement. However if you want me to, then I will. It was easier to move and leave your life a hundred years ago. His comment about the internet (although I would use the term World Wide Web in this case) is dead on. Did you or did you not reference friends in the 80s and 90s creating an entirely new life...the 80s and 90s, before the rise of social media...hmmm.
There is no way it was easier to move around a hundred years ago. Just transport alone is completely different. What are you going to do a hundred years ago, jump on a Zeppelin to fly to the USA?
Greetings!
Yes, and every time the cock-sucking Liberals and SJW's Reee and get someone fired for "wrongthink"--that just inspires more seething resentment, hatred, and rage. More enraged men just arming up, and mowing these fucking people down. More people just out of the blue crushing some Liberal rainbow-haired freak's head in with a lead pipe. More enraged women strengthening their support for a growing resistance, that will increasingly become more violent, and more bloody.
And the Marxist SJW's have no one to blame but themselves, and the cock-sucking Marxist MSM that loves to create strife and division.
Bunch of stupid fucking retarded apes. They can a burn in the fires.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Shasarak on May 05, 2021, 07:36:22 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
I never said anything about Geeky's statement. However if you want me to, then I will. It was easier to move and leave your life a hundred years ago. His comment about the internet (although I would use the term World Wide Web in this case) is dead on. Did you or did you not reference friends in the 80s and 90s creating an entirely new life...the 80s and 90s, before the rise of social media...hmmm.
There is no way it was easier to move around a hundred years ago. Just transport alone is completely different. What are you going to do a hundred years ago, jump on a Zeppelin to fly to the USA?
Not quite what he's getting at. In terms of raw distance travel, yeah, we have an enormous amount of flexibility.
What Geeky's getting at is the difficulty in leaving behind a life and starting over nowadays.
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
Look at the people you reference as successful at fleeing in the current era criminals (already on the run), teenagers (no real employment/credit/education history) leaving their parents, and celebrities (who in this day and age may have enough to disappear and live a quiet life even if not up to their previous standard), spouses fleeing their partner (not being driven out by a mob so a much smaller trail, maybe criminal depending on the situation).
What about someone who gets targeted because they ask a question, donates to the wrong cause, or accidentally lets people know their political affiliation? Do they ditch their kids or take them into hiding? How much harder is that? How do you explain to your 10 year old that they can't ever see their old friends again?
It isn't like some people have been denied financial services, housing, or other services for their political views...oh wait...
You explain to your 10 year old that they can't see their old friends ever again the same way that people a hundred years ago explained to *their* 10 year old that they can't ever see their old friends again. Painfully.
And yes, people have been denied financial services, housing, and other services for their political views -- again, just like a hundred years ago.
You're continuing to act as if I'm justifying it by saying that it's been around. I'm saying that this sort of intolerance is wrong and always has been wrong. I believe that we need to have understanding, dialog, and tolerance. I'm reminded of how in my church, we just had a service where a conservative Christian speaker was invited to share his views. We're a very liberal community, but we try our best to be understanding.
https://www.uufrc.org/services/conversations-across-the-divide/
Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2021, 07:40:48 PM
Greetings!
Yes, and every time the cock-sucking Liberals and SJW's Reee and get someone fired for "wrongthink"--that just inspires more seething resentment, hatred, and rage. More enraged men just arming up, and mowing these fucking people down. More people just out of the blue crushing some Liberal rainbow-haired freak's head in with a lead pipe. More enraged women strengthening their support for a growing resistance, that will increasingly become more violent, and more bloody.
And the Marxist SJW's have no one to blame but themselves, and the cock-sucking Marxist MSM that loves to create strife and division.
Bunch of stupid fucking retarded apes. They can a burn in the fires.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Oh come on a bunch of street militias with pre-planning couldn't even kill more than a couple cops in their way at the capitol, the inaction of the American populace on all fronts is pretty well-documented on all political fronts.
edit: it's also wild how all these cock-SJWing-Liberal-Marxists are this unstoppable threat that's also real weak and easily taken out
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 08:22:53 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
Look at the people you reference as successful at fleeing in the current era criminals (already on the run), teenagers (no real employment/credit/education history) leaving their parents, and celebrities (who in this day and age may have enough to disappear and live a quiet life even if not up to their previous standard), spouses fleeing their partner (not being driven out by a mob so a much smaller trail, maybe criminal depending on the situation).
What about someone who gets targeted because they ask a question, donates to the wrong cause, or accidentally lets people know their political affiliation? Do they ditch their kids or take them into hiding? How much harder is that? How do you explain to your 10 year old that they can't ever see their old friends again?
It isn't like some people have been denied financial services, housing, or other services for their political views...oh wait...
You explain to your 10 year old that they can't see their old friends ever again the same way that people a hundred years ago explained to *their* 10 year old that they can't ever see their old friends again. Painfully.
And yes, people have been denied financial services, housing, and other services for their political views -- again, just like a hundred years ago.
You're continuing to act as if I'm justifying it by saying that it's been around. I'm saying that this sort of intolerance is wrong and always has been wrong. I believe that we need to have understanding, dialog, and tolerance. I'm reminded of how in my church, we just had a service where a conservative Christian speaker was invited to share his views. We're a very liberal community, but we try our best to be understanding.
https://www.uufrc.org/services/conversations-across-the-divide/
Riddle me this Jhkim:
A 100 years ago your greatest obstacle on moving and starting over was a bit of money.
Today people search your name in the web, think once you have been branded as a wazi people are going to want to hire you?
Your only hope would be a WITSEC style rebirth or working under the table for peanuts under an assumed name and hoping the mob never catches up to you.
The mob isn't in your town Jhkim, it's everywhere, and finding you is way easier today than 100 years ago. Hell than in the 80's, back then only the government had the power to track you all over the place. Today all it takes is a dozen authists to find where the terrorist is holled down.
Remember the find the flag thing 4chan did?
Now imagine the frothing at the mout true believers wanting to find you, with allies in every town in the world (almost). All it takes is your face accidentally captured in the viral tic toc of some idiot and boom, you're found.
Quote from: This Guy on May 05, 2021, 08:52:51 PM
Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2021, 07:40:48 PM
Yes, and every time the cock-sucking Liberals and SJW's Reee and get someone fired for "wrongthink"--that just inspires more seething resentment, hatred, and rage. More enraged men just arming up, and mowing these fucking people down. More people just out of the blue crushing some Liberal rainbow-haired freak's head in with a lead pipe. More enraged women strengthening their support for a growing resistance, that will increasingly become more violent, and more bloody.
And the Marxist SJW's have no one to blame but themselves, and the cock-sucking Marxist MSM that loves to create strife and division.
Oh come on a bunch of street militias with pre-planning couldn't even kill more than a couple cops in their way at the capitol, the inaction of the American populace on all fronts is pretty well-documented on all political fronts.
edit: it's also wild how all these cock-SJWing-Liberal-Marxists are this unstoppable threat that's also real weak and easily taken out
The Capitol rioters didn't kill any police or staff. (Officer Sicknick was belatedly ruled natural causes.) The rioters caused some police injuries but the deaths were their own. So when SHARK talks about arming up and mowing people down, I think he's talking more about something like the 2019 El Paso shooting - where the attacker was pretty effective in mowing down Latinos, killing 23. I don't think that the lead pipe is a specific reference. From brief search, there was an Australian man (https://people.com/human-interest/neighbors-help-gay-man-paint-house-in-rainbow-stripes-after-he-faced-threats/) who was threatened with violence but not actually beaten for his rainbow hair, but I don't think that's what he's talking about.
Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 09:18:12 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 05, 2021, 08:52:51 PM
Quote from: SHARK on May 05, 2021, 07:40:48 PM
Yes, and every time the cock-sucking Liberals and SJW's Reee and get someone fired for "wrongthink"--that just inspires more seething resentment, hatred, and rage. More enraged men just arming up, and mowing these fucking people down. More people just out of the blue crushing some Liberal rainbow-haired freak's head in with a lead pipe. More enraged women strengthening their support for a growing resistance, that will increasingly become more violent, and more bloody.
And the Marxist SJW's have no one to blame but themselves, and the cock-sucking Marxist MSM that loves to create strife and division.
Oh come on a bunch of street militias with pre-planning couldn't even kill more than a couple cops in their way at the capitol, the inaction of the American populace on all fronts is pretty well-documented on all political fronts.
edit: it's also wild how all these cock-SJWing-Liberal-Marxists are this unstoppable threat that's also real weak and easily taken out
The Capitol rioters didn't kill any police or staff. (Officer Sicknick was belatedly ruled natural causes.) The rioters caused some police injuries but the deaths were their own. So when SHARK talks about arming up and mowing people down, I think he's talking more about something like the 2019 El Paso shooting - where the attacker was pretty effective in mowing down Latinos, killing 23. I don't think that the lead pipe is a specific reference. From brief search, there was an Australian man (https://people.com/human-interest/neighbors-help-gay-man-paint-house-in-rainbow-stripes-after-he-faced-threats/) who was threatened with violence but not actually beaten for his rainbow hair, but I don't think that's what he's talking about.
Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.
Yeah my boss at the time was across the street when that shooting went down, it was real fucked-up.
But short sharp bursts of mass shootings don't do the kind of cleansing he's talking about, so I'm reading something more coordinated in mind.
Both sides have a point.
It's very hard to disappear, today. Too much is tied to central databases, and too many things in life, from jobs to apartments to loans, require proving who you are. To disappear, you either need official help (like battered women or witness protection), or to be hiding from just a few people with limited resources (like your parents).
A thousand years ago, it was very hard to escape your village. You had to uproot yourself from everything and everyone you know, and you had no money because subsistence living. Travel was very hard.
A hundred years ago was in the middle of a transition. Travel was easier, there was more discretionary money to facilitate escape, and social ties had weakened. But while passports had started to be a thing and the government was getting ready to track people with magic numbers, databases and social media and omnipresent surveillance didn't yet exist. It was still rough, going out on your own, but it was easier to escape than either the earlier period, or the later period.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 08:14:22 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on May 05, 2021, 07:36:22 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
I never said anything about Geeky's statement. However if you want me to, then I will. It was easier to move and leave your life a hundred years ago. His comment about the internet (although I would use the term World Wide Web in this case) is dead on. Did you or did you not reference friends in the 80s and 90s creating an entirely new life...the 80s and 90s, before the rise of social media...hmmm.
There is no way it was easier to move around a hundred years ago. Just transport alone is completely different. What are you going to do a hundred years ago, jump on a Zeppelin to fly to the USA?
Not quite what he's getting at. In terms of raw distance travel, yeah, we have an enormous amount of flexibility.
What Geeky's getting at is the difficulty in leaving behind a life and starting over nowadays.
Ok then exactly what is harder about moving now compared to any other time in history?
Quote from: Shasarak on May 05, 2021, 10:46:29 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 05, 2021, 08:14:22 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on May 05, 2021, 07:36:22 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on May 05, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
I never said anything about Geeky's statement. However if you want me to, then I will. It was easier to move and leave your life a hundred years ago. His comment about the internet (although I would use the term World Wide Web in this case) is dead on. Did you or did you not reference friends in the 80s and 90s creating an entirely new life...the 80s and 90s, before the rise of social media...hmmm.
There is no way it was easier to move around a hundred years ago. Just transport alone is completely different. What are you going to do a hundred years ago, jump on a Zeppelin to fly to the USA?
Not quite what he's getting at. In terms of raw distance travel, yeah, we have an enormous amount of flexibility.
What Geeky's getting at is the difficulty in leaving behind a life and starting over nowadays.
Ok then exactly what is harder about moving now compared to any other time in history?
It's not about moving, it's about escaping the woke mob and starting again somewhere else.
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 09:18:12 PM
Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.
That's because the West is becoming older and fatter. Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2021, 01:11:23 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 09:18:12 PM
Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.
That's because the West is becoming older and fatter. Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people.
*laughs in .45 and 9mm*
Anonymous macho posturing aside, calibres are irrelevant to this. Firearms are the means, but the offender - or rebel - needs opportunity and motive, too. Let's set aside opportunity for the moment and consider motive: age and physique indicate motive, or lack thereof.
Slimness, as was pointed out in Julius Caesar, indicates hunger - ambition and discontent. Fatness indicates contentedness and a lack of ambition.
Youth, too, are naturally rebellious and want to change things, and of course have no wealth or family to lose. Older people are naturally conservative, not wanting things to change, and have wealth and family to protect. The jobless unmarried 20 year old renting a house may riot; the 40 year old in secure employment with a spouse and two kids will probably not riot.
Thus: Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people. Now, old fat people may order slim young people to fight, but they will in general not themselves fight. And so as the number of slim young people declines and the number of old fat people increases, you get a lot of people talking about fighting, but not as many people actually fighting.
Which is why Kim's observation is correct, that the general trend of the last half-century in the West has been less violence, not more. There will occasionally be rises, but we are interested in the trend.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2021, 01:11:23 AM
Quote from: jhkim on May 05, 2021, 09:18:12 PM
Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.
That's because the West is becoming older and fatter. Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people.
There are lots of 20 year old fat people who are interested in "violence" and plenty of 40 year old fit people not interested, moreso because of what you stated later. Older married people (which trend conservative) have something to lose. Any person tends to have to have more to gain than to lose via action. I think feeling less or more to lose is the reason we do not see more violent organized movements. Also right leaning people are individualists by nature, and leftists are very, very collective. It takes a plenty of jackals to kill lions, but enough jackals can kill a lion. Personally, I understand the folks who feel they want to fight lefties. I also feel lots of them have not felt any violence recently (the real kind, where you feel stuff on your body breaking or the other person's) or maybe never.
Bringing up the 60's to constantly yap less violent means jack shit. People, especially westerners are MUCH more compliant now than in the 60's. Whether they are left or right. I personally have reached a point where I think whatever the USA is and is becoming is untenable and plan to just leave. There are always ebbs and flows of power and places where people appreciate you more if you are productive. I made a list, and though I like to think of myself as "loyal" to my country, I take a look at how loyal my country is to me as an average productive tax paying citizen. We are the least safe 1st world country in the world, and have some crime stats in some cities that make rio look like a park. We are heavily taxed. We are CONSTANTLY in foreign engagements and wars "spreading democracy". Massive corporations have controlled our government for a very long time. The slide to less freedom has been a consistent one for the past 25 years.
Almost everyone in the country came from somewhere else that was treating them worse. I think the time has come for more productive americans to drop the rhetoric and jingoism and just move to a place that treats them personally, and their situation better. I am pretty tired of watching my tax money (well not really, our government runs on fucking debt, not actual revenue collected) go towards paying for people who are useless to society, fucking its citizens over with shipping jobs everywhere but the USA, prop up dictators or "champions of democracy" in foreign lands, or bomb the fudge out of folks who probably have never seen the USA even on a globe. The woke stuff is annoying, and the anti white rhetoric that seems to be in the heart of it makes me think my kids are going to have one hell of a time with that (i guess they could leverage that 1/4 arab dna in some sort of oppression olympics, but its feeding into bullshit) so it looks a whole lot like time to leave. America came to be because of people unsatisfied with where they were, so I think its time for the folks who clamor for a return to what they think America was or should be, need to do as their forefathers did and roll off to a new land and make their way in a new place.
Just remember to pay the exit taxes and high fee for renouncing your citizenship.....A country so amazing they make you pay a shitload to leave....LOL.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2021, 09:13:03 AM
Anonymous macho posturing aside, calibres are irrelevant to this. Firearms are the means, but the offender - or rebel - needs opportunity and motive, too. Let's set aside opportunity for the moment and consider motive: age and physique indicate motive, or lack thereof.
Slimness, as was pointed out in Julius Caesar, indicates hunger - ambition and discontent. Fatness indicates contentedness and a lack of ambition.
Youth, too, are naturally rebellious and want to change things, and of course have no wealth or family to lose. Older people are naturally conservative, not wanting things to change, and have wealth and family to protect. The jobless unmarried 20 year old renting a house may riot; the 40 year old in secure employment with a spouse and two kids will probably not riot.
Thus: Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people. Now, old fat people may order slim young people to fight, but they will in general not themselves fight. And so as the number of slim young people declines and the number of old fat people increases, you get a lot of people talking about fighting, but not as many people actually fighting.
Which is why Kim's observation is correct, that the general trend of the last half-century in the West has been less violence, not more. There will occasionally be rises, but we are interested in the trend.
I really do hope you are speaking metaphorically in regards to fat vs slim vs ambition, because otherwise you are being more than a bit foolish. There are plenty of fat, ambitious bastards in history.
In any case, you're not wrong about the will to act -- so far. The whole game has been bringing the water temperature up, slowly, until the frog boils, trying not to do it too fast lest the frog jump out of the pot and flip that switch Larry Correia talked about -- the one that's marked 'Do nothing' and 'Kill every motherfucker'.
Now, older people may be less inclined to -start- fights, but are far more likely to end them sharply. Melee is a young man's game, yes; but the introduction of firearms to the zeitgeist means a 45 year old man can -end- a 22 year old attacker with a single trigger pull. Yes, the 45 year old man needs the will to do so. However, that's very much a game of three card monte where pulling the wrong card means someone goes home in a bag.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 06, 2021, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2021, 09:13:03 AM
Anonymous macho posturing aside, calibres are irrelevant to this. Firearms are the means, but the offender - or rebel - needs opportunity and motive, too. Let's set aside opportunity for the moment and consider motive: age and physique indicate motive, or lack thereof.
Slimness, as was pointed out in Julius Caesar, indicates hunger - ambition and discontent. Fatness indicates contentedness and a lack of ambition.
Youth, too, are naturally rebellious and want to change things, and of course have no wealth or family to lose. Older people are naturally conservative, not wanting things to change, and have wealth and family to protect. The jobless unmarried 20 year old renting a house may riot; the 40 year old in secure employment with a spouse and two kids will probably not riot.
Thus: Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people. Now, old fat people may order slim young people to fight, but they will in general not themselves fight. And so as the number of slim young people declines and the number of old fat people increases, you get a lot of people talking about fighting, but not as many people actually fighting.
Which is why Kim's observation is correct, that the general trend of the last half-century in the West has been less violence, not more. There will occasionally be rises, but we are interested in the trend.
I really do hope you are speaking metaphorically in regards to fat vs slim vs ambition, because otherwise you are being more than a bit foolish. There are plenty of fat, ambitious bastards in history.
In any case, you're not wrong about the will to act -- so far. The whole game has been bringing the water temperature up, slowly, until the frog boils, trying not to do it too fast lest the frog jump out of the pot and flip that switch Larry Correia talked about -- the one that's marked 'Do nothing' and 'Kill every motherfucker'.
Now, older people may be less inclined to -start- fights, but are far more likely to end them sharply. Melee is a young man's game, yes; but the introduction of firearms to the zeitgeist means a 45 year old man can -end- a 22 year old attacker with a single trigger pull. Yes, the 45 year old man needs the will to do so. However, that's very much a game of three card monte where pulling the wrong card means someone goes home in a bag.
I think you are correct, but I also think the average American 45 year old is 25 years plus from having their heart rate at target level. I also think it is a much better use of time to be in as good a shape as you can be even if just to shoot, as the stress of such an encounter is going to be insanely high. I guess the good news is the average 22 year old attacker is going to be a doughy mess and probably never had their target heart rate level reached, as video games only go so far.
The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed. Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 10:42:03 AM
The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed. Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.
"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 06, 2021, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 10:42:03 AM
The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed. Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.
"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."
I agree, but nowadays people pull out cameras to archive their shit they took in the toilet. I can not imagine a scenario where some dipshit drives me to introduce him to unconsciousness or worse where at least one nimrod was not filming it.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 10:53:25 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 06, 2021, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 10:42:03 AM
The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed. Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.
"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."
I agree, but nowadays people pull out cameras to archive their shit they took in the toilet. I can not imagine a scenario where some dipshit drives me to introduce him to unconsciousness or worse where at least one nimrod was not filming it.
That's true. And while I was being a bit flip, this is a good rule of thumb:
Don't go to stupid places. Don't associate with stupid people.
Kyle notes over in the guns and granularity thread about AD&D1E's advice to 'avoid unnecessary encounters'. That should be everyone's watchwords right now.
And if trouble comes to your doorstep, make sure you have plenty of friends to help pile the bodies in the backyard. You DID rent out the backhoe, right? :)
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 06, 2021, 10:58:44 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 10:53:25 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 06, 2021, 10:51:33 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 10:42:03 AM
The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed. Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.
"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."
I agree, but nowadays people pull out cameras to archive their shit they took in the toilet. I can not imagine a scenario where some dipshit drives me to introduce him to unconsciousness or worse where at least one nimrod was not filming it.
That's true. And while I was being a bit flip, this is a good rule of thumb:
Don't go to stupid places. Don't associate with stupid people.
Kyle notes over in the guns and granularity thread about AD&D1E's advice to 'avoid unnecessary encounters'. That should be everyone's watchwords right now.
And if trouble comes to your doorstep, make sure you have plenty of friends to help pile the bodies in the backyard. You DID rent out the backhoe, right? :)
Oh I agree, there will be ZERO support from anyone if you are in the streets where these fuckers get together and you have to off one. Just punching them is going to be a felony in NYC. Of course, peaceful protesting from the other direction ends up in a release and no record. I think the writing is on the wall, thus why I am interested in just leaving it altogether.
Quote from: Pat on May 05, 2021, 09:29:33 PM
Both sides have a point.
It's very hard to disappear, today. Too much is tied to central databases, and too many things in life, from jobs to apartments to loans, require proving who you are. To disappear, you either need official help (like battered women or witness protection), or to be hiding from just a few people with limited resources (like your parents).
A thousand years ago, it was very hard to escape your village. You had to uproot yourself from everything and everyone you know, and you had no money because subsistence living. Travel was very hard.
A hundred years is in the middle of a transition. Travel was easier, there was more discretionary money to facilitate escape, and social ties had weakened. But while passports had started to be a thing and the government was getting ready to track people with magic numbers, databases and social media and omnipresent surveillance didn't yet exist. It was still rough, going out on your own, but it was easier to escape than either the earlier period, or the later period.
I generally agree - it was easier in 1920 than in 1020, but the main point is that in all three cases, it was really damn difficult. Social ties might be less important in 1920 than 1020, but they were still really strong, both for career and life. Notably, GeekyBugle said the greatest ostacle in the past was a bit of money. But I think historically and now, the greatest obstacle is giving up all your family, friends, and connections. Throwing those away is a huge sacrifice.
My most recent ex had her ex-husband disappear on her, stopping alimony payments and apparently dropping off the grid. I think that was a huge step, but it is evidently within possibility. I'm sure he was findable if the federal government really wanted to, but it was good enough that the local court and her couldn't find him.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 09:10:55 PM
A 100 years ago your greatest obstacle on moving and starting over was a bit of money.
Today people search your name in the web, think once you have been branded as a wazi people are going to want to hire you?
Back in the 1920s, it's not like one's past didn't matter. Social connections were if anything even more vital to career than today. Getting a decent job required education and references that would be checked on. It wasn't through the web - but it was through word of mouth or letter writing and similar. If you didn't give references from your past, you wouldn't get anything above a menial job.
I think it is possible to move and be lost. You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though. I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been. Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier. It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away.
Perhaps the woke are everywhere, but I have a pretty strong feeling there are a whole lot of places where it does not get tolerated too well. There are a wave of digital nomad types all over now because they have finally decided all the talk about the USA being horrible and racist, or having an unredeemable past is true enough they just rather leave and let the folks who stay deal with it. I think I understand their point of view.
I think jhkim is right, the hardest part would be leaving some family behind. Or maybe even harder, convincing the family moving is the best option. Most external issues are removed, well for the USA of course, they will make you pay to renounce citizenship, which I find odd there is a fee connected to such a thing.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 04:23:48 PM
I think it is possible to move and be lost. You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though. I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been. Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier. It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away.
If you keep a bank account, that's an easy paper trail. If you change your name you leave an easy paper trail. If you fly somewhere, it's an easy paper trail. Living or visiting any urban environment is out of the question because almost all urban environments are heavily monitored by cameras, which are now capable of being monitored 24/7 by machines using facial recognition (as well as body and gait recognition, for anyone who thinks a mask will protect their identity).
It's absolutely way harder, if not impossible, to completely disappear today compared to even 20 or 30 years ago. Sure, some areas are less actually populated by woke people. If you live in San Francisco and publicly object to sexualizing children, you will have an angry mob outside your house, but if you live in Idaho they (probably) aren't going to drive hundreds of miles to harass you. But they can still harass you online and ruin your reputation. If you're doing the remote worker thing then do you think your employer will stick with you if you get targeted by the mob, when they can easily hire FacelessRemoteWorker29 from anywhere in the world?
Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2021, 01:22:26 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 05, 2021, 09:29:33 PM
Both sides have a point.
It's very hard to disappear, today. Too much is tied to central databases, and too many things in life, from jobs to apartments to loans, require proving who you are. To disappear, you either need official help (like battered women or witness protection), or to be hiding from just a few people with limited resources (like your parents).
A thousand years ago, it was very hard to escape your village. You had to uproot yourself from everything and everyone you know, and you had no money because subsistence living. Travel was very hard.
A hundred years is in the middle of a transition. Travel was easier, there was more discretionary money to facilitate escape, and social ties had weakened. But while passports had started to be a thing and the government was getting ready to track people with magic numbers, databases and social media and omnipresent surveillance didn't yet exist. It was still rough, going out on your own, but it was easier to escape than either the earlier period, or the later period.
I generally agree - it was easier in 1920 than in 1020, but the main point is that in all three cases, it was really damn difficult. Social ties might be less important in 1920 than 1020, but they were still really strong, both for career and life. Notably, GeekyBugle said the greatest ostacle in the past was a bit of money. But I think historically and now, the greatest obstacle is giving up all your family, friends, and connections. Throwing those away is a huge sacrifice.
My most recent ex had her ex-husband disappear on her, stopping alimony payments and apparently dropping off the grid. I think that was a huge step, but it is evidently within possibility. I'm sure he was findable if the federal government really wanted to, but it was good enough that the local court and her couldn't find him.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 05, 2021, 09:10:55 PM
A 100 years ago your greatest obstacle on moving and starting over was a bit of money.
Today people search your name in the web, think once you have been branded as a wazi people are going to want to hire you?
Back in the 1920s, it's not like one's past didn't matter. Social connections were if anything even more vital to career than today. Getting a decent job required education and references that would be checked on. It wasn't through the web - but it was through word of mouth or letter writing and similar. If you didn't give references from your past, you wouldn't get anything above a menial job.
Aja, and it was way easier still to get a job without your employer searching your name in the web and finding you've got the woke mob chasing you.
You think if you try it today you'll be able to get ANY job?
After you've been branded an istophobe?
Stop lying to yourself, you're not fooling anyone, I doubt you're fooling yourself.
Quote from: Zelen on May 06, 2021, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 04:23:48 PM
I think it is possible to move and be lost. You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though. I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been. Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier. It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away.
If you keep a bank account, that's an easy paper trail. If you change your name you leave an easy paper trail. If you fly somewhere, it's an easy paper trail. Living or visiting any urban environment is out of the question because almost all urban environments are heavily monitored by cameras, which are now capable of being monitored 24/7 by machines using facial recognition (as well as body and gait recognition, for anyone who thinks a mask will protect their identity).
It's absolutely way harder, if not impossible, to completely disappear today compared to even 20 or 30 years ago. Sure, some areas are less actually populated by woke people. If you live in San Francisco and publicly object to sexualizing children, you will have an angry mob outside your house, but if you live in Idaho they (probably) aren't going to drive hundreds of miles to harass you. But they can still harass you online and ruin your reputation. If you're doing the remote worker thing then do you think your employer will stick with you if you get targeted by the mob, when they can easily hire FacelessRemoteWorker29 from anywhere in the world?
If you are fleeing from having been a terrorist, there is a paper trail. If some oddball on the interwebz is trying that hard to ruin your life to follow you to another country, that sounds less like a problem that involves moving, and more a problem that involves a face to face with your online harrasser.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 08:44:44 PM
Quote from: Zelen on May 06, 2021, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 04:23:48 PM
I think it is possible to move and be lost. You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though. I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been. Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier. It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away.
If you keep a bank account, that's an easy paper trail. If you change your name you leave an easy paper trail. If you fly somewhere, it's an easy paper trail. Living or visiting any urban environment is out of the question because almost all urban environments are heavily monitored by cameras, which are now capable of being monitored 24/7 by machines using facial recognition (as well as body and gait recognition, for anyone who thinks a mask will protect their identity).
It's absolutely way harder, if not impossible, to completely disappear today compared to even 20 or 30 years ago. Sure, some areas are less actually populated by woke people. If you live in San Francisco and publicly object to sexualizing children, you will have an angry mob outside your house, but if you live in Idaho they (probably) aren't going to drive hundreds of miles to harass you. But they can still harass you online and ruin your reputation. If you're doing the remote worker thing then do you think your employer will stick with you if you get targeted by the mob, when they can easily hire FacelessRemoteWorker29 from anywhere in the world?
If you are fleeing from having been a terrorist, there is a paper trail. If some oddball on the interwebz is trying that hard to ruin your life to follow you to another country, that sounds less like a problem that involves moving, and more a problem that involves a face to face with your online harrasser.
Still a gamble. There have been times when it's worked out well, and times when it really hasn't.
And that assumes you can -find- your online harasser. Remember, a lot of these slugs use online harassment because it insulates them from the prospect of legal action, police visits, restraining orders, and angry significant others interested in kicking the living fuck out of them. So they take great pains to avoid being identified, and it usually takes something drastic to push authorities into actually doing something (like a swatting that results in injury or death).
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 06, 2021, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 08:44:44 PM
Quote from: Zelen on May 06, 2021, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 06, 2021, 04:23:48 PM
I think it is possible to move and be lost. You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though. I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been. Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier. It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away.
If you keep a bank account, that's an easy paper trail. If you change your name you leave an easy paper trail. If you fly somewhere, it's an easy paper trail. Living or visiting any urban environment is out of the question because almost all urban environments are heavily monitored by cameras, which are now capable of being monitored 24/7 by machines using facial recognition (as well as body and gait recognition, for anyone who thinks a mask will protect their identity).
It's absolutely way harder, if not impossible, to completely disappear today compared to even 20 or 30 years ago. Sure, some areas are less actually populated by woke people. If you live in San Francisco and publicly object to sexualizing children, you will have an angry mob outside your house, but if you live in Idaho they (probably) aren't going to drive hundreds of miles to harass you. But they can still harass you online and ruin your reputation. If you're doing the remote worker thing then do you think your employer will stick with you if you get targeted by the mob, when they can easily hire FacelessRemoteWorker29 from anywhere in the world?
If you are fleeing from having been a terrorist, there is a paper trail. If some oddball on the interwebz is trying that hard to ruin your life to follow you to another country, that sounds less like a problem that involves moving, and more a problem that involves a face to face with your online harrasser.
Still a gamble. There have been times when it's worked out well, and times when it really hasn't.
And that assumes you can -find- your online harasser. Remember, a lot of these slugs use online harassment because it insulates them from the prospect of legal action, police visits, restraining orders, and angry significant others interested in kicking the living fuck out of them. So they take great pains to avoid being identified, and it usually takes something drastic to push authorities into actually doing something (like a swatting that results in injury or death).
True, but push people to have a life unlivable, they may decide their tormentor gets to join them in hell. I would also say, just like leaving the country leaves a trail, well so does trying to ruin someone. It all comes down to how serious everyone is I guess.