In that hypothetical I think my comment would stand either way.

Why do all their jackets look three sizes too big?

I mean, something has to counterbalance their headwear.

Wow what a dodge. It doesn’t matter the extent of the trauma or whether it’s the worst trauma they have had. You are minding your own business, have done nothing wrong, then the cops show up with a random accusation and “need” to put you in cuffs while they determine if you are a threat. Comply or violence. It’s not right.

And I’m saying, even if they are polite, they are polite because I comply. If I don’t really want to be in handcuffs right then - doesn’t matter. If I’ve got an important appointment or was about to leave to pick up my child from school before police arrived to “make sure I’m not a threat” - doesn’t matter.

Your options at that point, even as someone who has done nothing wrong are comply, or expect violence. THAT is inherently traumatic.

I don’t disagree with you about this specific case, I was reacting to your “people put too much stock in being cuffed.” Removing another person’s bodily autonomy under direct threat of violence is just another day for police, but for the rest of us it’s a pretty fucking traumatic thing to be on the other end of.

Perhaps if you don’t understand what police officers go through, I could see it.

I understand they can pick a different job if it’s too much for them, and that they knew what the job entailed when they picked the career in the first place.

I always felt like people put too much stock into being handcuffed or not

Too much stock? Your bodily autonomy is being removed, under overt threat of further violence if you resist. It’s humiliating if seen in that condition because of assumptions people make. For someone who has done nothing wrong why the fuck wouldn’t they be indignant?

I’ve been handcuffed before, In a similar but not nearly as severe circumstance.

Me too, and I knew that they at least had a reason to think I was up to no good (I was not), it’s not the same as literally minding your own business in your own home and having them barge in. Not really apples to apples to this situation here.

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

Typical maga thinking honestly. Why wouldn’t she want to be with a “real man” (you know, a god fearing conservative macho white guy) instead of a guy like that? (you know, a non-white guy, or a soyboy, or whatever slur they are using at the moment) - must be drugs!

I did, I blame that I’d been awake about 5 min when posting. :D Will fix thank you!

Yep, conservatives throughout history have been the party of taking things away and making sure everyone hates everyone else.

Whoops read Ehrlichman as Ainslinger. Nothing to see here, coffee incoming.

They left out some of the worst of it. (Edited to acknowledge that’s arguably an unfair statement for me to make. The article is specifically about the term marijuana, so what I added below is arguably out of scope for what they were reporting. Still, Ainslinger was off his fucking rocker on this shit. This isn’t even the only eyebrow raising quote from him on the topic.)

Harry J Ainslinger was the first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, predecessor to the DEA. Here’s one of his quotes on the topic:

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.

That was back in the early 20th century.

More recently we have this from Nixon’s domestic policy head:

In a 1994 interview, Mr. Ehrlichman said, “You want to know what this was really all about?” He went on:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

The war on drugs has always been racist. Crack cocaine is an even more clear example.

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

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

True, but it’s not like intelligence (nor attendance of a prestigious university) guarantees empathy or critical thinking skills.

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

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

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

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

Quoting @possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip :

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

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

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

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

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

There is no big plan to weaken encryption or anything.

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

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

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

More recently you can take your pick.

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

As a bonus - anyone remember Truecrypt?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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