hydroxylGroup

12년 전discuss

I would say it started in 2004 and completed by 2009.

In 2004, social networking websites came to prominence. By 2009, social networking had been implicitly integrated into smart phones that had been unleashed upon the world, and peer pressure (among youth in particular) and dark patterns of usability were coercing or subverting any natural tendencies to participate in geolocation and facial recognition research and development.

hydroxylGroup

12년 전discuss

  It's all the same machine, right? The Pentagon, 
  multinational corporations, the police. If you 
  do one little job, you build a widget in 
  Saskatoon, and the next thing you know, it's two 
  miles under the desert, the essential component 
  of a death machine.

  ...

  This may be hard for you to understand, but there 
  is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It, it's a 
  headless blunder operating under the illusion of a 
  master plan. Can you grasp that? Big Brother is not 
  watching you.

Cube - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/

hydroxylGroup

12년 전discuss

You're not doing a hero's work either. Don't claim to be instructing me with shame.

Why encourage silence in the scenarios where it's safe to conjecture. They're both dead, and history is written. Recognize the lack of detail now, and where there's an opportunity for misdirection. When no one discusses the safe scenarios, we are less prepared for the hazardous ones.

hydroxylGroup

12년 전discuss

But that's how smears work. The whole point is to cause deep consternation, because dangerous questions might reflect poorly upon the person that asks them.

So, when confronted with a delicate social scenario that threatens our better intentions, an awkward silence is produced, and everyone's mind races at the grey areas, and 12 people will diverge in 12 directions, guided by assumptions based on personal experiences. But in considering the possibilities, we realize the fact that we are in a situation where we cannot comfortably clarify certain details.

It's important to pick apart details when two people are mutually compromising each other's reputation. It's important to discern who is the agressor, or the possibility that it's an equal match between evenly paired beligerents.

This is where "preponderance of evidence" comes into play. If the situation is criminal, often times that is immediately evident. Serious physical abuse produces serious results. Psychological abuse is more questionable, but criminal psychological abuse generally results in a person that is very obviously broken by profound events.

If something sounds like gossip, then it's more or less a civil disagreement. Sure, emotions may run hot with a gossipy scandal, but at that point it's the social implications of reputation at stake. Serious, within the scope of a professional career, and as an open-ended slow burning problem for the reputable, but that sort of damage is indirect and have yet to completely unfold.

But this is how blackmail works. Is it vapor, smoke and mirros? If there are Ugly dirty details, let's see them. Otherwise, it's simply mud slinging to produce voids of inormation, so that imaginations and simple minds can run wild.

hydroxylGroup

12년 전discuss

So, like maybe he gave her a black eye, and a fat lip? Did her clothes get ripped? Was there lasting evidence of a serious assault?

Did he knock her down a flight of stairs, and the kick her the stomach until she shat blood?

Or did he just kind of push her aside, or grab her by the wrist, and shove her around and yell a lot, after she stood in a doorway between him and his bongo drums?

Did he overpower her and then hold her down and spit in her face? That might constitute serious psychological abuse, and then again maybe it might not be abuse at all according to some people.

Maybe he put her over his knee and spanked her? (some people might enjoy that sort of thing at the time, and then complain loudly about it later)

What does "attacked" mean?

hydroxylGroup

12년 전discuss

That would be a form of "threatening" or maybe "menacing", and yeah, it's intimidation, but I wouldn't count it as an attack.

hydroxylGroup

12년 전discuss

  > during which time he attacked her

Still sounds kind of vague. What, precisely, does the word "attacked" refer to?

comments