5 ms·

“Covid is critical because it convinces people to accept biometric surveillance”

WaxedChewbacca 4y ago
georgia_peach 4y ago
Kind of explains the abrupt Roe v. Wade reversal: a ruling based on a right to privacy & body autonomy would be in direct conflict with employer testing, contact tracing, forced vaccination, etc...
- derbOac 4y ago
  ... except many of the people advocating for repealing Roe v Wade probably are opposed to COVID-related personal restrictions? It's an interesting comparison to think about but seems like more as a contrast maybe. EDIT: I made a typo on my phone and originally incorrectly wrote "advocating for Roe v Wade".
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    From what I see, people who favored the original Roe v Wade ruling were, for the most part, strongly in favor of things like contact tracing & mandatory vaccination. Absent any special pleading, this all seems very contradictory to me. I think USA was the only part of the anglosphere to not go all-out on vax mandates. Certain types will chalk all of that up to "muh guns" or "muh constitution," and perhaps they are right, or maybe there was just a pesky little piece of case law in the way, and the system is removing the obstacle before round-two commences?
    - derbOac 4y ago
      Yeah a critical word got deleted when I wrote that. There's a lot of potential consequences of repeal for medical privacy and autonomy that it seems people are starting to think through.
    - __B_B__ 4y ago
      As long as we're talking about bodily autonomy, biometric surveillance and hypocrisy I'd like to quote Robert Scaer. "Fetuses confronted with an amniocentesis needle invading the uterus exhibit defensive motor behavior. Intrauterine needling of the fetus causes full blown stress-related increase in plasma cortisol and B-endorphin levels, with modulation, of the stress response slower than the adult. Fetuses can also learn to adapt their behavior to control the environment. When presented with a sequence of different voices through headphones, an infant will learn to access his mother's voice through regulating the frequency of sucking on a nipple. The evidence for learning by the unborn fetus in utero, by the premature infant in the pediatric intensive care unit, and by the normal full-term newborn is overwhelming. They learn through implicit conditional memory. The assumption that infants in all stages of development do not experience pain, do not register arousal with threat, and do not process a response to traumatic stress is clearly outdated and invalid." Even a cursory familiarity with the positions of those in opposition to abortion would yield the delightful semantic response of "not your body" when presented with the equally semantic argument of "my body my choice".
      - georgia_peach 4y ago
        I don't doubt or disagree with anything you have written. I am simply speculating as to why such an old ruling would be so suddenly reversed. A mere coincidence of timing, arising from the number of justices Trump got to pick? Or something else?
        __B_B__ 4y ago
        I'm not really interested in isolated political incidents but rather how they fit into trends across long spans of time. This dichotomy of collective vs individual is also very interesting to me, and through that interest I've determined that some people seem to believe that this plane of existence is an engineering problem. That if you for instance, want to do away with scarcity or whatever, achieve anything at all, well then all that is required is a proper catalogue of inputs and corresponding outputs with as few and as limited variables as possible, and like I said, that to acquire such a catalogue is inherently good for it enables any beneficence. So, regarding free will and self determinations about one's own body, that is to say, one's own inputs into this catalogue, right; if your question is why would some people be so obsessive about micromanaging those aspects of your life, well that's why. It's because they believe that to do so is to master the laws of nature, and therefore to be able to reformulate the world in such a way that they estimate mankind would be happier and better off. That's the closest I've come to understanding the why of this stuff anyway, and it doesn't sit right with me because the premise is nihilistic, and it seems to me to mirror parts of my own life in which others derived their own life satisfaction from making demands of me and making me do things I didn't want to do without my consent and in such a way that I was worse off for those things having happened to me.
moistly 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  In the US, we have HIPAA. If they share data for research, it has to be anonymized. To share with providers, they need permission. That is a far cry from "total biometric surveillance".
  - moistly 4y ago
    Do you really think the Powers That Be, the ones that could Use Covid for Total Surveillance, can’t skirt HIPAA? COVID conspiracy theories are way too late to this game. If there’s any truth to them, sorry but it happened decades ago. You missed the boat the day you were born and the nurse drew samples.
    - georgia_peach 4y ago
      "the Powers That Be" are your words not mine. I am simply pointing out that what we have now (i.e. bits of data, with non-zero regulatory compliance requirements, scattered higgledy-piggledy, across disparate systems owned by different entities) is not the same thing as the "total biometric surveillance" Harari is so excited about in the video. Those are his words BTW: "total biometric surveillance"
      - moistly 4y ago
        WaxedChewbacca 4y ago
sp332 4y ago
But federal and state governments are ramping down testing and funding for testing. What tests there are are mainly home tests, and health agencies aren't even interested in hearing about positive results. Surveillance isn't getting entrenched. Edit: Also from what I can see, he's not actually a member of WEF, he just gives talks there.
- moistly 4y ago
  It’s a “TED Talk” for the WEF alumni.
- WaxedChewbacca 4y ago
__B_B__ 4y ago
Utopians like Harari don't actually have any ideas about even the most fundamental questions like the nature of consciousness, the nature of free will, whether it is right to force someone to do something they don't want to do, or what is the significance of freedom of association. They rely on that poverty of discourse for validity and probably find disagreement, debate and the constant tension of these questions to be irritating and they want it to end, so their propositions simply assume a position on these things then assert some moralistic or otherwise utopian vision of plenty to be derived from them at some undefined point in the future. This is what irrational and religious people do in order to justify their own power, because ultimately that's what really matters to them.
timcavel 4y ago

Kind of explains the abrupt Roe v. Wade reversal: a ruling based on a right to privacy & body autonomy would be in direct conflict with employer testing, contact tracing, forced vaccination, etc...

derbOac 4y ago
... except many of the people advocating for repealing Roe v Wade probably are opposed to COVID-related personal restrictions? It's an interesting comparison to think about but seems like more as a contrast maybe. EDIT: I made a typo on my phone and originally incorrectly wrote "advocating for Roe v Wade".
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  From what I see, people who favored the original Roe v Wade ruling were, for the most part, strongly in favor of things like contact tracing & mandatory vaccination. Absent any special pleading, this all seems very contradictory to me. I think USA was the only part of the anglosphere to not go all-out on vax mandates. Certain types will chalk all of that up to "muh guns" or "muh constitution," and perhaps they are right, or maybe there was just a pesky little piece of case law in the way, and the system is removing the obstacle before round-two commences?
  - derbOac 4y ago
    Yeah a critical word got deleted when I wrote that. There's a lot of potential consequences of repeal for medical privacy and autonomy that it seems people are starting to think through.
  - __B_B__ 4y ago
    As long as we're talking about bodily autonomy, biometric surveillance and hypocrisy I'd like to quote Robert Scaer. "Fetuses confronted with an amniocentesis needle invading the uterus exhibit defensive motor behavior. Intrauterine needling of the fetus causes full blown stress-related increase in plasma cortisol and B-endorphin levels, with modulation, of the stress response slower than the adult. Fetuses can also learn to adapt their behavior to control the environment. When presented with a sequence of different voices through headphones, an infant will learn to access his mother's voice through regulating the frequency of sucking on a nipple. The evidence for learning by the unborn fetus in utero, by the premature infant in the pediatric intensive care unit, and by the normal full-term newborn is overwhelming. They learn through implicit conditional memory. The assumption that infants in all stages of development do not experience pain, do not register arousal with threat, and do not process a response to traumatic stress is clearly outdated and invalid." Even a cursory familiarity with the positions of those in opposition to abortion would yield the delightful semantic response of "not your body" when presented with the equally semantic argument of "my body my choice".
    - georgia_peach 4y ago
      I don't doubt or disagree with anything you have written. I am simply speculating as to why such an old ruling would be so suddenly reversed. A mere coincidence of timing, arising from the number of justices Trump got to pick? Or something else?
      - __B_B__ 4y ago
        I'm not really interested in isolated political incidents but rather how they fit into trends across long spans of time. This dichotomy of collective vs individual is also very interesting to me, and through that interest I've determined that some people seem to believe that this plane of existence is an engineering problem. That if you for instance, want to do away with scarcity or whatever, achieve anything at all, well then all that is required is a proper catalogue of inputs and corresponding outputs with as few and as limited variables as possible, and like I said, that to acquire such a catalogue is inherently good for it enables any beneficence. So, regarding free will and self determinations about one's own body, that is to say, one's own inputs into this catalogue, right; if your question is why would some people be so obsessive about micromanaging those aspects of your life, well that's why. It's because they believe that to do so is to master the laws of nature, and therefore to be able to reformulate the world in such a way that they estimate mankind would be happier and better off. That's the closest I've come to understanding the why of this stuff anyway, and it doesn't sit right with me because the premise is nihilistic, and it seems to me to mirror parts of my own life in which others derived their own life satisfaction from making demands of me and making me do things I didn't want to do without my consent and in such a way that I was worse off for those things having happened to me.

moistly 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
georgia_peach 4y ago
In the US, we have HIPAA. If they share data for research, it has to be anonymized. To share with providers, they need permission. That is a far cry from "total biometric surveillance".
- moistly 4y ago
  Do you really think the Powers That Be, the ones that could Use Covid for Total Surveillance, can’t skirt HIPAA? COVID conspiracy theories are way too late to this game. If there’s any truth to them, sorry but it happened decades ago. You missed the boat the day you were born and the nurse drew samples.
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    "the Powers That Be" are your words not mine. I am simply pointing out that what we have now (i.e. bits of data, with non-zero regulatory compliance requirements, scattered higgledy-piggledy, across disparate systems owned by different entities) is not the same thing as the "total biometric surveillance" Harari is so excited about in the video. Those are his words BTW: "total biometric surveillance"
    - moistly 4y ago
      - WaxedChewbacca 4y ago

sp332 4y ago

But federal and state governments are ramping down testing and funding for testing. What tests there are are mainly home tests, and health agencies aren't even interested in hearing about positive results. Surveillance isn't getting entrenched. Edit: Also from what I can see, he's not actually a member of WEF, he just gives talks there.

moistly 4y ago
It’s a “TED Talk” for the WEF alumni.
WaxedChewbacca 4y ago

__B_B__ 4y ago

Utopians like Harari don't actually have any ideas about even the most fundamental questions like the nature of consciousness, the nature of free will, whether it is right to force someone to do something they don't want to do, or what is the significance of freedom of association. They rely on that poverty of discourse for validity and probably find disagreement, debate and the constant tension of these questions to be irritating and they want it to end, so their propositions simply assume a position on these things then assert some moralistic or otherwise utopian vision of plenty to be derived from them at some undefined point in the future. This is what irrational and religious people do in order to justify their own power, because ultimately that's what really matters to them.

timcavel 4y ago