If people would unironically start pushing for this, I genuinely do not know what to do.
I guess that would be at least a nice bang to let democracy finally die.
Let's hope that we never see that happening.
___
To expand on that:
I believe that these thoughts are so incredibly harmful to humanity itself, (and, more importantly, I believe that the people in power believe that too,) that we'd be seeing pushback against this.
Maximum pushback, because what the pushback would be defending would be - as said - humanity itself.
Said pushback would be bypassing democracy, because there is no way of arguing with these crazy thoughts. Which would said a precedent, because why stop there.
Which, again, makes me believe that this is some sort of psyop, because I refuse to think that the people on here would really be as blind to the systemic implications of their brainfarts.
___
FWIW, a ruling class worth their net worth would go for the less draconian thing of simply taking away your internet access and forcing you to touch grass.
One that is.. uh.. less signed up on the whole "all people are equal and worth saving" would line up.. idk.. 100 people with these horribly bad-for-humanity ideas and shoot them in the head live on stream or something.
The interesting twist here is that LLM rulers might be more biased towards doing option B, as the statistical probabilities of words cannot _feel_ the chemical hormone cocktail invoked by the mental image of that.
He's having kids only to satisfy his eugenist, white supremacist kink. He doesn't care about them and even hate them if they stray out of his worldview - just ask Vivian.
If the constitutional aspects are settled in favor of people, but current SCOTUS suggests this be unlikely. But.. even it were, then police departments would just buy the data second hand instead via direct contracts.
Are you referring to "temporary inconvenience" or some other decision I'm not aware of?
The phrase "temporary inconvenience" refers to a statement by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his September 2025 concurrence in [Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo]. Defending an order allowing immigration enforcement stops based partly on apparent ethnicity or workplace, Kavanaugh wrote that questioning of legal residents or U.S. citizens would be "typically brief" and a minor inconvenience.
I'm referring to the pattern of SCOTUS making up whatever justification they want to achieve the result they want. That and the pattern of being pro-corporation.
Flock has already made their billions. They'll pivot to something else, probably budget gunshot tracking cameras that also accidentally eavesdrops on all conversations near by and sends it to the cloud for analysis.
reply