That’s not what flanderisation is. I don’t know why you keep repeating this word.
Flanderisation is when a previously varied an complex fictional character gets one or a few of their traits exaggerated more and more over time, until it becomes their entire personality.
E.g. Ned Flanders, who was originally just a foil to Homer Simpson. Friendlier, more devout in belief, less potty-mouthed, physically fitter, nicer (while still attainable) home, untroubled family, etc. He represented what Homer wanted to be and was jealous of.
Over time he was flanderised to just being an uber-religious nut with essentially nothing else to his personality.
Flanderisation is not when people are weary of how technology is being used and will continue to be used by large businesses and governments to track what we do and build extensive profiles on us.
We could also all be living under a social credit score system like in China, but most of us aren’t. Just because something could become our reality, doesn’t mean we should avoid all progress in that field.
In the end it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not. They will do it anyways. Like it was the case with Preditor and the Greek government. Or Pegasus and Mexico. In the case of Pegasus and Mexico, people actually died.
New thing could become mandatory in a future and give governments direct access to our eyes, thoughts, hearing…
Smart phone tracking would become a joke in comparison.
Do you always take things way further then they’ll ever go? It’s pretty much blatant flanderazation at this point.
It may or not may happpen, but there’s a potential.
Not really.
You’re the kind of person that cannot be argued with, but that doesn’t imply that you hold the truth.
Lmao, sure pal.
It is called “thinking ahead of the consequences”, and it is done with every mayor decision.
Better than waiting until they happen to respond.
Following that line of logic, if the Feds say that we should lower emissions, you’ll cry out about how they’re going to take your car.
Somehow you’ve conflated risk planning and mitigation with telling random what ifs on the Internet.
It’s called flanderization
That’s not what flanderisation is. I don’t know why you keep repeating this word.
Flanderisation is when a previously varied an complex fictional character gets one or a few of their traits exaggerated more and more over time, until it becomes their entire personality.
E.g. Ned Flanders, who was originally just a foil to Homer Simpson. Friendlier, more devout in belief, less potty-mouthed, physically fitter, nicer (while still attainable) home, untroubled family, etc. He represented what Homer wanted to be and was jealous of.
Over time he was flanderised to just being an uber-religious nut with essentially nothing else to his personality.
Flanderisation is not when people are weary of how technology is being used and will continue to be used by large businesses and governments to track what we do and build extensive profiles on us.
We could also all be living under a social credit score system like in China, but most of us aren’t. Just because something could become our reality, doesn’t mean we should avoid all progress in that field.
But Smartphones are tracked and hacked by governments. And it is legal in most cases. And people are killed by governments.
the government only ever kills bad people, right? its not like laws will ever change
In the end it doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not. They will do it anyways. Like it was the case with Preditor and the Greek government. Or Pegasus and Mexico. In the case of Pegasus and Mexico, people actually died.
true.
Who said that? Because I did not