My reading comprehension is fine.
I know exactly what a the sign says and support the words 1,000,000%. It's an old sign from the COVID era, right? Today it rings hollow.
Based on what you currently promote on Twitter, you don't endorse these words any more do you?
I know exactly what a the sign says and support the words 1,000,000%. It's an old sign from the COVID era, right? Today it rings hollow.
Based on what you currently promote on Twitter, you don't endorse these words any more do you?
https://twitter.com/Travelling_Sign/status/1987773721600569781
Undermining people who are supporting your "𝙉𝙊" sign is not nice, is it?
You and your compeers are fine with:
⭕ me being called every filth and evil demon under the sun
⭕ gaslighting that what I am saying is in my own head and is slanderous.
Is that "nice"?
You and your compeers are fine with:
⭕ me being called every filth and evil demon under the sun
⭕ gaslighting that what I am saying is in my own head and is slanderous.
Is that "nice"?
The message of the multiple tweets you posted: "It's time to take a fresh look at Digital ID."
Anyone opposing = stuck in outdated thinking.
Resistance = reactionary, emotional, naïve.
The smart/evolved thing to do is re-evaluate (read: gradually accept) the digital ID agenda.
Anyone opposing = stuck in outdated thinking.
Resistance = reactionary, emotional, naïve.
The smart/evolved thing to do is re-evaluate (read: gradually accept) the digital ID agenda.
It's insulting that I am being painted as evil and demonic for pointed out publicly-visible behaviours.
Just because you post about skipping, smiling at animals/flowers doesn't mean you can't be criticised for posting blatant narrative control.
Just because you post about skipping, smiling at animals/flowers doesn't mean you can't be criticised for posting blatant narrative control.
https://x.com/Private_JKR/status/1987661121747075505?t=xDT2x3ZSqDhWNw6PAWHeSA&s=19
All this "demon," "filth" rhetoric is dishonest and actually nasty and spiteful, as well as lazy and childish.
All my commentary is substantiated to the hilt (the opposite of substance-free) and is grounded in real-world human concerns.
Gaslighting and inversion is wrong.
All my commentary is substantiated to the hilt (the opposite of substance-free) and is grounded in real-world human concerns.
Gaslighting and inversion is wrong.
The core psychological tactic of the multiple tweets you promotes are reframing dissent by the slaves against the slavemasters as obsolescence.
It questions the validity of opposing it, implying that dissenters are behind the curve.
This is a soft power technique. It says:
"If you're still resisting, maybe you're not thinking clearly, or emotionally maturely."
This is a soft power technique. It says:
"If you're still resisting, maybe you're not thinking clearly, or emotionally maturely."
This is dangerous, tactical political-speak.
It doesn’t need to convince the public that digital ID is good (too uncool); it only needs to plant enough doubt to make resistance seem unreasonable.
It doesn’t need to convince the public that digital ID is good (too uncool); it only needs to plant enough doubt to make resistance seem unreasonable.
That way: silence replaces dissent. Smug shrugoing replaces scrutiny and system-serving cynicism replaces courage.
There are certainly attempts to make it uncool to say "No," with all the bandwagon jumping on both sides of the dialectics.
There are certainly attempts to make it uncool to say "No," with all the bandwagon jumping on both sides of the dialectics.
What you promoted on your timeline was a masterclass in passive compliance dressed up as mature pragmatism.
It uses the tone of calm rationality to undermine the very idea of resisting, while pretending to understand and sympathise with it.
Classic disarming technique.
It uses the tone of calm rationality to undermine the very idea of resisting, while pretending to understand and sympathise with it.
Classic disarming technique.
It’s full of false binaries ("non-compliance vs shaping the outcome")
Defeatism cloaked as realism ("non-compliance won't work, they'll just pivot")
Weaponised inevitability ("it’ll happen anyway, why resist?")
Appeals to comfort ("opting out becomes a luxury few can afford")
Defeatism cloaked as realism ("non-compliance won't work, they'll just pivot")
Weaponised inevitability ("it’ll happen anyway, why resist?")
Appeals to comfort ("opting out becomes a luxury few can afford")
It discourages people from taking a stand. It paints principled resistance as futile.
Pathologises courage as naïveté.
“Belligerent” and “fractures under pressure” are inversions of what true moral conviction actually is.
Pathologises courage as naïveté.
“Belligerent” and “fractures under pressure” are inversions of what true moral conviction actually is.
You're visibly promoting surrender under technological control.
The biggest insult is that “the very tech powering digital ID could be our lever”.
Pure silicon-veneer Stockholm Syndrome.
And I am "demonic filth" for pointing this out?
The biggest insult is that “the very tech powering digital ID could be our lever”.
Pure silicon-veneer Stockholm Syndrome.
And I am "demonic filth" for pointing this out?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
