In The News...

Overdoses are so rampant now that sometimes EMTs are getting sent out to revive the same person as many as three times per day. It doesn't sounds like everything that can be done is getting done to lessen the deadly effect of this synthetic narcotic. Having such a vulnerable border with Mexico certainly doesn't help.
 
“synthetic narcotic”

This shit is in no way pharmaceutical grade, it’s poison. Anybody that doesn’t understand that this is an outright attack on America has their head in the sand. Because of the bribes and blackmail China and others have on this administration it will continue.
 
I wasn't trying to suggest it's pharmaceutical grade. I'm just calling it what it is. It's a drug which results from chemical synthesis, meaning it doesn't occur organically or naturally. Therefore, it is synthetic. It is also a narcotic.
 
Meth is a synthetic narcotic, by legal definition. Shit made in a trailer in a desert by dirty tweakers is in no way "pharmaceutical grade". Why did this have to come up in discussion? The point being discussed was that fentanyl is a poisonous scourge, wreaking havoc on the American populace. Nobody was arguing to the contrary.

Also, let's not forget, Biden inherited the fentanyl issue. To be honest, it was under Trump that it really got out of hand. Can't blame everything on Biden, like daddy Trump was a benevolent God and nothing bad ever happened. The border has been an issue dividing this country for most of my life and its stupid.

You see shit on the news, the internet, whatever.

I've hauled water into the desert, and recovered the dried, eerily mummy-like bodies of children from cruel, rocky arryos, baking under the Sonoran sun.

Our opinions are not formed from the same sources of information.

I've spent a lot of time in that desert, photo-hunting jaguar, volunteering on SAR operations, exploring the Sky Islands, four wheeling, etc. I lived in Arivaca for a time. The border is my backyard. It needs to be secured so people stop dieing in the desert. I don't give two squeaky phuks about immigration policy, I don't want anyone else to die, suffering in the heat, abandoned to their fate beneath an angry Arizona sun.
 
They got the jump on him. No doubt. He wasn't ready for that. Officer 2's rifle jammed. That's a bad hit. Clean weapons exchange, though. Nice. Subscribing to that channel.
 
They got the jump on him. No doubt. He wasn't ready for that. Officer 2's rifle jammed. That's a bad hit. Clean weapons exchange, though. Nice. Subscribing to that channel.
Go through the back catalog. Cody will be wrapping his channel up soon, he's tired of all the drama. Great content though.
 
"Police in the Canadian province of Quebec warned citizens against posting surveillance footage of their packages being stolen because it could violate the "private life" of the alleged thieves."

They got this one anyway. Video in the link.

 
[I laughed out loud as I read this article (excerpted below) about how our lives have changed due to pervasive tech. As I read it, on my phone, first thing this morning… I realized ‘oh my- I have succumbed to “Tech Addiction” and I am watching my productivity crumble’:]


Oliver Burkeman, the author of the time-management book “Four Thousand Weeks,” was asked if he’d encountered any new strategies for rehabbing our relationship with tech. The title of his book refers to the average human life span, which invites the question: “How many of those weeks have I already wasted doomscrolling?”

Burkeman agreed that there was probably no new tactic that, taken in isolation, was going to free us from phone addiction. But if we make a philosophical change, the practical changes become more achievable.

The key, Burkeman said, is to adjust the way we think about our own agency. His work challenges what he sees as the prevailing narrative about distraction and social media — the one that sees us “sitting there, rapturously concentrating” when, against our will, our attention is snatched away by the evil talons of an Instagram feed.

But that’s not what most people experience. In reality, Burkeman said, whatever you’re working on triggers an unpleasant emotion in you — perhaps boredom, or fear of not being able to complete the task at hand, or concern about not having enough time. You take refuge in your phone in order to escape those uncomfortable feelings.

Once there, it’s designed to keep your attention and suck up your day. But the thing to keep in mind, he said, is “the idea of distraction as starting inside us, and not simply being a case of evil Silicon Valley companies stealing away our focus.” That way, we’re in charge. When the uncomfortable emotions arise, we can recognize them, and we’re better equipped to resist.

The thing I miss the most about my life without tech is the feeling I had that real life is all there was. There wasn’t a parallel universe online where I had duties and chores and a persona to maintain. I only had to exist in one realm.

Burkeman suggests, instead of attempting to eradicate social media, that we work on “switching our default setting” to real life. “Remind yourself that your real life is here in your physical surroundings and talking to people and doing things,” he said, adding, “Make social media somewhere you go instead of the place you live.”
 
How is social media not "real life?" It's both very real and a genuine, verifiable part of my life. I realize that they're trying to make a distinction between socializing in the same physical space with other human beings and shit posting on Reddit for example. But I think it is an injustice to claim that social media interactions, which are usually with very real individuals (bots aside), with all participants living out their lives on a social media platform, are "fake." There's very little about human to human social media interactions that is "fake." I think it's lazy to suggest that only face to face interactions are real. The distinction between life online and life among friends and family in the same physical space goes much deeper than that.
 
Last edited:
How is social media not "real life?" It's both very real and a genuine, verifiable part of my life. I realize that they're trying to make a distinction between socializing in the same physical space with other human beings and shit posting on Reddit for example. But I think it is an injustice to claim that social media interactions, which are usually with very real individuals (bots aside), with all participants living out their lives on a social media platform, are "fake." There's very little about human to human social media interactions that is "fake." I think it's lazy to suggest that only face to face interactions are real. The distinction between life online and life among friends and family in the same physical space goes much deeper than that.
The inflections, non-verbal cues, and all the rest that goes into a face-to-face encounter are missing and can sometimes lead to confusion or outright misunderstanding in an online interaction.
 
The inflections, non-verbal cues, and all the rest that goes into a face-to-face encounter are missing and can sometimes lead to confusion or outright misunderstanding in an online interaction.
While that all is completely accurate, are you asserting that such interactions aren't a part of "real life?" Because I'm fairly certain that they are. It is decidedly different than face to face interactions for certain, but online discourse and activities aren't part of some alternate reality or universe or dimension; they are a part of the same "real life" as face to face interactions. That's my argument.
 
Back
Top