/dup/ - btfo

Netanyahu sees americans as the enemy. He is not willing to use traditional means of war, but they are willing to use social media to censor us. It is not a secret and this video should be shared everywhere. The kikes own the media.

Until recently, surveillance functioned much like a modern panopticon, creating the illusion of constant observation. But with AI, we're fast approaching a reality where it will be possible to genuinely monitor everyone, all the time.

It will become possible to instantly identify 'bad' behavior, and in some cases, even raise suspicion before it occurs. I use 'bad' in quotation marks because its definition is entirely shaped by those in power. Under the wrong circumstances, what's considered 'bad' could be a personal opinion-or even an entire ethnicity.

Social media already allows a small group of powerful oligarchs to shape what people see-and by extension, what they believe. While propaganda has always existed, social media takes it to a new level, making it harder to recognize the source. Even worse, it's personalized, creating isolated groups with entirely different sets of information and viewpoints.

With the rise of AI, however, this influence will only grow. Not only will algorithms become more advanced in how they rank and recommend content, but they'll also be able to generate fake content or messages, passing them off as organic.

I can't predict the future, but I'd bet that the majority of people won't even notice this shift. Most are tech-illiterate,and tech companies dominate the flow of information, which means any discussions about this will be limited and hard to find. It won't be a secret, per se, but discussions about it will be few and far between. When those discussions do exist, they'll likely be watered down to avoid sounding paranoid or extreme.

How does this make you feel emotionally? How would you react to it? The implications of this technology really bother me, but I know bringing it up in real life would likely make me seem paranoid, so I just keep it to myself.

Clearly DEI and diversity is prejudice against white men. Where are all the fucking lawsuits? Do jews own every single law office? How the fuck is any of this legal. Why are white people so interested in nigger sports while corporate america marginalizes them from the economy, and making real money. What the fuck?

Also post other sites other than jewtube.


Sargon needs to make way, a new enlightened centrist has arrived.

Ww3

Just started

Too much happenig. New world order is here.

Hot take: the real reason they want these banned is so they can then sell you plastic bags for your can liners and kitty litter. You're not contributing to oceanic plastic pollution if your bags get sent to a landfill. Think!

For more than 70 years, fluoride has been deliberately added to public water supplies on the assumption that it prevents tooth decay.

Presented as a safe and cost-effective public health measure, fluoridation has long enjoyed institutional protection from dental and pediatric associations, medical journals, many federal agencies, and town and county public health officials. Yet beneath the seemingly confident assurances lies a troubling reality. The fluoride used in municipal water is not a purified pharmaceutical drug but an industrial by-product of the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries. It is an industrial waste so toxic it cannot be dumped in soil or rivers. At certain concentrations, fluoride is more poisonous than arsenic.

Fluoridation has always carried the specter of a grand experiment. Entire populations have been exposed to this chemical without consent. Rarely has there been any transparency about what dose is received and what adverse systemic health effects may follow. Today, an ever-growing body of scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals links fluoride exposure to serious risks, which include ADHD and lowered IQ in children, thyroid and endocrine dysfunction, bone damage, skeletal fluorosis, and other chronic health conditions. One would think this evidence alone should have been enough to halt fluoridation.

But the story of fluoridation is not simply a matter of medical science and debate. It is a case study in how consensus is manufactured and defended. When dissenting scientists raise legitimate concerns, they are often marginalized. Their findings are delayed or discredited. Their careers are placed at risk. As with other controversies in modern medicine, federal officials and health authorities project a stale air of infallibility. To question them is framed as questioning "science itself." This hubris, which is echoed in Anthony Fauci's infamous declaration that "attacks on me are attacks on science", captures the deeper ethos that has shielded fluoridation from proper scrutiny. The result is that the nation's fluoridation policy endures not because the evidence is conclusive but because institutional power resists any acknowledgement of error.

This is not new. More than 50 years ago, two courageous scientists -Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burke, a co-founder of the National Cancer Institute, were among the first to publicly challenge fluoride's safety. They published dozens of papers anPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Consequences of the world they've created in which outside parties try to tell men how to run their families. Women are silly creatures who gravitate toward bad boys. They crave the abuse, and will almost always stay with their abuser, or get back with their abusers. I say, let them kill each other, stop having real men attempt to rescue these damsels from their poor choices in husbands.