What once protected the child becomes exhaustion in the adult. Anxiety is not a brokenness. It is adaptation. It is the nervous system saying, I learned this to keep you safe. Healing does not come from fighting the system, but from slowly teaching it that survival is no longer required. This is why the 30-day healing journey exists, not to fix you, but to gently guide the body out of constant alertness, one day at a time.

I mean, aside from the “30-day healing journey” this sounds pretty genuine. Although, I think it is probably slop-ified from Thich Nhat Hanh.

Yeah, true that.

On the other hand, the AI tool is presumably pulling from the exact same primary sources which may or may not show a full picture of what happened…

Like?

Resisting arrest, I think. “You’re under arrest, come out of the house” “No” is literally what it means to resist arrest (without violence). Coming out later doesn’t absolve you of it any more than slowing down absolves you for speeding earlier.

And how does this support your argument? She was talked out of the protection of her home.

Have you been checked for short term memory loss? It’s like you forgot the first part of my sentence by the time you got to the second part. Staying in the protection of her home would have just gotten her home busted up once they secured the warrant.

IDK, dude. I was just trying to send you a video to help you understand, but you’re clearly not into it. I remember now why I stopped talking to you back before when we talked about this.

Honestly, the right answer at this point in technology is just to let the bodycam be the police report.

We used to need police reports so there was a solid written record of what (supposedly) happened. It was a pain in the ass writing them, but it had to happen. But now, what’s the point? Surely, the answer is to let cops write a three-sentence report about the broadest possible strokes of who was involved and what was the final outcome, and then “* see bodycam” for the details. Then, if it comes to some sort of proceeding where people have to dig into the nitty gritty details of what happened, they just pull the video, and see for themselves.

Everyone wins. Right?

There are a couple more I happened to run across, this one just seemed really on the nose about what generally will happen if you try to hide in your house. It reminded me of our conversation.

In another of them, the girl had a warrant and tried to refuse to come out of her house so she wouldn’t have to stay in jail for the weekend. Long story short, she got arrested and more charges. That one, they didn’t have the ability to enter the house without a warrant, they just had the arrest warrant for her specifically, so they were waiting for a judge to sign off on a warrant but were able to talk her into coming out before the warrant came through.

There was another where the guy was hiding in a closet inside the house. They didn’t have a warrant, but they did have probable cause to enter the place, so long story short he got arrested even with the hiding in the closet part.

Your summary of how it works, way way above, was actually pretty accurate (warrant or emergency being the two main exceptions to the general rule that they can’t come in your house). The thing is that about 90% of the situations where they’re coming to the door and are planning to arrest you will fall into one or the other of those categories. You gain nothing in the “they just want to talk” situation, and you gain nothing in the “they want to arrest you” situation. These are just some examples of people who tried to solve the problem by not interacting physically with the cops, and then it not working to accomplish anything positive.

(Again, this is only for local law enforcement, and only if they are generally aboveboard. For ICE or federal law enforcement, or if you’re not sure, I think not answering the door is probably smarter at this point.)

I happened to run across a video which is highly pertinent to this situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC2h2bSZJao

That’s pretty much what you can expect if you try the “I’m inside I’m not opening the door” strategy. Like you can see from the end of the video, the cops didn’t really have any ability to charge them with anything as long as they exercised their shut the fuck up skills (which, to their credit, they did a great job with). But all it accomplished refusing to open the door was to make the situation a lot more violent before the conversation with the cops happened where they refused to say anything.

I think, probably, the homeowners were correct that the situation wasn’t that big a deal in the first place. But, they made a pretty serious mistake by listening to your brand of TikTok law and getting their door destroyed and getting arrested as a result, instead of just walking outside and having the conversation pre-handcuffs.

It’s always the same with these guys:

When they’re winning, it’s ruthless and relentless, everything you get is your fault, and you’re a fool and a dipshit if you don’t get on board.

As soon as things start not going their way, they start the waterworks. It’s all unfair, it’s horrible, how could people be so mean to us. Don’t they believe in all of our common humanity? How could they?

This is literally 100% the reason why a jury of your peers exists.

The founding fathers went through a system where dipshits like Stephen Miller could just make up whatever they wanted, and the people had no role, and they fought a whole war to cancel that system. They knew exactly what was up with it.

Edit: If, by some chance, you wind up on a jury where this comes up, just pretend you’ve never heard of it. Even having heard the term, or understanding the concept, will almost certainly get you disqualified from the jury. You can do the exact same process of deciding that it’s a bunch of bullshit that whatever person is being accused of whatever when it’s pretty obvious that they were not the one in the wrong, without it being called “jury nullification.” It’s just justice, it’s just common sense, like I said it is the whole intent of having a jury.

I am opposed to systems that create oppression and injustice. Taylor Swift had fuck-all to do with creating any of that.

She benefits from it, sure, and she shouldn’t. But targeting her as the problem just feels like the vicious habit of just targeting the weakest example you can think of and pretending that if we keep shitting on that target, it’ll make everything better.

Also, it’s always Taylor Swift.

I feel like this is seeing in action the thinking that led to the cultural revolution. “Sure, he’s just a chemistry teacher. But he’s one of the evil ones. He’s in the bad group. Into the labor camp!”

Fixing the awful problems with our society requires changing a lot of things, among them taxes and the power of the wealthy to distort government and public opinion. Demonizing Taylor Swift relentlessly will do fuck all.

One of the best approaches I saw was a teacher who assigned students to have ChatGPT generate a paper on a topic, and then write their own paper critiquing ChatGPT’s paper and identifying the errors that it made.

It doesn’t even have to be that fancy. It could just be that Ossé is kind of an idiot or something, and this specific challenge is unlikely to succeed and likely to produce a bunch of heat and friction while it is failing.

I have no idea. I do kind of agree with the idea that if Mamdani and AOC are both weighing in publicly on this issue, then maybe they know something about it that I don’t, as opposed to the “the ONLY explanation is that they’re both compromised by the DNC and Ossé is obviously wonderful and we already know that and he’s exempt from all the nail biting scrutiny which we aim at certain other socialist politicians” theory.

For the Ossé supporters: Who is this guy? Why do you like him? I don’t like Jeffries either, I think he’s a bum for sure. Primarying him in general sounds great, to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Ossé

Ossé worked for several years in the entertainment industry as a promoter.[5] In May 2020, amid nationwide protests over the murder of George Floyd, Ossé became a prominent Black Lives Matter organizer and co-founded the activist collective “Warriors in the Garden”.[6] According to public statements, Ossé joined the Democratic Socialists of America in 2020 but left shortly after as he felt his views and those of the organization’s did not align.[7] Ossé rejoined the New York City chapter in the summer of 2025, following Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the 2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary.[8]

Ossé rejected an offer to serve as a delegate for Joe Biden at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, but ultimately elected to attend the event following the withdrawal of Biden, being granted a credential as one of approximately 200 influencers at the DNC.[9]

Ossé filed to run in New York’s 8th congressional district against Hakeem Jeffries in November 2025, but did not win the endorsement of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America.[22][23] Following the result, Ossé stated he would not run.[24]

That used to be true, but Claude is now getting substantially worse.

I suspect that what’s happening is that they are trying to bleed out money in slightly less torrential amounts every month, so they’re trying hard to constrain how much resources the thing is allowed to consume, meaning that it started out smart and is now getting steadily dumber over time. I was trying to use Claude for a coding project today, and while I’ll admit the questions were complex, it really was remarkably dumb in a way that it didn’t used to be.

Bank powder

Trump is probably nettled about Russia’s claim to have tested a long-range, nuclear-powered cruise missile, the Burevestnik

Let me tell you a little story about an American missile called the “snark.”

The name was the sort of joke that weapons engineers like to make. It was supposed to navigate itself autonomously to its target in the Soviet Union by watching the stars. It did not have horizontal stabilizers, and flew itself pointed in a weird nose-up attitude the entire way. Once it arrived at its destination, it was supposed to detach the warhead and then pull up violently in order not to get in the warhead’s way, which caused it to break apart in flight. They said with a straight face that the falling debris would help to confuse enemy radar, as if this had been a purposeful design element rather than something that they weren’t bothering to fix.

It did not do its navigation very well. One of the strategic bomber pilots was quoted as saying that he felt a hell of a lot better about flying his bomber knowing that the plan was for a bunch of these things to be wandering aimlessly above Asia and distracting everyone’s attention from what his bomber was up to.

Anyway, they tried it in about 1961, and it sucked so they stopped. And I think the US in 1961 was in a lot better position than modern Russia to do these kinds of things effectively.

Just a little story to distract everyone from the horror of Trump and what he is doing

One thing about this is that it seems to labor under the assumption of a symmetrical (or near symmetrical) fight, and that is exactly the last thing that a resistance group should be doing.

He talks about guerilla war in parts of it.

All these human traffickers have homes to go back to at night, and if enough face repercussions, it will quickly become difficult to find people willing to stick their neck out and possibly become yet another new fountain.

The same is true of judges, Democratic congresspeople, state governors… all kinds of people. So you’re right back to the symmetrical conflict.

Yeah, it is excellent. He put it in the public domain, it’s on the internet:

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/126900/8008_FDTD.pdf

He wrote a bunch more that are a little more in depth (there are references in the appendix for some specific details about particular tactics), but that one is the pamphlet condensed version which is still pretty comprehensive.

The second frog turns to the first and says “you’re being alarmist, things aren’t that bad.”

This sounds like the second frog.‡

You gotta read what I wrote again then lol

You definitely have way more faith in our (metaphorical) neighbors and the system than I do.

Absolutely not. Actually one of the really alarming things to me is that I don’t think this country has the structures and traditions in its society anymore that would enable it to build and maintain a working technological society (let alone a working democracy). I hope I am wrong, but I actually don’t even think that the current fascism crisis is the worst thing that we’re facing. I think it is a symptom of a much deeper disease which is a lot harder to get rid of than any one leader or political faction no matter how fascistic.

It would help if you included resources that prove that that book was the pretext for double digit successful revolutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Dictatorship_to_Democracy

It’s known to have been directly involved in Burma, the Arab Spring, Serbia, and Angola. It’s been translated by local activists into Amharic, Arabic, Azeri, Bahasa, Belarusian, Burmese, Chin, Chinese (simplified and traditional Mandarin), Dhivehi, Farsi, French, Georgian, German, Jing Paw, Karen, Khmer, Kurdish, Kyrgyz, Nepali, Pashto, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Tibetan, Tigrinya, Ukrainian, Uzbek, and Vietnamese. I have no idea how many of those led to it later being involved in a revolutionary attempt (let alone a successful one) in a “proof” sense. I was just telling you what I think about it.

Here’s a story: https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/23/world/gene-sharp-revolutionary/index.html

The author is the real deal. He’s spent time in federal detention in the US, he’s spent a lot of time with people in resistance movements in these places.

I want to call your attention to this part specifically:

The Burmese were amazed by Sharp’s theories. They couldn’t believe they had been fighting and killing for 20 years when there was an alternative.

I don’t know if you can really call modern Myanmar a “success story” but to me they seem like they’re making more progress now than in 30 years of bloody armed confrontation with the military, which of course is more capable at military things.

You likely have no idea who you just killed and who’s coming to investigate it

I saw a bodycam video once where some cops were attempting to speak with a woman who had signs of mental illness who was alone in the house with a small child. One of her relatives was alarmed by this situation, called the cops, and a couple cops were now trying to retrieve the child from the house calmly, without success.

The sergeant showed up, said maybe it was a fake custody situation, said maybe someone was in the country illegally, yelled at the woman who had called the police, and had everyone leave.

Once the cops left, the woman he had yelled at tried to go in the house and resolve things herself, the mentally ill woman physically attacked her, and the cops came back and long story short it all got sorted out. The sergeant actually apologized to the woman for being an “asshole” in his words. Sure. But also, the situation could easily have ended with a dead kid or the woman who called the cops getting shot or something.

Bottom line: Yes. There are plenty of good cops out there, don’t listen to Lemmy about it. But there are also plenty who are incompetent or it’s just not a good day for them. Don’t just give a goddamned statement.