You can't really (remotely) hack a machine that doesn't have wireless capabilities or computer chips in them.
In the movie it was just regular, non electronic machines like (pre-computerized) diesel trucks and lawnmowers etc.
Wolf
joined 1 month ago
If you knew about her still being in the news, your statement about how you never hear about her anymore makes little sense.
She's not a teenager any longer, that was my point. It was fairly unusual for a 15 year old to be so outspoken and articulate about the problem, which is why she used to get a lot of coverage.
Now she is just one young lady among millions who are outspoken about the issue, and the only thing that really distinguishes her from her peers is that she got famous for it at a young age.
Almost all mainstream news in the US is right wing, and I was clearly speaking about why they don't report on her as much now as they originally did.
I'm sure that her anti capitalist stance has a lot to do with her not being in the news as much, nothing I said contradicts that.
From the way you worded your original statement it seemed like you were saying that the reason you don't hear from her now was because she wised up and stopped doing it, not that she realized capitalism was the problem and that caused the media to stop reporting on her.
Now that I know what you meant it's clear we are on the same side of the issue, so I'm not sure why you are insisting that I'm 'completely wrong' about it.
There was a silly little movie in the 80's called "Maximum Overdrive", written and directed by Stephen King.
In it Aliens somehow cause machines to 'turn' on human beings and attack us.
They could remake that movie now but instead of Aliens causing the machines to attack people, it could be malicious 'hackers' that do it, and it would be more believable that the original film.
I generally agree with your point (although I think we can hold corporations accountable and make whatever changes to our lifestyle that will help at the same time) but
There’s a reason you don’t hear about little Greta anymore, she got wise.
She was in the news just last month for trying to get humanitarian aid to Palestine. She was on a ship that tried to bypass Israel's naval blockade and the Israelis seized the ship and it's cargo and eventually deported the activists.
She's still very active in her environmental activism as well.
You many not hear about her as much now that she's a young woman and not a teenager, but your implication that she 'got wise' is incorrect. The mainstream media doesn't like to report on her unless they can somehow make her look bad, because they don't want to remind people that climate change is happening or encourage young people to follow her lead.
That's a good point, I worded it poorly. I didn't mean to imply that the adults didn't 'believe' it and just told that to their children. I think that it was more the case that they believed in the spiritual truths behind the stories and not necessarily that they were literal, although I can't say for certain that was the case in all instances. Maybe some of them did believe it literally or didn't really make a distinction between spiritually true and literally true. It's not like they had the scientific knowledge to know what the alternative was.
I think it's natural to try and explain the world around you, and if you don't have the tools to know what is really going on- then yeah you will probably make some crazy guesses. And then if you tell it to your children as if it were fact, then they might not question it seeing as how you are a trusted elder.
I think my point though was that it really isn't what I would call 'stupid' to do something like create a silly myth and pass it on. For me where it becomes stupid is when you insist it's the literal truth and that other people believe it, or when you refuse to update your worldview in the case where better evidence comes along because you are a zealot about your mythology.
a dozen other equally stupid myths
I think there is some missing context here that makes this an unfair comparison. In general, tribal cultures didn't treat their creation myths as literal fact. It was more of a poetic way to explain to the children of the tribe where their people had come from and give the tribe a sense of identity. Since they didn't have Science to actually explain how they got there, this seems as reasonable as anything honestly.
If someone from a different nation were to come visit and relate their account of creation, they wouldn't argue with the person and insist that their creation myth was the 'correct' one and that the visitor was wrong. They were a different people so it makes sense they were 'created' in a different way. Since neither was attempting to explain things in a literal way, the two different stories weren't incompatible with each other.
It's likely that the creation myths of the ancient Hebrew people were looked at in a similar way at first, they were a tribal people after all. At some point (likely to do with the Agricultural Revolution, but that's a whole different topic) they started conquering and subjugating the neighboring tribes and insisting those people adopt their spiritual practice, that's when the whole deal of insisting it was the literal truth came about.
In the bible Yahweh and the Hebrews spend a lot of time worrying about what 'gods' the other tribes worshiped. Much more so than would be rational if you considered Yahweh to be the one, true, only and actual God. The reason that so much time was spent on it was because Yahweh was just a story, just like all the other Gods and you had to go out of your way to get people to follow along with the narrative that that one story was 'true', otherwise who would believe it?
So while it's easy for us to look back on the beliefs of tribal cultures and dismiss them as stupid, we are misunderstanding the purpose and intent of these stories. It's only 'stupid' if you take it literally. In context it was a lot less dumb and probably somewhat necessary to a harmonious life.
We have the benefit of pretty much knowing exactly how humans and the world got here, so we were never in a situation of having one of our children come up to us and ask how we got here and only being able to answer with "I have no idea." That would have been the situation that tribal societies would have been in if you were expecting them to give a scientific answer to the question. So it's really not the case that their creation myths were "Stupid", but more it was the best system they could possibly have had at the time.
who were fucking each other anyway, so whatevs
Where are you getting that from? The only thing the bible says about Lot's daughters when the mob shows up was that they were virgins.
After God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (and Lot's wife) and they were living in a cave in the hills, the daughters get Lot drunk and take turns having sex with him, but this was more a way to explain the origin of the Ammonites and the Moabites in an unflattering way than anything else. The bible almost exclusively portrays women in a terrible way, so the fact that they seemingly raped their dad likely wasn't the point of the story.
That's ok, neither do most "Christians". So many people who identify as Christians only ever 'read' the bible on Sunday's when the preacher tells them to open to a specific chapter and verse, that way they can spin an out of context narrative and get them to believe whatever it is the preacher/pastor/priest wants them to believe.
If more people actually read the bible there would probably be a lot fewer Christians, especially the Old Testament that evangelicals love to quote to justify their bigotry. It's basically one long racist and xenophobic justification for genocide and colonialism, and people are still being brutally murdered over it to this very day.
Edit: a lot of Christian denominations even go so far as to specify exactly which translation of the bible that their members are allowed to buy. In the case of my families church "Apostolic Pentecostals" that would be the "King James Version", a terrible translation that is over 420 years old and written in a language that is basically not spoken any longer. The reason? Most of the people in their congregation were/are barely literate. If they were allowed to use a modern translation they might be able to understand just how twisted the church's narrative actually is.
There's several more actually, but they don't follow those either.
17You must not make yourselves molten gods.
18 “You must keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days you must eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you; do this at the appointed time of the month Abib, for in the month Abib you came out of Egypt.
19 “Every firstborn of the womb belongs to me, even every firstborn of your cattle that is a male, whether ox or sheep. 20 Now the firstling of a donkey you may redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then break its neck. You must redeem all the firstborn of your sons.
“No one will appear before me empty-handed.
21 “On six days you may labor, but on the seventh day you must rest; even at the time of plowing and of harvest[at] you are to rest.
22 “You must observe the Feast of Weeks—the firstfruits of the harvest of wheat—and the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year. 23 At three times in the year all your men must appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel. 24 For I will drive out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; no one will covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year.
25 “You must not offer the blood of my sacrifice with yeast; the sacrifice from the Feast of Passover must not remain until the following morning.
26 “The first of the firstfruits of your soil you must bring to the house of the Lord your God.
“You must not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
Because it's about justifying their bigotry, not following the bible.
view more: next ›
How would that be obvious when it was all over mainstream news?
I don't live in a "Banana Republic" either and I'm not sure that has anything to do with my claim about US News.
Yeah, I get that now that you have clarified. Did you expect me to divine the future to learn what you meant before I replied initially?
Jesus fucking Christ. For the THIRD (3rd) time now, she is NOT a teenager any longer. She aged, just like everyone else did. Time continued to pass for her. She 'grew up'. She is now 22 years old, which is NOT a teenager. Now that she is 22 years old, she is no longer considered a Teen. She was born in 2003. 2025-2003 = 22 years old. I'm not sure how much more plainly I can say the same thing.
Do you normally have this hard of a time comprehending the English language?