Search Results: being an individual

The Trump administration is using personal data normally protected from dissemination to find undocumented immigrants where they work, study and live, often with the goal of removing them from their housing and the workforce.

At HUD officials are working on a rule that would ban mixed-status households — in which some family members have legal status and others don’t — from public housing, according to multiple staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution. Affiliates from the U. S. DOGE Service are also looking to kick out existing mixed-status households, vowing to ensure that undocumented immigrants do not benefit from public programs, even if they live with citizens or other eligible family members.

The push extends across agencies: Last week, Social Security numbers of more than 6,000 mostly Latino immigrants into a database it uses to track dead people, effectively slashing their ability to receive benefits or work legally in the United States. Federal tax and immigration enforcement officials recently reached a deal to share confidential tax data for people suspected of being in the United States illegall.

The result is an unprecedented effort to use government data to support the administration’s immigration policies. That includes information people have reported about themselves for years while paying taxes or applying for housing — believing that information would not be used against them for immigration purposes. Legal experts say the data sharing is a breach of privacy rules that help ensure trust in government programs and services.

“Information sharing across agencies is essential to identify who is in our country, including violent criminals, determine what public safety and terror threats may exist, scrub these individuals from voter rolls, as well as identify what public benefits these aliens are using at taxpayer expense,” the department’s assistant secretary for public affairs said.

Firstly, all respect to those of nonbinary gender identity. Represent by selecting C (or applicable poll response) and commenting to weigh in.

Also; I do not deride SJWs. I'm more than qualified as one myself. It just makes sense for us all to ask one another to maintain healthy standards of political correctness, AND of simple interpersonal respect.

It's the mark of the true SJW, though, to hold oneself to consistent standards, and to admit it when one lapses. It erodes our good name when we over-enforce, or when we simply deny our mistakes.

This question is about first-world nuisances. Hope most of us regard it as a necessary nuisance when someone counter-intuitively corrects you on someone else's pronoun preferences (i. e. when you're told not to call that hottie in form-fitting jeans "her"). Stay on watch for those personal pronoun preferences.

And it makes sense to say "they" if you know an individual specifically prefers you to. And it's okay to say "they" if you lack knowledge of an individual's gender identity, or especially if you don't know her/his/their actual gender. (Note my example of the articulate solution. It's rarely asking too much to write or to say "he, she, or they.")

Whereas the trend of PRONOUN OVERWATCH is an unnecessary nuisance. If you know someone likes to be called "her/she" and someone else likes to be called "he/him," then why say "them/they?"

When I noted that this bothers me, it felt like healthy emotional self-honesty. It soon got me wondering if maybe being bothered is more of a guy thing, so I decided I might as well poll. I considered polling women only, but realized there's no reason not to keep it open to all.

I believe we are on the verge of an extremely dangerous totalitarian big-tech oligarchy.

By the end of this year, AI advancements are projected to be so good they will replace mid-level software engineers. Whatever can be automated will be automated.

Here are some concerns:

1. Societal value as an individual for most will likely level out or decrease, and opportunities to gain higher or unique statusus among peers will fade.
2. Many who thrive on possessing a distinguishable hard skillset will be impacted
3. Societal value as an individual will grow based upon soft skills, socioemotional skills, and roles that rely on such. Those with deficits in these may struggle to find their niche and footing among those who possess these traits.
4. Human resources may still be needed, but may be more valued collectively than individually
5. The gap will widen between the elite and everyone else, paving the way towards oligarchy
6. Negotiating power as an individual will decrease, and individual employees will be much more disposable.

AI entrepreneurs have spoken about universal income, but these are handouts that we will be reliant on, thus giving more power to the hands that feed us. Imagine if we strayed from their rules? Could this income be reduced or eliminated? Is there a likelihood we will have some social credit system?

If you thought this was bad, it gets nightmarishly WORSE! We also have nanotechnology advancements. Coupled with AI, this becomes much more dangerous. Imagine AI controlled nanobots being released into our water supply and we consume them. Could this open doors for technological terrorism? If we were to displease our rulers, could they decide to end our lives with a click of a button?

There was an Autistic young man fairly recently that died in jail custody following an Autistic meltdown. He was improperly restrained, resulting in his death. It did not gain any national attention. It most certainly did not result in a George-Floyd-style riot. If he were to have been a minority, you bet it would have made national headlines.

Xiden-era DEI policies placed so much focus on race and gender identity, it essentially ignored those with mental illness or other social/developmental disabilities. These people are likely the most vulnerable populations of them all. To add insult to injury, blame was almost always placed on weapons, not addressing underlying factors.

In addition, DEI favored individuals other than those who were white.

As a straight, white male on the Autistic Spectrum and severe mental illness, I feel I was hugely at a disadvantage. I have never faced so much instability as I did under the Xiden regime. Between my industry being shot and facing uphill battles with my health, it has forced me back to square one again, trying to figure out how to maintain stability again.

Sadly, the leftists are so jaded, they cannot recognize the immense damages that have occurred.