same goes for antivaxxers, who believe in chip injections. that shit also doesn't happen
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Replies
6
@condret
Not *yet* maybe. But I wouldn't rule it out entirely, since a lot of things I and others would have considered batshit crazy prior to the plandemic turned out to in fact be true.
https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102/291
Not *yet* maybe. But I wouldn't rule it out entirely, since a lot of things I and others would have considered batshit crazy prior to the plandemic turned out to in fact be true.
https://www.ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102/291
@toiletpaper sure, we might get chips injected, but i can guarantee you, it's not going to be a secret, if it happens. This would be advertised. People would pay to get a chip injected, and all the influencers would tell you how useful it is to have a chip in your body. Some big online services would drop password login and make body chip login mandatory. Nobody would inject a chip into your body without your consent. They would just make not having a chip really inconvinient, just like not having facebook was really inconvinient for a while.
@condret
I've already met people who have chips injected, for use with NFC devices. That's nothing new. They've been doing it to pets for eons already. This is one of the very few instances where I'm happy there are superstitious nutjobs, because the whole "mark of the beast", however out of historical and linguistic context, does actually make it hard to promote chipping humans en mass without being painted automatically as the antichrist.
I've already met people who have chips injected, for use with NFC devices. That's nothing new. They've been doing it to pets for eons already. This is one of the very few instances where I'm happy there are superstitious nutjobs, because the whole "mark of the beast", however out of historical and linguistic context, does actually make it hard to promote chipping humans en mass without being painted automatically as the antichrist.
@toiletpaper did that "mark of the beast" thing stop people from putting swastika bands on their arms in the 1930s in germany?
@condret
Obviously not. But if it was just symbolic of ontological evil, then based on the historical record the latin cross or star of david would be just as likely emblems as the swastika. Based on body count arguably vastly moreso, never mind rhetoric.
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/christuskreuz.htm
The proper context of the "mark" is from the Greek word charagma (χάραγμα), meaning a brand, stamp, or official imprint, such as an embossed seal on documents or coins which functioned as an official signature allowing legal participation in commerce. But don't tell that to the Christfags, or they might stop opposing the idea of humans being chipped.
Mind you, if the chip ever does get pushed on people, that'll probably be what it's used for anyway. No different than a digital ID or CBDC in that respect. For all intents and purposes people's smart phones already fill the same function. I could cite specifics of my own situation right now which are applicable in this regard, where not having a smart phone prevents me from doing business legally and accessing government services such as public healthcare. A microchip would frankly be redundant at this point.
Obviously not. But if it was just symbolic of ontological evil, then based on the historical record the latin cross or star of david would be just as likely emblems as the swastika. Based on body count arguably vastly moreso, never mind rhetoric.
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/christuskreuz.htm
The proper context of the "mark" is from the Greek word charagma (χάραγμα), meaning a brand, stamp, or official imprint, such as an embossed seal on documents or coins which functioned as an official signature allowing legal participation in commerce. But don't tell that to the Christfags, or they might stop opposing the idea of humans being chipped.
Mind you, if the chip ever does get pushed on people, that'll probably be what it's used for anyway. No different than a digital ID or CBDC in that respect. For all intents and purposes people's smart phones already fill the same function. I could cite specifics of my own situation right now which are applicable in this regard, where not having a smart phone prevents me from doing business legally and accessing government services such as public healthcare. A microchip would frankly be redundant at this point.
@toiletpaper i see it more as a future biometrics replacement pushed by mfa fags tbh. biometrics is broken for authetification for years now