attitude that puts the individual interest above the interest of the collective.
Welcome to the United States of America. If you value collectivism over the rights of the individual, you're probably much better off in one of the world's other many countries. Learn new languages, get exposed to multiculturalism, shop in countries where Wal-Mart has been banned. With borders opening more and more every day, what's your excuse?
Selection bias. Only the restless care to leave their homes and support networks behind to try to navigate an alien, racist culture where people are measured by how much money they make.
I'm concerned about the dog-whistle racism in your post. It sounds like you're bitching about a certain group that was recently the victim of police violence.
Are you totally unaware of the fact that intellectuals have a really bad track record of totally despising the common folk? It's not that intellectuals don't take commoners' interests to heart when making decisions, it's more like they make decisions deliberately to harm out of genuine malice or depraved heartlessness.
If you don't believe me, ask around the next time you're at a cocktail party. You'll get some really ugly responses.
Among characteristics of captured terrorists, what are things that they had in common? Gosh, one of those is use of encryption. You think it's a coincidence that encryption is regarded as a weapon?
"it's a ridiculous notion that using secure email implies criminal activities"
Yes, true. However, criminal activities are frequently found using encryption. How can I explain this...hmm. OK, you know how Millenials consider you automatically suspicious unless they can look you up on facebook or linkedin? Yeah, it's like that. You might be a great person, but having this characteristic is associated with reprehensibility of some kind.
Sure, they allow you to adjust - for now. The idea is to get you to give control, and once that happens we get the following:
"It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledged that it will be implemented but in such a diluted form that it will make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; at some point it is finally recognised that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset."
-- Times editorial, published on August 28, 2002