Wow...I Didn't Know That...
Just you think you know it all...
Dog-Headed Men at the Edge of the World: The Ancient Legend of the Cynocephali
Eastern icons showed saints like St Christopher with dog-like heads
Cynocephali (from the ancient Greek kynokephaloi, meaning “dog-headed”) are a legendary race of beings described in myths and travel tales as having the body of a human and the head of a dog or jackal. Stories about them go back to ancient civilizations: Greek writers like Ctesias and Megasthenes claimed dog-headed tribes lived in distant regions such as India and parts of Africa, describing them as barking instead of speaking and dressed in animal skins.
These tales were included in classical literature and spread widely in later world history as Europeans extended their maps and imaginations to unknown lands.
Throughout the Middle Ages and into early modern times, cynocephali appeared in a variety of cultural sources, from Christian art (where some Eastern icons showed saints like St Christopher with dog-like heads) to world maps that placed these creatures at the edges of the known world alongside other “monstrous races.” Writers such as Isidore of Seville included them among strange peoples like giants and cyclopes, reflecting the blending of folklore and early geographical ignorance.
Ancient historians and travelers also linked the idea of dog-headed men to real animals or misunderstood encounters. For example, the Greeks sometimes applied the term cynocephalus to certain baboons, which may have helped inspire the later folkloric accounts of dog-headed humans.
Modern scholars view cynocephali not as real creatures but as mythic symbols rooted in early cultural exchanges, storytelling, and the human impulse to describe unfamiliar peoples and places with vivid imagery. Over time, these legends became part of a larger tradition of fantastical “races” at the edges of the world, illustrating how ancient and medieval societies tried to make sense of the unknown.
SOURCES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly
https://www.theoi.com/Phylos/Kunokephaloi.html
https://danakrehnblog.wordpress.com/2021/05/23/cynocephali-the-dog-headed-race-a-brief-introduction/
https://tenthmedieval.wordpress.com/2023/11/18/the-dogheads-explained/
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Why You Don’t See Many New Cemeteries Being Built
A big reason it feels like “no new cemeteries” are being built is that fewer families choose traditional burials than in past decades.
In the U.S., cremation has become the most common choice, and national funeral-industry data shows cremation is now the majority while burial continues to decline. When demand shifts away from full-body burial plots, cemetery companies and cities are more likely to expand existing cemeteries, add cremation space, or upgrade facilities instead of buying large new land tracts for a brand-new cemetery.
Land is another major factor, especially near growing metro areas. A new cemetery needs a large, affordable parcel, but land prices, zoning rules, and public opposition can make that hard. Local governments also have to think about traffic, infrastructure, long-term maintenance, and environmental concerns like drainage and groundwater protection. Even when a cemetery is needed, the planning and approvals can take years, which makes “new cemeteries” rare and slow to appear.
Instead of new cemeteries, many places add more capacity inside cemeteries that already exist. One fast-growing option is columbaria (walls or buildings with niches for cremation urns), which can hold many memorials in a smaller footprint than traditional grave plots. That is why you may see “cemetery expansion” projects that focus on cremation gardens and niches rather than new acreage.
In crowded regions, another approach is changing how burial space is managed over time. In parts of Europe, policymakers have been debating reforms that would allow grave reuse after long periods, because many older burial grounds reach capacity and do not have room to expand. These discussions show how land scarcity pushes governments and communities toward different solutions instead of building new cemeteries far from where people live.
There are still new cemeteries proposed in some places, but they are often controversial, expensive, and heavily regulated. When a large new cemetery is planned, it usually comes with environmental studies, public hearings, and pushback from nearby residents, which can delay or stop projects. So the “shocking truth” is usually not a secret ban—it is changing consumer choices, land economics, and regulation pushing the industry toward expanding what already exists.
Why Some People Say “No New Cemeteries Are Being Built” and What the Evidence Shows
A popular social media claim says there are “no new cemeteries” being built, and some videos frame it as a mystery about “where the bodies are going.”
This idea has spread mainly through short clips and posts that point to older cemeteries people recognize, then argue that newer ones are not being created. Examples of this claim can be found in viral-style videos and reels that ask the same question in different ways.
Conspiracy-minded commentators often take that observation and push it further. Some claim cremation is being encouraged to hide “real” death totals, while others suggest secret mass disposal, cover-ups, or government control over land and burial practices. A few go even more extreme by implying bodies are being “recycled” into products, which is usually presented as shock content and not backed by proof. These claims are largely based on suspicion and inference, not documented evidence.
The most fact-based reason the claim feels believable to some people is that traditional burial is less common than it used to be. U.S. cremation rates have risen to a majority level, while burial rates have declined, meaning fewer families are choosing a full cemetery plot. The National Funeral Directors Association projected the U.S. cremation rate at 61.9% in 2024, with burial projected at 33.2%, and the Cremation Association of North America reported a 2024 cremation rate of 61.8%. When demand shifts like that, communities and cemetery operators often expand existing sites or add cremation space instead of opening brand-new cemeteries.
Another key point is that the “no new cemeteries” claim is not literally true. New cemeteries are still proposed and approved in certain areas, but they can be controversial, expensive, and slow to permit. For example, local reporting in Texas describes a planned new cemetery and funeral home project in San Antonio that moved forward after rezoning approval, with construction expected to begin in 2026. This is the kind of project that exists, but many people never notice it unless they live nearby or follow local zoning news.
Land use and development pressure also shape what people see. In many places, historic cemeteries face threats from construction, neglect, or disputes over mapping and protection, and that can create the impression that burial space is shrinking rather than expanding. Reporting and coverage on cemetery preservation, including concerns about older burial grounds being impacted by development decisions, shows that the real story is often about land value, regulation, and maintenance, not a secret ban on cemeteries.
Why Some Think Human Bodies Are Being Used for Food
Some people believe our bodies are being used for food because a few separate ideas get mixed together online and turned into a scary storyline.
One source is pop-culture, especially the old “Soylent Green” theme where people are secretly processed into food, which still gets used as a meme to frame modern fears. Another source is straight-up hoaxes, like the long-running false claim that “human meat” was found in fast-food supply chains—something fact-checkers traced back to satire, not real evidence.
A third source is confusion about newer end-of-life options. For example, “alkaline hydrolysis” (sometimes called water cremation) can leave a sterile liquid that goes into wastewater systems, and some viral posts twist that into “people are being fed to the public,” even though experts and fact-checks say that interpretation is misleading. Human composting (natural organic reduction) also gets misunderstood: people hear “body becomes soil” and jump to “soil grows food,” but laws can explicitly ban using that soil to grow food for humans—Colorado’s law summary, for example, lists “using the soil to grow food for human consumption” as a prohibited practice.
The “bodies used for food” claim spreads because it taps into real anxieties (trust in institutions, land shortages, rising costs), but the viral versions usually rely on memes, misreading’s, and recycled hoaxes rather than documented proof.
Sources and address links:
https://www.stripes.com/veterans/2026-01-06/state-veterans-cemeteries-expansions-20319723.html
https://coldspringusa.com/permanent-memorials-remain-important-as-cremation-rate-rises/
https://www.nyuelj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/24.1-Scall_Final.pdf
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/03/graves-law-commission-nick-hopkins-burial-legislation/
https://www.cremationassociation.org/IndustryStatistics
https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/san-antonio-south-side-cemetery-21083521.php
https://www.reuters.com/world/race-save-african-american-cemeteries-being-erased-2021-06-19/
https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-9233643423
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-006
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-189
https://adventuresincemeteryhopping.com/2015/03/13/soylent-green-turning-human-remains-into-compost/
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 JAN. 2026 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Psychology of People Who Grew Up in the 1960s
People who grew up in the 1960s don’t share one personality, but the decade shaped a lot of common psychological “wiring” because it combined rapid social change with very traditional expectations at home.
Psychology of People Who Grew Up in the 1960s
From the daily rituals that built independence before they even reached the classroom, to the shared moments that imprinted an entire generation with a unique relationship to hope, loss, and everything in between. If you grew up in the 1960s, this will explain why you think the way you do. If you didn't, this will help you understand the people who did.
Many developed a strong “adaptability muscle.” The world was visibly shifting—civil rights, Vietnam, assassinations, the space race, new music and youth culture—so a lot of kids learned early that authority can be questioned and that society can change fast. Even people who stayed conservative often carry a deep memory that institutions can wobble, and that you should pay attention.
At the same time, most households still ran on higher expectations for self-control and “don’t make a scene.” Feelings weren’t always discussed openly, and many learned to handle stress privately. That can show up later as toughness, stoicism, or discomfort with today’s constant emotional sharing.
There’s often a strong theme of independence. Many were “latchkey” before the term was common, had fewer structured activities, and were expected to solve problems, entertain themselves, and take responsibility earlier. Psychologically, that can produce confidence and grit—but also a reluctance to ask for help.
Trust and skepticism often coexist. The era included major institutional betrayal moments (war credibility gaps, political scandals later on, social unrest), so many learned to respect rules while also watching leaders closely. That can look like “patriotic but not naïve,” or “civic-minded but cynical.”
Relationships and family roles were often more defined. Men and women were frequently funneled into clearer “should” boxes, which can create lifelong strengths (commitment, duty, stability) and lifelong friction (unlearning rigid roles, delayed self-expression, hidden resentment).
Kids born roughly 1950–1960 (elementary school through early teens in the 1960s) often grew up with a very specific psychological mix: traditional structure at home + social upheaval on TV.
They were raised in a “rules first” environment. Many homes, schools, and churches emphasized manners, respect for authority, and personal responsibility. Emotions were often handled privately, so a lot of people from this cohort learned to stay composed, “push through,” and not ask for help unless it was truly necessary. That can show up later as grit and reliability—and also as difficulty being vulnerable.
At the same time, they watched the world change in real time. Civil rights marches, Vietnam footage, assassinations, and protests entered the living room through television. Psychologically, that produced a lifelong habit of scanning for instability: they can value order but also carry a quiet awareness that institutions can fail, leaders can lie, and “normal” can disappear quickly.
They were also trained into independence early. Many had more unsupervised time, were expected to occupy themselves, and learned practical skills young. That often creates people who are self-sufficient, hands-on problem solvers, and less impressed by hype. The flip side is a tendency to minimize their own needs and to judge younger generations as “overly fragile,” because their baseline was to manage discomfort without much accommodation.
This group often carries a strong “fairness radar.” Seeing civil rights struggles as kids—while being taught right-and-wrong morality at home—made many sensitive to hypocrisy. Even those who disagree politically today often share an internal rule like: say what you mean, do what you promised, don’t pretend.
Culturally, they straddle two worlds: they remember life before constant technology and before a looser culture, but they also came of age just as the culture opened up. That’s why many from this cohort can be both nostalgic and pragmatic—they don’t romanticize change, but they don’t fear it automatically either.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Don't Shop At Aldi Again Until You Watch This
The things they serve you that are illegal in their own country.
Those unbelievable deals? Some of them are hiding ingredients that have been banned or restricted across Europe — the same continent where Aldi was founded. From packaged snacks with questionable additives to frozen foods made with ingredients other countries won't allow, the bargains might not be worth the risk.
Don't Shop At Aldi Again Until You Watch This - YouTube
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Can A Burning Bush Talk In Real Life?
This Action Lab experiment uses a Tesla coil to make fire produce sound. The setup involves modulating the coil's output with an audio signal, creating pressure waves. These waves are then analyzed by the ear's cochlea to interpret the sounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HA3qPYB5aw
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Nov. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Claims of a “Muslim Police Force” in the U.S.: What’s Real and What’s Not
The claim of a “Muslim police force” in the United States misunderstands the very foundation of American law. The Constitution guarantees that no religion can control government institutions, and this safeguard protects both citizens and religious groups from the dangers of state-imposed belief systems.
Law enforcement in the U.S. operates under secular authority, accountable to the people through elected officials, courts, and constitutional checks. Allowing any religious body to assume police powers would violate the Establishment Clause and undermine the principle that American laws are written by the people, for the people. In this sense, debunking the myth of a religious police force is not only about correcting misinformation but about affirming the American principle that government must always remain neutral in matters of faith, ensuring that law and order serve the common good of all citizens—regardless of belief.
Across social media, some posts say there’s a “Muslim police force” operating in America. In reality, U.S. law enforcement is secular and bound by the Constitution; there is no government‐run religious police in the United States. Fact-checking outlets have repeatedly debunked claims that Sharia law is being enforced by any official police body.
What does exist in New York City is a private nonprofit called Muslim Community Patrol & Services (MCPS). It’s a volunteer community patrol—similar to other neighborhood groups—that assists with safety, escorts, and outreach. It is not a police department, has no arrest powers, and coordinates with the NYPD like other community patrols. Coverage from mainstream outlets makes this clear, even while noting controversy over cars that resembled police cruisers.
Recent Michigan debates have added to confusion. Dearborn Heights briefly floated an optional uniform patch design with Arabic and English text; after backlash, city leaders clarified it was only a draft and pulled it back. This was a branding issue—not the creation of a religious police force. Local reporting documents the rollout, criticism, and retraction.
Dearborn has also seen a separate dispute over outdoor mosque loudspeakers for the call to prayer. The city’s own noise limits (generally 55 dB at night, 60 dB by day in residential zones) and a ban on loudspeakers from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. are being referenced as officials test and enforce decibel levels. This is a noise-ordinance question, not a change in who polices the city.
From a constitutional standpoint, government must remain neutral toward religion: it cannot establish a religion (Establishment Clause) nor target one (Free Exercise). Police agencies that receive federal funds also face civil-rights obligations to avoid discrimination based on religion or national origin. That framework protects Americans from any government-run “religious police,” while also protecting religious communities from unfair treatment.
Source Links & Context
-
Snopes — Muslim Community Patrol in NYC
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslim-community-patrol-nyc/?utm (Debunks claims of a “Muslim police force” by explaining MCPS is a volunteer patrol, no arrest powers.) -
FactCheck.org — Islam / Sharia Archive
https://www.factcheck.org/issue/islam/?utm (General resource for fact-checking claims related to Islam, Sharia, religious policing.) -
VOA — “New York City Muslims Begin Community Safety Patrol”
https://www.voanews.com/a/new-york-city-muslims-begin-community-safety-patrol/4845660.html?utm (Describes the volunteer patrol’s founding, mission, and relationship with NYPD) -
Bklyner — “Muslim Community Patrol & Services Is Here To Stay”
https://bklyner.com/muslim-community-patrol-services/ (Local reporting on MCPS’s operations and community reception) -
Arab American News — Dearborn Heights Police Patch Proposal
https://arabamericannews.com/2025/09/05/dearborn-heights-police-department-proposes-optional-new-uniform-patches/ (Covers the optional patch proposal featuring Arabic script) -
ClickOnDetroit — Backlash to Patch Change
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2025/09/06/dearborn-heights-police-chief-facing-backlash-from-proposed-uniform-patch-change/?utm (Photos of the patch & commentary from residents and officials) -
FOX 2 Detroit — Arabic Patch “Not Official”
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/dearborn-heights-police-patch-with-arabic-writing-not-official (Explains the patch was a concept and pulled back) -
CBS Detroit — Mayor: Arabic Patch Not Official Prototype
https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/dearborn-heights-proposed-arabic-police-patch/ (Official statement from mayor clarifying status of the design) -
Police1 — Michigan PD’s Arabic Script Patch Paused
https://www.police1.com/news/mich-pds-arabic-script-police-patch-paused-amid-approval-concerns (Reports that the department paused the patch rollout due to approval issues) -
Newsweek — Backlash over Arabic Badge
https://www.newsweek.com/dearborn-heights-arabic-badge-backlash-maga-2125238 (Analysis of reaction and remarks about the badge) -
Dearborn Heights Police Department (Official Preview)
https://dearborn.org/preview/dearborn-heights-police-department-unveils-new-optional-uniform-patch-celebrating-community-diversity-71131 (Official city preview of the optional patch) -
VOA / Additional on MCPS
https://www.voanews.com/a/new-york-city-muslims-begin-community-safety-patrol/4845660.html?utm (Same as #3, but underscores MCPS in multiple references) -
Muslim Community Patrol on X (Twitter)
https://x.com/muslimcps?lang=en&utm (Official social media presence) -
Instagram — Muslim Community Patrol
https://www.instagram.com/muslimcps/?hl=en&utm (Visual posts, patrol photos, community engagement)
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Oct 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Repeat After Me... There is No Black on Black Crime
Here’s a list of legal consequences people can face if they physically fight on airplanes. These are serious and can follow you for life—whether you're the one who started it or got involved:
Try to remember folks, when you're traveling with other passengers, its only a temporary timespan. Just mind your buisness and behave yourselves. Or Else.
When someone gets into a physical fight on an airplane, it's not just bad behavior—it’s treated like a serious federal crime.
1. Federal Charges
-
Airplanes in flight are under federal jurisdiction in the U.S.
-
Assaulting someone onboard can lead to charges like:
-
Interference with a flight crew (even if the crew wasn’t touched)
-
Assault or battery (can be felony-level)
-
Endangering an aircraft (if it threatens safety)
-
When someone gets into a physical fight on an airplane, it's not just bad behavior—it’s treated like a serious federal crime.
That’s because once a plane is in the air, it falls under the rules of the U.S. government, not just local police. If someone throws a punch or gets aggressive, they can be charged with interfering with a flight crew—even if they never touched a pilot or attendant. Just causing fear or distraction can count. It can also lead to assault or battery charges, especially if someone is hurt. If the fight causes panic, chaos, or threatens the plane’s safety—even just by making others feel unsafe—it could be treated as “endangering an aircraft,” which carries harsh penalties. It’s not just a scuffle; it becomes a possible federal case.
2. Jail or Prison Time
-
Interfering with a flight crew: up to 20 years in federal prison (more if a weapon is involved)
-
Physical assault: months to years depending on injuries and severity
If someone picks a fight on an airplane, they’re not just risking a fine—they could end up behind bars for a long time.
Interfering with a flight crew is one of the most serious charges and can bring up to 20 years in federal prison, especially if the person had a weapon or made threats. Even without a weapon, just grabbing a flight attendant, yelling at a pilot, or stopping them from doing their job can trigger this charge. Physical assault charges also come into play, and depending on how bad the injuries are, someone could face months or even several years in jail. The law treats planes differently because everyone on board is trapped in the air, so safety becomes a top priority. Even one bad decision can turn into a life-altering prison sentence.
3. Fines
-
Civil penalties from FAA: up to $37,000 per violation
-
Airline may also sue for costs (delays, emergency landings, etc.)
-
Victims may file personal injury lawsuits
When someone causes trouble on a plane, it can hit their wallet hard—even before a judge says a word.
The FAA can slam the person with fines as high as $37,000 for each violation, which can add up fast if they broke multiple rules or caused a scene. On top of that, the airline can sue them to cover the costs of delays, emergency landings, fuel, and any other disruptions. If passengers or crew were hurt or traumatized, they might file personal injury lawsuits too. All of this means that one angry outburst could easily turn into hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills and damages—money most people never see coming.
4. Permanent No-Fly List
-
Airlines can ban passengers for life
-
Federal watchlists may be updated
-
Can affect travel with TSA PreCheck, Global Entry, and international visas
Getting into a fight on a plane doesn’t just end when you land—it can stick with you forever.
Airlines have the power to ban you for life, meaning you might never fly with them again. But it doesn’t stop there. If the situation is serious enough, your name could be added to federal watchlists. That can mess up more than your vacation plans—it can cancel TSA PreCheck, block Global Entry, and even make it hard to travel abroad, as some countries won’t issue visas to flagged individuals. One bad decision at 30,000 feet can slam the door on your freedom to travel.
5. Federal Record
-
Convictions go on your permanent criminal record
-
Can impact:
-
Jobs that require background checks
-
Immigration status or applications
-
Military enlistment
-
College admissions or scholarships
-
Getting convicted for causing trouble on a plane doesn’t just stay in the sky—it follows you for life.
A federal conviction goes on your permanent record, and that can seriously mess up your future. If you’re applying for a job that needs a background check—like anything in government, security, or healthcare—it could cost you the position. If you’re not a U.S. citizen, it could hurt your immigration status or even lead to deportation. Trying to join the military? That’s likely out. And if you’re a student hoping for college or scholarships, those dreams can be blocked too. One outburst on a plane can shut down doors that take years to reopen—if they ever do.
6. Deportation (if not a U.S. citizen)
-
Non-citizens may be deported or denied re-entry
-
Fighting on a plane can be labeled a crime of moral turpitude
For non-citizens, getting into a fight on a plane can have consequences that go far beyond jail.
Even if someone has a green card or visa, a charge like assault on an aircraft might be labeled a "crime of moral turpitude"—a serious offense in immigration law. That label can lead to deportation, denial of re-entry into the U.S., or getting blocked from ever becoming a citizen. What’s worse is it doesn’t take a long prison sentence to trigger this—just the conviction itself might be enough. So while some people see it as just a bad day in the air, the government might see it as a reason to send someone out of the country permanently.
7. Denied Entry to Other Countries
-
Some nations (like Canada or the UK) may refuse entry based on violent offenses—even misdemeanors
Getting into a fight on a plane doesn’t just cause trouble in the U.S.—it can follow you across borders.
Countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia take criminal records seriously. Even a misdemeanor for something like simple assault can be a red flag. Their border agents can deny you entry, cancel your travel plans, or send you back home at the airport. And it doesn’t matter if the offense happened years ago—some countries check travel histories closely, especially if the charge involved violence or endangered public safety. A single outburst in the sky could close doors to travel for years, or even life.
8. Civil Lawsuits
-
Victims can sue you personally for:
-
Medical bills
-
Emotional trauma
-
Lost wages
-
If someone gets hurt during a fight on a plane, you could end up facing more than just jail time—
...you might also get sued in civil court. This means the victim can go after your personal money, asking a judge to make you pay for their hospital bills, therapy, or money they lost from missing work. Even if you didn’t mean to hurt them, just being part of the fight could make you responsible. These lawsuits don’t need to prove a crime—just that your actions caused harm. So, one bad moment in the air could cost you thousands or even more in court-ordered payments, years after the flight is over.
9. Added Airport Trouble
-
Airport police will likely arrest you upon landing
-
You may be held and questioned for hours before charges are filed
What a lot of people don’t realize is that the punishment doesn’t wait until later—it starts the moment the plane touches down.
If you cause a fight on a flight, airport police are usually already alerted while you're still in the air. They’ll be waiting at the gate, sometimes with cuffs in hand. You can be taken off the plane in front of everyone, held in a secure area, and questioned for hours before anyone even decides what charges to bring. Some say this part feels like a message: they want to make sure you understand that stepping out of line in the air is treated as a major offense. And because it’s federal, things move differently—you may not even get to call home right away.
10. Media Exposure
-
Many plane fights are filmed and shared online
-
Even if you’re not convicted, the public video can ruin reputations
In today’s world, almost every person on a plane has a phone ready to record.
So if someone gets into a fight mid-flight, chances are that moment ends up online within minutes. Even if the person isn't charged or found guilty, the video itself can cause massive damage. Employers might see it, friends might question your character, and strangers could recognize your face in public. Some people get doxxed—meaning their names, addresses, and jobs are shared by angry internet users. Once that video goes viral, it’s hard to undo the damage, no matter what the courts decide later. It's like being judged by the world before you even get a chance to explain.
Please Like and Share!
The Brutal Truth July 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Did you know your car might be hiding a feature you’ve never used — or even heard of?
From the secret fuel tank arrow on your dashboard (it shows which side the fuel cap is on ⛽) to built-in sun visor extenders, hidden umbrella holders, or even window roll-down from your key fob, most drivers only scratch the surface of what their car can do. These small but powerful features are designed to make driving smoother, safer, and smarter — but 90% of drivers miss them completely! Time to explore what your car is truly capable of. 🚗💡
The Brutal Truth July 2025
The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.