Youtube comments of Gareth Hart (@tgheretford).
-
990
-
637
-
584
-
487
-
427
-
427
-
423
-
376
-
365
-
357
-
356
-
354
-
347
-
341
-
338
-
337
-
335
-
316
-
288
-
253
-
231
-
229
-
224
-
219
-
218
-
212
-
209
-
199
-
198
-
194
-
191
-
183
-
181
-
179
-
175
-
174
-
172
-
161
-
160
-
153
-
150
-
148
-
147
-
146
-
144
-
141
-
137
-
133
-
132
-
131
-
125
-
124
-
123
-
121
-
119
-
116
-
115
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
105
-
102
-
94
-
93
-
91
-
89
-
84
-
82
-
81
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
Rejection increasingly comes with consequences. Back in the 90s or 00s or even 10s, approaching someone and being rejected would result in brief awkwardness and in the worst case scenario, a drink down your shirt and embarassment in that moment. We are now in the 20s. There are increasing calls for unwanted attention and behaviour - ie. rejection, to be criminalised. Police in the UK are being posted to bars and nightclubs to weed unwanted behaviour from those establishments. Cold-approaching women in Scotland in a public place is now a criminal offence. If the Police take action, you have a criminal record. You lose your job, your family, your friends, your respect, your home, your social status. Everything. And if its reported in the local press, future employers who screen candidates will reject you. Tinder adjusts your visibility based on rejection effectively shadowbanning you because they want the platform to provide the best men to women in order to be profitable. Rejection now carries consequences, potentially life long consequences.
72
-
69
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
We know in the last ten years or so since the introduction of Tinder, rates of virginity in young American men in their twenties has increased significantly. Dating apps focus on looks while people don't tend to look at biographies - and if they do, it's filled with things that relate to looks (ie. 6ft). Self-help gurus tend to posit that the key to attractiveness is resources. Problem is, women have been able to generate their own resources from both work and the state to the point where they don't need men and are now focusing on looks (including height) which dating apps are excellent at performing. We also know that real life dating options have collapsed, particularly since 2020 and online dating has exploded in the last decade, going from stigmatised in the 90s to the only game in town now. Worse still for older men, looks fade and experience takes precedence.
In terms of ratio, men outnumber women 3:1 on Tinder but its the breakdown that opens eyes. 60% of matches go to the top 10% of men in terms of looks, 80% to the top 20% and 95% to the top 50%. Attractive men and women across the whole range of looks have choice whilst increasing numbers of average and below men are getting zero matches and zero dates. The reason why you see complaints from women about men not committing is because the top tier of men that women are picking have choices and do not have any incentive to commit. Whereas the men who do want to commit are lower value. Women rate 80% of men as unattractive compared to 50% of women for men (OkCupid data). Problem is, we know from studies that physical attractiveness is the biggest factor for mate selection and that is predominately genetic - you can't improve your eye, nose and chin ratios or your height at the gym. Go to the gym anyway but don't do it exclusively thinking it is the miracle cure for singledom. For some men, getting a gym body could actually work against them in dating if they have a genetic physical defect or it could be seen negatively as compensating. Grooming only improves your looks to a small degree, you can't pass your clothes, shoes or haircut to your offspring.
We also know that attractiveness is tied to how you are valued and respected in society. Attractive men can get away with a bad joke and have it laughed at but an unattractive man doing the same thing can have that joke seen as offensive. The former will have approaching someone seen as confident and cure while for the latter it is seen as creepy. The "know the work rules" office meme is based on truth.
Single men should focus on improving themselves and living the best, happiest life they can. But not for the sole purpose of finding a partner. Give men the truth, no matter how uncomfortable, and a positive outlook and I bet this societal problem disappears overnight.
63
-
63
-
61
-
60
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
I read the whole sentencing remarks document yesterday. And I am worried about the main gravitas that linked all the complaints against Belfield was the concept of criticism against them on Belfield's public YouTube and Twitter accounts and the response from his subscribers and followers. In effect, your criticism of someone, if it is deemed distressing, harmful and offends, you could fall foul of the law for online stalking and harassment. You're now also responsible if anything happens to someone because of what you post, even if you tell people not to contact that person in any way. Before Belfield's conviction and sentencing, online comment sections and discussion forums have either started to heavily moderate content or close down discussion altogether, fearful of legal repercussions from critique, abuse or anything deemed offensive or hateful.
This case will have ramifications for content creators, followers, comedians, organisations and establishments. And already there are plans for new complaints to be made against Belfield and other individuals online with civil suits planned.
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
We tend to focus on the female performers in these videos and the danger of children being exposed to such content. What gets ignored is the male performers and most of all, the consumers of such content. Because they are likely turning to said content to fill a need, a release for their natural urges. If all the outlets are closed through legislation - pornography, bots, dolls and devices, paid services, OnlyFans, even solo acts performed in the privacy of someone's home, and we herald a dawn of enforced celibacy and puritanism, then we have a group of predominately single men with no outlets to fulfil their needs, desires and release legally. This will not end well for society.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
You're going to watch the weaponisation of the law to censor people, by claiming that (constructive) criticism is offensive, distressing, harassing, (online) stalking and harmful. At which point, you will only be allowed one opinion but you will not be told what that opinion is on a topic. You will be expected to know what it is. And those with the cash, influence and fame will be the ones who decide what the acceptable opinion is. Also, if I was an authoritarian leader and wanted to implement censorship in a western country, I would outsource it to private companies. After all, "they're a private company, they can do what they like".
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I completely agreed with every sentiment in this video until the conclusion of what to do, which could be boiled down to "do better". The top percentile of men who are having all the success in the dating market have physical attraction that the majority don't have, better genetics, access to material worth and goods that the majority can only dream of and so forth. Your less than average Joe in a blue collar job is not going to have the resources and worth to compete. It is impossible to make every man become the top tier male - evolution is incompatible with socialism. That's why we implemented monogamy while we had civilisation. This change will herald the end of western civilisation unless we acknowledge the consequences of polygamy now and correct course now. If we don't, men will feel excluded and outcast from society and will withdraw, with the consequences of withdrawing labour, taxes and contributing to society. I'm sure we all want running clean water, electronic goods, functioning sewerage, engineering, roads, military, police, fire fighting, healthcare and many other goods and service we take for granted that are provided by individuals who collectively contribute to society and the economy.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Incels have always been a thing. You just didn't notice their existence until the 2010s. Prior to the Internet, we called them confirmed bachelors, they would be resigned to their homes alone and would be ignored by everyone. They always existed, we have never had 100% of men partnered up, ever. The term was coined by a single woman, so it's not an exclusively male thing.
We've reached the point where expectations on men are based on ideals and not reality. The reason why so many men are failing is because we focus our advice on telling them to be something most men can never reach in reality, whether through genes, physical limitations, short height (most CEO's are over six foot tall), personality traits (half is heritable), no opportunity and so forth. Each man has a ceiling that he will hit. Every man can reach a personal peak but not every man will be in the top 20% of men. Like mountains, not every mountain can be Everest and not every man can be Leonardo DiCaprio. Realism has been substituted for false hope to which some people are exploiting for profit.
You're right in suggesting men get off dating apps. But not in the way that you think. Because what men should be doing is working on themselves and being the best they can be. However, it is also right to be realistic and not fall into the trap of delusion. Not every man is blessed with good genes, height, good mental health and IQ. Some men many have to forgo a relationship and forge a path in life different from the majority in the same way that some individuals and couples may have to forgo having children naturally because of infertility. It's a cruel fact of life that life isn't fair and some people are dealt a bad hand that they can't fix. Better to give the uncomfortable truth than give false hope. Warm and cold approach offline has the same pitfalls as online dating, we know from scientific studies that the predominant factor of initial attraction is physical appearance and most of that is genetic. Gym won't improve your appearance if you have unattractive facial features, it can't boost your height to above six feet and can't fix genetic abnormalities. Personality is also a significant trait which is also half heritable which also feeds your social status. Therapy (ironically in the sponsorship, online - as in "NOT. REAL. LIFE.) won't do anything to make an introvert into an extrovert. Status is another after the initial attraction but that is also dependant on your external environment, socio-economic status, social status, personality and looks. Grooming, clothing and haircuts won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things because you can't pass on a haircut or a suit to your offspring. This won't be fixed with "just therapy bro", "just go outside bro", "just confidence bro" and "just lift bro". If anything, this could be counterproductive. Your solution does sound like religious preaching, to be fair.
Remember, you're talking about human beings with emotions, feelings and thoughts, not evil creepy robots who hate everything and wish to bring society down as you are portraying them. We can also tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Which is why the arguments of video games causing violence fall down and will always fall down. Some empathy wouldn't go amiss. Where are the male role models in their lives?
Society bases a man's worth based on his ability to attract a partner. There is no getting around this without a societial discussion and that is not going to happen because there is zero advantage to changing the status quo. Indeed, many of the male gendered insults are based on a man's inability to attract a partner.
In terms of the less than 20% of the population of the US have used Tinder, I have contradicting data which suggests that the largest percent of dating is done online. And that was before the twenties. And the biggest platform by far is Tinder. It's the YouTube of dating, it's the place everyone is on because it has the mass userbase. And divorce rates are falling because... marriage rates are falling! I would also warn against biases in relation to using findings from self-reported studies. Actions, not words. You'll find a very different set of results. The women who publicly said they don't want a short guy are the honest ones. Most won't say what they practice to avoid hurt feelings or negative push-back or abuse. People tend to tell researchers what they want to hear, not what they actually do. Which is why I don't use them when rebutting other people.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The uncomfortable truth is that men are also invisible, and not just when they're 18-24. If you lack high social status, live with your parents or rent (an apartment or small house), do not have independence through your own transport, lack a well paid job, under six foot, have average to below physical and facial attractiveness, good health and in particular the one thing that damns the advice telling men to wait until their thirties and the appliance of SMV universally, lack dating, relationship and pre-selection experience, you will always be invisible. Women have a biological clock, men have an experience clock.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@RoganGunn The issue is going to be when people argue that Lineker was treated differently to others, leading to employers and service providers being given a solution - a Universal Code of Conduct that all employees (and employers as they lead by example) and service users have to agree to as part of their legally binding contract. It will ensure anyone who has a job, a bank account or an Internet connection agrees to behave and speak in a way that doesn't offend, is abusive, causes harassment, is discriminatory and so forth. All sounds like good intentions, no-one would disagree, right?
Until you realise that it can be used for political or ideological ends. Anyone who believes a woman is an adult human female would be in trouble because that would be considered transphobic, a violation and therefore actionable as one example.
If this seems far fetched, such a policy has already been implemented. If you contribute to Free and Open Source software, chances are, you already agreed to abide by a Code of Conduct. The Contributor Covenant is the one that is used in FOSS.
That will likely be the outcome of what happens post Lineker.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'll speak from a UK perspective because that is what I am familiar with. We've just had the Online Safety Act pass and there will be requirements for age and ID verification in 2025 for all websites not "safe for kids", including social media ones (as they implement an age requirement for use). Their idea of synchronising ID checks with the real world means that Government photo ID as one and done (as used on with gambling sites) won't be legal next year. Their proposal is for both Government photo ID and live, ongoing facial recognition checks when you use the site via phone camera/webcam. That's going to be a problem for game consoles with age restricted games, but they'll legally have to implement something that passes the requirements by law. Now there's a problem. In the real world, your private ID isn't kept by the shopkeeper after every purchase, for online, it will be. And like in the real world, you will be asked for ID every single time you access a website as they require real world, live verification that you are the individual accessing that website and not passing it on to another individual after the initial verification.
Now imagine the consequences if someone gets in by the back door to steal ID/images of facial recognition and then uses it for blackmail of individuals for cash gain or releases it as a "perverts database". We know what happened with Ashley Madison.
In terms of online anonymity being abolished to rapturous applause, in future, I will have more anonymity in Speakers Corner than I would on the Internet. At least in the real world, while people can see me, they don't know who I am. I will have no choice online in future if I want to do anything beyond what you would see on a children's channel, in a school or at a nursery.
This is why people are concerned and why people are downvoting this video. It is a consequence of the majority who want to outsource the parenting of children to the state. The problem is, the state treats everyone as a child for "your own safety".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Being a single male who is unsuccessful at dating and mating is stigmatised as we apply male worth to those aspects of life. Incel refers to anyone who fails at that and is now being used as a loaded insult even to those who are in long term relationships, including Dr Jordan B. Peterson. Male insults tend to be focused on the inability to attain a partner.
The problem with self-improvement gurus now is that they engage in survivorship bias - focusing on the top tier men that most men could not reach. Inevitably when they fail, they get sold programmes to further improve themselves, which inevitably fail and the man gets blamed for not trying hard enough. Then he gets upsold an higher priced programme which also fails. And so you have a vicious circle. Because gurus and commentators fail to acknowledge the fact that everyone has a different ceiling they can aim for. But that doesn't gain clicks, views and revenue like generalising, easy sound-bytes and lucrative programmes do.
Dating apps are now the dating market. Real life is now either too risky or has gone since 2020 and won't be coming back as bars and nightclubs close down due to the cost of living crisis. If you're not photogenic, physically attractive and able to show your status in your photographs (liars get found out) and if you are older, lack of experience, you're in big trouble. Problem with things like love, affection, intelligence and humour, you can't really demonstrate those in a photograph like you can with facial features, physical intelligence and socio-economic status.
We're creating a moral panic around incels for an agenda whilst ignoring the fact that they are human beings too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A solution to the dating market problem and a societal problem that I do not agree with but is one that is slowly being lobbied for and implemented in reality, particularly in the UK, is to remove unattractive and low status men by identifying characteristics and behaviours, colloquially known as "creepiness" and the "ick", from establishments such as gyms and online dating apps as well as society. One thing to note is that feminists have political sympathy, influence and power. Involuntary celibates on the other hand (and that's the new, expanded definition of any man without a partner from the former and the media) have no power. They are dismissed, despised and hated to the level of some of the most evil criminals in history. Beyond help and not deserving of help. Which may go some way to explain why Dr Peterson gets the hated he does from his critics.
Something I have noticed as of late to back up these claims is the growth in TikTok content from women who complain about "creeps" in gyms who give them the "ick" for whom their only crime is to literally exist and be in their presence. In the UK we're seeing new laws to outlaw such behaviour. There has also been news articles during the passage of the Online Safety Bill of women being put in danger or even the victims of heinous crimes and of course, coincidentally, the arrest of Tate.
War was used as a method to deal with the problem of unattractive and low status "excess men" who would be given basic training, given a weapon and sent to the front lines. History might be starting to rhyme, starting with Russia and Ukraine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Recruitment? Really? That is pretty much being rejected on a dating site, now that the definition is being extrapolated to a much wider range of men (moral panics do that to create fear and guarantee action from the baying mob). What the likes of the CCDH do not get is that the dynamics of online dating have changed dramatically, particularly in the last ten years. More men are now finding themselves disenfranchised from dating. Society places a value on men based on their success in attaining a relationship or success with women for casual acquaintances, probably the family friendly way of putting it. The idea here from the likes of feminists is that your low value and unattractiveness as a man makes women feel uncomfortable, threatened and uneasy which in itself is deemed misogynistic. You can be misogynistic without realising you are being misogynistic, in the same way race divisive ideologues claim that you can have white privilege without realising that you have white privilege.
We also have a secondary problem, placing girls and women above men and boys in academia and the workplace, increasing the former's socio-economic status whilst harming the latter. As women in general do not find men attractive who are at a lower social status than themselves, we have, alongside the changes with online dating, a growing number of single, virgin men, the vast majority of whom don't even know what involuntary celibacy is, disenfranchised and now being denigrated as potential extremist terrorists by the media and eventually Parliament.
Organisation? Who runs it? Who is their leader? A online message board or forum is NOT an organisation. I suspect the reason why single men are being miscategorised as an organisation is because it makes it easier to proscribe groups by law if they can be presented as an united organisation, to denigrate whole groups in the same manner as other terror organisations and to give the air of greater urgency that you could not do with a disorganised group or community.
This might be why this video is getting heavily ratio'd. Completely out of their depth, a total lack of research and out of touch with reality.
What are we going to do to hundreds of thousands of single men? And yes, I do say single men because a number of people and organisations do not just have an issue with involuntary celibates but bachelorhood as a whole, because of the value judgement I stated above. I fear single men are about to get the same treatment the unvaccinated are starting to get - scapegoating, segregation and ostracisation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If McNeil wins and Lady Decade pays the money, McNeil publicly declares victory and declares open season on content creators. It will cost thousands if every copyright and IP owner goes after content creators for licensing and royalty fees. Not just for images, but videos, music and even fonts. This will kill content creation in the UK and make it so that only large corporate media who can afford the fees being levied to continue uploading content to YouTube while everyone else closes up shop.
Google is the copyright holders public enemy number one, the newspaper outlets hate them because they provide free news content, the music industry considered them pirates, the photographers consider them thieves for providing freely available images on their search engine. What do corporate media think of YouTube content creators? As a threat, pirates who've been getting away with it for too long and ripe for riches to be plundered to their demise. McNeil being paid is the precedent that will allow this to happen. No way the likes of Lady Decade, Top Hat Gaming Man, Ashens, Snopes Game Room, Larry Bundy Jr, Octavius, Nostalgia Nerd, Kim Justice and other UK content creators could pay the fees demanded and levied on them, it will put everyone bar the biggest corporate names out of business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Already talk of 55p per kWh when I was paying just over 10p per kWh for electric a year ago. And for gas, 25p per kWh when it's currently 4p per kWh. Never mind a £3,000 cap, it could easily be £5,000 by October or earlier if Ofgem enacts exceptional circumstance clause to increase the cap earlier. 20-50p on many food and drink items before this spike which adds up to tens of pounds on a weekly food bill. Rent up, bus fares up, petrol up, broadband considerably up, mobile phone contracts up, council tax up and this is before the NI increase. Meanwhile you can bet your wages will be frozen, hours cut, jobs lost, automation and outsourcing takes over. This is going to be grim. Meanwhile we're told this is the price of freedom by those who can easily afford these increases.
The Government needs to take emergency measures now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's been a "4B movement" for many years with non-feminist single women. We just didn't notice it until the recent viral videos that came out as a result of the US election. There has been a boycott of relationships. Whether divorced, a single mother, living with parents or a career woman, they're all doing it. They're still on dating apps but only for validation, attention, experiences and money. Women who do want a long term relationship are already in one, met their significant other young and have been in one for a long time by now. Any who end up single don't end up on the dating market for long because of supply and demand. For middle aged single men still seeking a relationship, it's now adultery or solitude.
Just to make this clearer, a study into dating apps showed that 75% of people on them are not actively seeking a partner. That'll likely be skewed toward women and the top tier men.
The 4B movement in the west until now could be described as thus - no betrothing, no breeding, no bonding and no betas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
21:09 - What is your view on the Danish mask study (DANMASK-19 or #DANMASK), of 6,000 individuals in a random controlled trial where three prestigious journals refused to publish the results on the basis of, according to a Danish newspaper, the results not being, and I quote, "politically correct"?
In terms of onions being the rationale for masks not working, yeah, this ain't it chief. I'd rather listen to the scientists who did the Danish study. Well, when we are allowed to see the results. And at this point, considering the rationale given for the refusal to publish it, I hope it goes full Streisand Effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We have politicians and commentators saying we are at war. With who? If it were Putin, that would be seen as a declaration of war and a massive escalation. So if not him, who? The general public who dare use energy for heat and light? Small and medium size enterprises employing people and contributing to the economy?
I've heard of predictions of over £7,000 bills for consumers for April 2023, a figure that was considered hyperbolic and unrealistic only a few weeks ago - and the predictions just keep rising - above £1 per kWh. It won't be long before we see the first £10,000 price cap prediction. The price cap is delaying the inevitable that is reality now for businesses. We're not at inflation busting water bills after the drought and sewage scandals, high interest rates, escalating rents, above inflation broadband and telecom bills, soaring public transport fares, massive food price rises, three or four day weeks, closure of national infrastructure such as the terrestrial broadcasting and communication networks and other consequences yet. And if we have a cold winter, all bets are off. Meanwhile Putin burns gas near the Finnish border to mock and belittle us while his citizens see inflation in Russia peak and decline.
When Richard Tice who supports free market capitalism is suggesting force majeure and capping prices, it's serious. This is a cost of lockdown, cost of green and cost of Ukraine. Lack of backbone against authoritarians, lack of investment in vital infrastructure and a desire to virtue signal even if means destroying the living standards of their citizens. It makes me sick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are correct in raising the point of how a robot, machine or computer can work twenty four hours a day. No human can. We can't compete. And that's before we get to wages, pensions, sick pay, holiday, health insurance, toilet breaks, rest periods, sleep, maternity/paternity leave, strikes, workers rights and I could go on. Automation is inevitable. Ban or restrict it and other countries will take the investment, business and revenue. The question will be how do we deal with all the unemployable individuals?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The skilled office workers are being replaced with AI. The skilled physical workers are being replaced by robots with AI. The unskilled office workers are being replaced with computers and the unskilled physical workers are being replaced by machinery. The only person not getting replaced is the business owner. Also bear in mind, AI, robots, computers and machines do not need a wage, a pension, sick pay, rest periods, maternity/paternity leave, health insurance, holiday, bereavement leave, vast land, building space, break rooms, to go on strike or workers rights. No human can work for pennies an hour every hour of the day, every day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ALLOFTHEBOOST Psychologists are using the trend of men failing to find partners as a gold seam for profit and you have self-help gurus telling men that when they hit their thirties and forties, as long as they "just lift bro", "just touch grass bro" and "just improve bro", that they will be swimming with attention from women. And yet I see men in their forties on YouTube, warning younger men, that while going to the gym, having hobbies, a career, independence and so forth are not bad things, they are not the miracle cure they claim to be. There's a lot of profiteering from lonely men and there is now also legislation being introduced which will make unwanted communication and unrequited feelings leading to having to reject that person being criminalised under new laws.
The one thing missing from the conversation is social contact. Which gets a lot more difficult in your middle ages and older because your closed social circle you had in your younger years are all pairing off, marrying and starting families. And it becomes very difficult to meet new people because people tend to not want to be approached by strangers and the social groups and dating events for lonely people have largely, if not totally gone, particularly since "the event".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Coming soon to the United States - the vaccine subscription service. Where two will not be enough, soon three won't be either. Then four, five, six, seven, eight, nine... four boosters a year, at a minimum, every year. Forever. We now have the dangerous precedence where you are compelled to consume a product from a private company by the state under duress, coercion and force. This is the free trial period. Eventually the state will stop paying, yet you will still need to take vaccines in order to maintain any ability to function in society. And it won't end with vaccines. Unless everyone stands together, this is your future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YouTube targeting anything that is not authoritative and mainstream (ie. what the advertisers want to pay for, the big media conglomerates with the cash, what gets eyes on screens and subscribers to pay for Premium). Something that the independent media outlets and journalists on YouTube have had to deal with for years. You may do better alerting the likes of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, Sky News, even the Daily Mail, Fox News et al. Because it does not matter if you are left or right, Trump or Biden, Boris or Corbyn, conspiracy theorist or debunker, this is YouTube pandering to those who they ideologically side with, whom have power and the cash versus those who are not useful to YouTube's bottom line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All the free-to-air broadcasters will close their outlets when the BBC goes online only and the commercial sector will follow them, unable to pay the transmitter running fees. GB News and TalkTV/TalkRadio included. Without the free-to-air broadcasters, the paywalled streaming services, all run by American outlets bar Spotify, even Sky is now owned by an American conglomerate, will introduce paywalls, increase existing prices and continue to push woke ideology. While YouTube's opposition will be blocked by UK ISPs along with the VPNs that allow access to "harm" and "misinformation" under the forthcoming Online Safety Bill.
From the rhetoric of the Culture Secretary and the Government, it's not just the BBC and Channel 4 they have an issue with, its the fact that people are consuming media for free at the point of use. But I don't see what is British about abolishing our media industry and handing it over to woke American conglomerates to monopolise? Don't get me wrong, there are many issues with the BBC, Channel 4. ITV, Channel 5, LBC et al but I don't see how nuking everything and allowing the Americans to take over with woke ideology will accomplish?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm now in my forties. I am older than your average viewer and hopefully I can pass on some anecdotal experience even if what I say may not be what people want to hear. Whatever social connections you have now, you will eventually lose them as they move away, start families and don't have time for you any more. And you can't escape the ravages of time and health.
In terms of dating in middle age, it doesn't get better. Despite the claims of self-help gurus and life coaches where they tell you that if you go to the gym and look stylish, you can get endless twenty-one year olds when you hit thirty-five is not true unless you're rich (sugar daddy) or famous (Leonardo DiCaprio). What will likely happen if you try that will be the general reaction of "ew, gross" and others socially scalding you as large age gaps for most people still carry a social stigma. The reality is you'll likely in general (ie. not all) attract middle aged women whose expectations are so unrealistically high and have large body counts, are single mothers who will expect a step-dad, you to raise children who are not your own, who won't want any more kids or they are single women who have showstopping issues that make them unattractive to men. And chances are they'll have plentiful choice of men, orbiters and in terms of OnlyFans, it's far more considered as a method to make money than people would like to believe.
There's a saying - "the juice is not worth the squeeze". Those who are worth dating met their partners in high school and by middle age have been married for a decade or two, have children and a stable household. Any who do end up single don't usually reach the dating apps, they find someone very quickly. And as your social connections dwindle, the prospects of finding someone through friends, peers and networks disappears and you're left to the mercy of what is now exclusively online dating. I personally quit dating in 2016 and never looked back.
I was in an even worse position for numerous reasons - neuroatypical, poor social background, made homeless the second I left school, living independently from a very young age and so forth. Everything I have I had to work for from scratch (we also know from recent scientific studies that hard work is about 70% genetic, another blow to the blank slate self-help gurus and life coaches). People I know usually look in awe at where I am now and where I came from.
As time has gone on, I have become more politically cynical and jaded as I look more into politics, human nature and dating. I detest how I was lied to by my family, peers and society as to the brutal truth of life.
There's a reason why in the UK this video has been flagged by YouTube to contain a phone number for the Samaritans for people to call for help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Would you like a £100 low-range Chinese phone with a back door, a £300 mid-range Chinese phone with a back door, a £400 non-Chinese mid-range phone made in China with a back door, a £1000 Chinese premium phone with a back door or a £2,000 non-Chinese premium phone made in China with a back door? And all of them will likely visit TikTok, VPN or not, be used on a network that is likely using Huawei infrastructure or components made in China, in your car made with Chinese components and appliances made with Chinese components. All increasingly connected to the cloud and with back doors. Even if it isn't made in China, say its made in Taiwan like CPU's, there is still the prospect they can be hacked for surveillance and espionage. Only recently, two CPU's exploits have been exposed to be patched and there'll be many more. That's the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And by doing this, the shy, reserved, damaged, sheltered, anti-social, nerds, cowards, bookworms, musanthropes, fringe people and if could add introverts, eccentrics and recluse, now get labelled as extremist, dangerous and on a level of unpopularity and hatred usually only reserved for people who get ten years to life in prison. Is this how we want to treat men who have broken no laws (yet) and their only fault is to not have a partner?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exceptionally well said. I have noticed the same correlations with religion and ideology. If the NHS is the church, the mask is the cross, a signal of dedication to the faith and anyone who refuses to wear one is a sinner, an outcast, a heretic. The followers have compassion, selflessness and righteousness. The heretics are denounced as selfish, reckless, dangerous and can't even put up with a "minor inconvenience". Freedom is denounced as deadly. Evil, Hell. A torture that sinners will suffer forever if they don't obey the religion and mask up.
I am worried about the consequences of the rhetoric around masks from politicians, mayor's, the media and commentators. I agree that we are seeing a divisive tone being taken which will, as the state stops enforcing law, have the public take over. We risk making masks a social norm and not wearing one a social taboo. Forever. Whilst expanding the wearing of them beyond where they are mandated today (already seen more people wearing them outside in near thirty degree heat and high UV levels just this weekend compared to the past) and I fear we will see individuals and groups approaching people and abusing, harassing and shaming people for not wearing them, fuelled by peer pressure to fit in and the rhetoric I mentioned earlier. Unlike the EU referendum where you vote is secret, your membership of the religion of safetyism will be there for everyone to see on your face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1