They are really pushing the German national and atheist lines hard.

Several ex-Muslims also claim he is not an ex-Muslim but is practicing the Islamic concept of taqiyya to conceal his identity. This and his pro-Gaza stance puts doubt on the Jewish theory.

https://x.com/MahyarTousi/status/1870440905771016430#m

Of course they will, we know they will. But the thing about the truth is that you can't deny it in the back of your mind. That's why the uncomfortable truth is so offensive to individuals.

That's going to be awkward for the media who have been insisting that he is irreligious in order to push an agenda.

The media seem very keen to push an agenda that the true threat to the west is not migration or a specific religion, but the irreligious, lone wolves (a.k.a. "incels") and the "far right".

The media also seem very keen on pushing an agenda on how terror is being performed, not by the religious, but by the irreligious - atheists. Suggesting that they are the true threat to the west, not migration or a specific religion.

Naturally they're also pushing the "far right", the "lone wolf" (a.k.a. "incel") and AfD line as well.

Yes. And it's only going to get worse. In the UK, the Online Safety Act will require all websites available in the UK to protect the safety of women and girls. That will require the likes of dating apps to vet men and stop unwanted attention and communication lest they face fines of £18m or 10% of their worldwide income, whatever is bigger. Only Chad will be able to continue unabated on dating apps, everyone else risks being banned as companies in fear of the fines overcompensate.

It's even worse nowadays. Women are actively rejecting the "beta bux" and going it alone, the state and alloparenting providing resources for them and their offspring via wealth distribution. Alongside affirmative action and young women now outearning their male counterparts.

The loneliness epidemic is only going to grow as more and more men get disenfranchised from dating and society.

You can't negotiate attraction with banter, flirting and game. And from revealed preferences (what they do as opposed to what they say), physical appearance is the biggest factor for attraction.

I've also found that the women who want relationships are already in them. Single women today, including non-feminist ones, are on the dating apps but aren't looking for a relationship. A good way to describe what they're seeking was stated in another community by another individual - a "lifestyle choice".

Men are rejecting cold approach regardless because it's too much of a risk now for much less payoff. They're even stationing police officers in UK nightclubs to deter men from making "unwanted advances".

The loneliness epidemic is going to grow exponentially and it doesn't help when the likes of ShortFatOtaku have been on a recent anti-single crusade to denounce single men as misogynists and state that you're only a man if a woman finds you attractive.

Maybe I don't follow the same people you do but I have found that creators are making longer videos and absolutely stuffing them full of advertisements as opposed to churning out daily videos (bar for an Advent Calendar - it is that time of year). I think YouTube is financially incentivising them to maximise the number of advertisements in their videos, particularly the five ad breaks every few minutes ones for two reasons - it makes the creator a lot more money compared to the usual two ads every five minutes model and it nudges viewers to subscribe to Premium. Even creators want people to move to Premium rather than watch ads. One creator I watched (I think it was EEVBlog but don't quote me on that) stated in a video from his analytics that despite Premium viewers making up a tiny minority of the viewership, it's around half his income compared to the free ad supported viewers (who don't ad-block).

Making longer videos keeps people engaged with them, boosts their revenue and takes revenue away from other creators. YouTube content creation is a competitive market like any other business and all the creators are competing with one another for ad/Premium money.

There is a link between the hobby a man has, the financial and emotional benefit it provides to his significant other and what gives her the "ick".

I'm old enough to remember when the main attack on gaming came from traditional Christian conservatives who were protesting about how violent video games were corrupting children, pushing them away from God and into sin and turning them into proto-violent criminals.

The most prominent activist against violent and sexual media in the UK was a fundamental evangelical Christian and social conservative. Was because she passed away in 2001.

The rationale around health and mental risks, genetic defects and other consequences are universally accepted. However, one thing looking through Hansard that caught my eye was this line:

However, the way to redress the issue is not to empower the state to ban adults from marrying each other, not least because I do not think such measures would be effective or enforceable.

I whiff a Trojan horse of more Government intervention in people's lives that will go beyond cousin marriages. There is going to be a "but" added after that sentence because Governments never let an opportunity to have more control over your private lives slip from their fingers. It'll be sold on the grounds of ending cousin marriages, a noble goal but won't stop there.

Charming = calling out to her by an attractive man. Harassment = calling out to her by an unattractive man.

The state is softening us up for the criminalisation of unwanted attention and behaviour. Which will also include being rejected in the dating market.

We are reaching the point now where increasing numbers of men, never mind transgender individuals, are going to have to be told that no-one is going to date them and we are going to, as a society, deal with telling them this reality and have them live the rest of their lives being outcast from the dating pool.

It will break twenty to thirty years of conditioning they have had around the concept of the "soulmate" and "there is someone for everyone". But it will be for the best. It'll be hard medicine to swallow but it's for their own good.

Something similar happened with the DANMASK study into the efficacy of face masks. "The Science™" had already determined that face masks were the solution to stop the virus spreading, the study stated otherwise and they were constantly thwarted in their attempts to publish the results. It did get published but in a kneecapped manner.

The advocates of "The Science™" love the scientific method and praising the role of science until it gives an uncomfortable finding that goes polar to their beliefs. Then they become authoritarian and ideological. They even reverse the scientific method - having the conclusion first and finding anything that fits that conclusion - such as during 2020 and 2021.

Around 80% of purchasing decisions are made by women. That's the demographic the advertiser's aim for. And it's not just in advertising either.

Might be worth informing the folks over on Nitter's GitHub. There is still an active discussion on accessing how to access tweets from a logged in session without needing to have a farm of accounts that can be taken down at any time.

Another load of conspiracy theories became conspiracy facts.

It's worse if it's anything like what the UK Government is proposing. Government photo ID will not be enough, you will also need to prove that the person attached to that ID is using the device at any time. That will require biometric data or preferably for them, facial recognition. Ofcom has stated that photo ID alone will not be sufficient as proof of identity when that device is being accessed.

We were also told to not be paranoid because this would only be used for adult websites. Then it spread to social media if Governments get their way. The UK wants to go even further - anything not "safe for kids" or has any age restriction (that is effectively everything bar pre-school websites) so this requirement will potentially affect everyone on virtually every website. This one included as it's accessible in the UK.

For anyone saying "just use a VPN", Governments are planning to ban them outright.

Every country will have to boycott the UK. Leading in turn to massive shortfalls in all sorts of goods and services. Maybe the collapse of the UK is what Labour wants?

The red and black pill communities alongside the evolutionary psychologists whose findings side with the latter, not in nihilism but in knowledge, appear to be getting it right about human nature.

Having looked into it myself, it is brutal.

I get the suspicion that cutting spending for illegal immigrants will be the last thing they do. They're more likely to allow indigenous pensioners to freeze first for their ideology.

The UK recently had their budget and I could just hear accountants, business leaders and commentators disgusted at the various taxes they levied at the richest. Their suggestion, do the complete reverse of Norway, have the Government actively rescind its manifesto promise on the grounds of changed circumstances and increase taxes substantially on the poorest while reducing or abolishing taxes for the richest and if pensioners, families and children suffer, so be it. This isn't some fringe, edgy commentary channel on YouTube or Rumble this was said on, this was on mainstream media outlets such as BBC Radio 4.

The problem with people arguing for no taxes on the wealthy is that the Government then has to levy taxes on the poorest and the middle classes which leads to emigration, suffering and indigenous flight while illegally entering immigrants won't care and will continue as normal. You will have your indigenous population leave the country either by flight or body bag.

They didn't want their advertisements next to national socialist propaganda, hate speech and harassment. Then there is a exodus of left wingers to BlueSky come Trump's victory. At the same time, the advertisers come back.

Hmm...

Even the "normies" on the mainstream media websites are complaining about how Netflix could not cope with the traffic (250 million I saw as one estimate). As things stand, there is still a place for live broadcasting which can have an infinite number of people watching without it keeling over.