One of the theories that I have heard as to why the worst criminals are being freed to make room for "rioters" is that a message is being sent to any potential dissent once unpopular and damaging decisions are made in the next couple of months, starting with the abolition of the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners but also other decisions that will target the elderly, single people, the disabled and victims of domestic abuse and violence. Namely the most vulnerable people in society. As a result, civil unrest akin to the Poll Tax riots are expected so this move is being done in advance to dissuade dissenters furious at what is being done to said vulnerable groups who can't fight back for themselves.
The fact that both broadcast and Internet outlets for the establishment news means that it's them which is the issue, not the medium it is being sent by.
I expect more moves by Government to suppress or censor everyone but the "authoritative news sources".
This will then give the Government power to introduce new legislation under statutory instruments where only a minister with a swipe of a pen can bring in new powers without scrutiny or debate in order to quash dissent.
It's already happened before during Covid-19.
WeAreFairCop response: https://twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1831995103973376493
Lotus Eaters response (she was a viewer of the channel): https://rumble.com/v5e9gpp-this-video-could-get-you-arrested.html
It's not necessarily that they consider themselves unattractive, it's that everyone else considers them unattractive. The halo effect and ugly tax are real things and your looks (predominantly genetic so you can't change them at the gym) do influence how people treat you and whether you are welcomed into social groups. If you're unattractive, you need to be exceptionally talented in a social activity to overcome thar. Neuroatypicality also have an effect. We know that a disproportionate number of incels have things such as autism.
If you have ever read or studied female feminist media and literature, it has a trope based on reality where they don't want to get rid of all men but rather they want a society with just two groups of individuals - women and "Chad". The male "ally" is too blind to see this and assumes his sycophancy will save him under this ideology. It's also why as Government cabinets become majority women and male feminist (such as the UK one is now), you're starting to see the beginning of the introduction of new misogyny reviews and laws which will criminalise incels, unwanted attention, communication and behaviour (such as a woman having to swipe left or reject a man's advances) as well as unrequited love that only Chads would not fall foul of at any point.
Bonus video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiJ_fPbBGoI
TL;DW - Men bad.
Comments turned off of course but the downvotes are still enabled.
They know that alternative media is a threat to their model because they want all the talking points to themselves as a monopoly. This is why they have to attack hard and twist things. Worse still, Governments will deem the likes of CBC as the arbiters of truth or in the case of the UK's Online Safety Act, give the BBC an exception to the rules on misinformation!
It's also why the UK media has been all in against the Lotus Eaters. It's a threat to the monopoly that the BBC, ITN and Sky has in news and politics.
Their issue is with the loaning of media. They don't make a royalty from every loan and they want every individual to purchase that media outright. They actively put a warning on every media that loaning is prohibited. That includes physical libraries too and they're now under threat too.
Their ultimate goal is to gatekeep and paywall the exchange of ideas and information. If you want to see how that works today, look at how much control is placed upon and excessively expensive peer reviewed journals are.
There's no way of distributing a digital copy legally unless direct from the publisher or with their express consent. And the only people they're going to give that to are companies that riddle it with DRM.
Ultimately this ruling could also affect physical media and physical libraries. One of the arguments is that libraries allow individuals to consume content without royalties being paid as would be if that individual purchased a copy. Where we are going to get into difficulty is where a work is out of print and there is no legal way to purchase it first hand (they want second hand sales of media criminalised too for the same reason as the lending of media, no royalty payment).
I remember video game companies went in heavy regarding loaning of games to the point they boycotted stores such as Blockbuster Video or if they couldn't do it, they did like The Lion King did on 16-bit systems, made the second level so hard it dissuaded people from loaning and nudged them to purchase the game.
Every media has a warning that loaning is prohibited. They want everyone to purchase an individual copy for themselves.
If you want an idea of where things will go, see the control and prices for peer reviewed papers. The publishers want to gatekeep and paywall the exchange of ideas and information.
And it looks like most of the people tangentially related like Tim, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson (the three I checked) are still fine and still have their channels.
We live in a time of guilt by association. I wouldn't say they're safe yet.
It's likely they'll go down the same road the UK is expected to go shortly and just outright ban VPN's. Payment processors won't touch the paid VPN providers who won't operate in Brazil if they aren't getting paid. As for crypto payments for VPN service, at some point you'll need to turn fiat currency into crypto and they'll likely target that too.
Well yes. Paedophilia carries a stigma and rightfully so. It shouldn't matter if the perp is a man or a woman. She might find this offensive and kryptonite to her but as an adult, you have responsibility and accountability for your actions.
Also, you know the title of that article would not say "having sex with" if it was a male perp.