The problem with faking it is that you have to keep faking it and lying, potentially for the rest of your life. That gets exhausting over time and eventually they get found out and the fall out does not end well. You do you but I personally would not recommend anyone act fake.
These are not the actions of a country that is implementing a successful counter-offensive.
Also to note, North Korea is preparing to give deadly aid to Russia (which China will use as a proxy because they don't want to cause a diplomatic row in the region).
How does it deal with genetic abnormalities though? If you're introverted, 50% genetic, no amount of therapy is going to make you extroverted. Same with lifting weights at the gym, it won't make you an extrovert either.
Monetising and profiting from lonely men and giving advice which will fail and make said men look weak to lock them in to consistent therapy. They may be told that it's a positive and attractive thing to their face due to social desirability bias but behind their back and away from any backlash, they are seen as less attractive. It's no more moral than the "red pill" gurus and coaches who scam men out of hundreds and thousands to tell them stuff that is designed to fail and keep them locked on their programmes to generate revenue from men desperate to attract women.
Unpopular opinion time - the same (to a lesser degree) is happening on the other side of the debate in the manosphere, self-help and coaching sector. The gym is being grossly oversold as the solution to all problems. The thing is, you can't lift to six feet in height, you can't bench press a cure to autism or cardio your way out of a speech impediment. Same case with "touching grass". I'm not saying these things are bad to do, far from it, however, the role of genetics is completely missing from the advice being given but it is a crucial aspect of attractiveness.
We're starting to see the change already. The attempt to abolish anonymity via online safety laws in order to shame people off pornographic websites (by putting the fear of their details being hacked and leaked) and making it impossible to run profitably so it is de facto banned. Same with certain groups of people. The UK's two main political parties have made an urgent pledge to deal with the "incel problem" (will also encompass MGTOW and bachelorhood) on BBC Radio 4 Friday and repeated yesterday. Payment processors threatening websites, VPN's and ISP's to do as they're told or lose the ability to function. Labour in the UK is still threatening to outright ban VPN's and the Online Safety Bill gets debated in the Lords this week.
The Internet of 2030 will be a very different one from the one we use today. Governments will attempt to sanitise it "for your safety". It won't be for my safety because a lot of the complaints about threats focus primarily on two factors - critics of Government plus their policies and what is deemed misogynistic communication and behaviour - primarily Andrew Tate who is the perceived leader of incels, bachelors and the manosphere but also behaviour on dating apps by men.
There is already discussion in recent days of bringing back national service (the UK's name for conscription). As things stand, the media is pushing an idea by Penny Morduant for two weeks service to see how the public react (the UK Government likes doing policy by reaction). Half of commentators want full blown military service for men and the other half are saying that this is a slippery slope toward full blown military service for men.
There is a push to reintroduce the death penalty after the jailing of Lucy Letby (while conveniently ignoring the case of Andrew Malkinson). "Only for the most serious crimes" they will say. Chinny reckon. We all know what happens when such powers are brought in, the slippery slope becomes a prophecy and then reality.
A lot of companies are moving their news, updates and alerts to X because it saves them money on hosting and storage. Problem is, X seems intent on making things harder (see Nitter's recent troubles) for anyone who does not have an account. Plus, discussion on one of the topics I am interested in only takes place on X, rarely anyone will stray off that path and post on YouTube or even Reddit. There is zero chance of any of them ever going on Gab, Gettr, Odysee, Rumble or here.
I do wonder how the Danish Government will react when fundamental religious individuals and countries protest against the freedom to be gay in Denmark, as forbidden by the text in their holy books? This is where religious politics and progressive politics will clash in terms of this law.
The term creep, like misogynist, racist, incel and other loaded words, has had their definitions extrapolated to go beyond the traditional dictionary definition. In modern day parlance on social media, creep means unattractive, which tends to be defined in the eye of the beholder. This is why the "gym creep" trend became a thing earlier this year.
By feminists.
Quite the opposite. I heard that definition from a fierce critic of feminism (ETA: Not from Imp).
It's not exactly unreasonable to not want to be kissed on the mouth by your coach, or whoever this is.
No-one is defending what he did, it's the escalation to a full-on MeToo movement and another front in the culture war that people are keeping a concerned eye on.
Feminism has been defined as the politicisation of innate female nature. And I will say, those protesting this and the recent Mason Greenwood situation in the last week are not your stereotypical overweight, pierced, tattooed and coloured haired feminists. To balance this out between the sexes, men in general will jump on board the complaints and back their stance.
The men's football team have followed suit by following what the women's team have done. We've gone beyond an explanation, apology and forgiveness, this is now a campaign for his complete and total annihilation.
Mason Greenwood, former Manchester United player, found innocent of the charges against him and therefore an innocent man in the eyes of the law, life destroyed by a campaign to refuse to accept the judicial process and follow him wherever he goes to destroy any one else who tries to take him on in future.
We have the absurd situation where a literal baby killer gets protected and even has consultants raising concerns about her being made to apologise to her yet if Letby misgendered a patient, management would take swift, decisive action and she would have likely lost her job.
I also understand if I correctly recall that an agenda is afoot to ride the coattails of any findings of the future inquiry to deal with, not the murdering of babies but, sexual harassment in the workplace.
They refer to mask mandates and a prospect of a future lockdown in the same way as Covid - "here to stay". As in, forever. Having learnt the lessons of what caused the gradual decline in compliance the first time round to ensure they never repeat the same mistake again.
The truth of what they are planning is in front of you. It is hiding in plain sight. They are being honest for once. Do not capitulate to them, rebel against what they plan because you may not have a third opportunity to do so.
We need to see where the Online Safety Bill goes, due up for the third reading in the Lords in early September but it's looking likely that Government ID verification to abolish anonymity for all websites accessible in the UK and a ban on VPN's for residential use (and likely Tor too) to close that loophole is going to be pushed through in amendments.
Whether they get that far, we'll have to see but Labour, likely to win the next election, have said they would ban VPNs if in power so if it doesn't happen now, you've got a couple of years before they're likely to be banned.
If lockdown is reintroduced, they will have learnt the lessons of what caused the previous one(s) to collapse into disobedience by the public. They won't allow it to happen again. Same with masks. Do not comply or this will be the last time you can object.
It's easy to say never again. It will be quite another thing to follow through and actually rebel.