One of the realisations I had is that the majority of people privately oppose equality of the sexes while saying they support it in public because of social desirability bias. It's spoken in hushed tones by the public but they would sacrifice virtually all the men to keep a single woman safe (see conscription).
It was always going to be sabotaged because the plan is to punish us for "voting incorrectly", force us back into the EU (while losing the Pound and requiring us to adopt the Euro as a further humiliation) and having our sovereignty over to Brussels as the final twist of the knife.
Anyone who has not lost any faith in democracy will have when that betrayal is enacted.
In terms of employment, the only way you could get those jobs filled is either through automation/self-service or forcing people to work (I don't like the state forcing people to do anything). Because nothing else will reduce the numbers of early retirees and people holding out for cushy working from home jobs if they have that choice.
It's not due to be debated until the 6th of September but I know they are keen to get two things done - as much authoritarian control as possible before it goes to Royal Assent and quickly as possible so they can implement their new powers swiftly.
This seems a grossly excessive award. Don't get me wrong, what he did was wrong and he should be punished, but this is purely being done to send a message and threaten any man who dares step out of line, not just legally. In the same way they did with Alex Jones.
They backed down because they got publicly exposed and the terrible optics this presents. There will be a push to make speculation, rumour and filming/recording of the Police a crime in any incoming or future online safety and public order bills.
Your mileage may vary but I left social media years ago (under a different pseudonym) because I found it had become a wholly negative aspect of life I could do without. From what I know of recent data, people are mostly sticking to social groups of people they know online and offline. It's how they're meeting people, their partners and connecting with others. Meeting strangers is declining, despite what pick-up artists and dating apps may claim and closed socialising is rising.
If you struggle making friends offline, you'll struggle online too. What we likely have is a socialising problem, but how to solve that without going full authoritarian and either controlling people's lives and/or implementing civil or criminal penalties for those who won't comply, I don't know.
Oddly enough, I had a better experience on discussion forums prior to the ones I used being taken over by woke ideologues and those who are drunk with power and increasingly adding more and more banal and vague rules for people to trip up on and earn themselves a permanent ban.
Social media has made people very anti-social, particularly in real life.
People are still meeting their partners in closed social groups, at least in their mid-20s and higher, recent data bears that out. But the spaces where individuals and groups mingled has been declining in recent times. COVID-19 lockdowns have been the fatal blow for many places. Whatever is left are slowly being strangled by inflation. Gyms have survived but people don't tend to socialise in those establishments in the same way people don't at their workplace. If you're in your thirties and don't have a social circle, either because you're socially anxious and introverted or your existing social circle has gone because everyone else found partners and started families so everyone has drifted apart, you're in trouble.
In terms of gaming, multi-player gaming and the community aspect of gaming has become a money-maker for the gaming companies. If that dries up as people retreat to single player gaming, I expect access paywalls to expand and maybe even infect PC gaming. Companies have already dipped their toe into this realm with retro and streaming games.
As for solutions, I'm not sure what could be done that isn't authoritarian (ie. socialise or we dock you social credit points/close your bank account) because you can't force people to socialise. But whatever social outlets in real life there are also need to make money and at a cost of living crisis, that's a tough sell because socialising is one of the first things people cut back on when their mortgage payments go up.
A lot of people think you can career your way to high SMV. The problem is, a lot of what makes someone successful is also down to genes, inherited traits, personality is half genetic, wealth from your parents, IQ, even height - men six foot and over make up fourteen percent of the population but make up over half the CEO's. The halo effect where physically attractive people get preferential treatment over their unattractive peers also comes into play. People prefer being around attractive people.
There are a lot more variables at play than just merely "just work bro" easy platitudes that red pill life coaches love to say.
There are always exceptions to the rule but that doesn't invalidate the rule. For example, homosexual people exist but because we know they exist, it doesn't suddenly invalidate the concept that people are on average heterosexual. As I say, there are many variables at play. In your example, you may not consider Brand attractive but I bet there are many women who would find him physically attractive and will have traits most of us won't have. It's also why he is in the position he has been in his adult life that most of us never will.
What the "passport bros" haven't grasped yet is that as more men follow their lead, supply goes up while demand doesn't. And women in other countries now live in a connected world where feminist doctrine and dating mantra has reached them from the west. The same pressures that affect western dating have spread worldwide.
The red pill media has, over the years, become very black pilled and sensationalist on the subject.
Yes, because as new information, evidence and data comes in, people who are not ideologically motivated or dogmatic in their beliefs change their mind. I've seen several "red pill" content creators adopt a more "black pill" mindset in recent times. And evolutionary psychologists also find overlap of their findings with black pill philosophy, even if they disagree fully with the men who follow that concept. And there is a reason for that, evolution, genetics and external factors outside of your control don't care about your feelings, emotions and desires. Nature is brutal and how biology functions, which in turn shapes our cultures and in turn, ideology. Such as feminism and traditional conservatism, religions and the social contract. How biology works and what informs our dating, courtship and relationship practices today primarily matches what those who are black pilled say. Feminism and traditionalism follow the same track when it comes to biology. It is what it is.
You only have four choices.
-
Give up and admit that dating on an individual level is hopeless because of genetics and factors outside of your control (inceldom as opposed to just being an incel who are more "blue pill" individuals who repeatedly fail in the dating market);
-
Manipulate the dating market to your advantage, a strategy that will fail for most men if you don't get arrested for doing it nowadays because you've (deliberately if you're selling a paid-for programme for profit) failing to acknowledge the differences between high value SMV men and average/below-average men. (PUA/"red pill"), or;
-
Accept that across the societal and political spectrum from feminism to traditional conservatism, the dating market and relationship structure is a result of by biology which in turn shapes culture and in turn ideology with technological advancements shaping the dating and relationship market today ("blue pill"). The "purple pill" is a mixture of this point and the last point.
-
Exit the dating market knowing the game is rigged against men, acknowledge the concept of biology, culture, ideology and go your own way (MGTOW);
They focus on SMV as if career, looks and status peak in every man's middle age. The problem is, your women who are 21 are not dating 35-40 year olds, they're on average seeking 25-ish old men. When you're at "peak SMV", if you go for young women (men of all ages prefer young women), there will be stigma at such an age gap unless you're rich and don't mind being treated as a sugar daddy in a dead bedroom relationship. That brings me to the next problem.
The manosphere also completely ignores pre-selection and experience. If you've followed their advice and just focused on career, gym and independence until your peak SMV and then enter the dating market, you're now at a disadvantage as pre-selection becomes a far more important factor and your competition has what you have plus relationship experience. It's like going into a job interview lacking work experience, employers are going to pick up on that discrepancy and not offer you the job. In a similar manner, so will women when you demonstrate you lack relationship experience your peers were gaining in their 20s and 30s. And this isn't something you can learn online or at University, you learn it from the school of life and your lack of it can not be faked or lied out of.
The other blindspot is the assumption that all men reach the same peak. Men have different levels of development, limits, ceilings and experience. If you lack these then your peak SMV will be a lot lower. The man who is still a virgin at 35 is not going to have the same SMV as a man who runs a multi-million dollar business and has a string of lovers to his name. The men who are single in their middle age will, unless they meet their unicorn, remain single when they hit retirement. Nature and dating is brutal and only cares about biology, genes and reproduction, not your feelings, emotions or desires.
They go for the easy targets. Things that can either make money (speed cameras, disorderly behaviour) or those won't fight back (hate speech, unwanted communication). Burglars, shoplifters, violent thugs and the like don't fear the Police now.
They focus on the 18-29 range of men where just over half of men are single. The problem is, it doesn't give the full picture as the numbers are higher with 18-24 men but much lower with 25-29 men. Numbers of single younger women are lower than men for two reasons - women date and marry older men on average and there is a larger surplus of men.
The vast majority of people don't either. When you break down the numbers who met their partner online, a tenth met via dating apps and satisfaction with the apps is very low (around a tenth of singles and you may be surprised to hear, men are slightly more satisfied with the apps than women are).
And that percentage of people will equate to 70-80% of people according to recent data. Despite Internet lore, most people are in relationships and met in closed social groups online or offline. Those who aren't happy with their cards in life or have nothing to lose will of course air their grievances as they have the freedom to but the conversation around modern dating will focus on those who aren't in relationships, the promiscuous ten per cent and the other ten per cent of long term singles. Those in relationships just get on with it and don't have time to discuss in detail about it.
The concept of a curated Internet by AI on a national and individual level which can lead to your site or yourself being shadowbanned and expelled from online discourse, commerce and society is chilling.
No doubt it will be sold to the public as a way to automate moderation to protect moderators from having to come across traumatic women and child abuse content and to allow the quick and swift removal of said content. And virtually everyone will welcome it with open arms. What they will not be told is that its implementation will be universal, beyond mere abuse content, and will be used against them.
I was heavily shadowbanned (under a different pseudonym) on Twitter and Reddit before I closed my accounts and somewhat shadowbanned on YouTube. It is here and another private discussion forum where I am not shadowbanned and I can tell the difference in engagement as if it is night and day.