There's been plenty of white teenagers killing their exes or someone who's turned them down. I don't see how the race issue comes into it at all.
The ease of access to rough and/or violent porn and extreme misogyny (and please note that I said extreme) has been an issue amongst young teenagers for ages. We know that. It wasn't as much of an issue before the internet was so readily accessible, unless their dads were into some hardcore German porn or something. They wouldn't have had any frame of reference for it. IMO it's mostly a parenting fault for not being more on top about what their kids are watching online, but, kids are going to access that shit one way or another, eventually. It's down to the parents first, backed up by schools a bit to teach kids how to differentiate between bullshit and the real world, and its consequences.
It might not be... or it could be?
As an aside, I think the internet on young people has its swings and roundabouts. We can talk about the normalisation of certain degeneracy, upswing in trannies worldwide, proliferation of weirdos and brain rot, social contagion, etcetera. But it can also help the youth explore beyond what they're
told by pre-approved sources in the news and the like, for better or worse...
DDG Footsoldier or Fuentes catboy, pick one.
We see the most annoying, extreme and downright disgusting at the forefront. But I assume most grow up relatively normal.
Relatively. I would still restrict usage for my kids until a certain age and limit all porn exposure the best I can. I'm just saying, in my view, it's not the main underlying cause of violence among young people and I don't think it should be the go-to explanation for why a male committed a crime, as the government are currently in the process of trying to do.
The main issue with this topic and why race is brought up at all is that the government and media, or so it feels to some, are arguing that violent crime numbers amongst the youth is mostly a white issue despite it being a
disproportionately non-white problem. Or they're doing as much as they can to
imply it so certain groups don't feel targeted by the government's actions.
- in the 14 years to March 2019, the number of young people in youth custody went down in every ethnic group
- in the year ending March 2019, 27.8% of people in youth custody were Black – more than double the percentage in the year ending March 2006 (12.5%)
- White people made up around half (50.6%) of young people in custody in the year ending March 2019, compared with 71.7% in the year ending March 2006
- in the year ending March 2019, more young people were in custody for violence against the person than any other type of offence
So not only does it appear white youth crime is going down, it's inclining
up for others, and this contradicts a possible government objective I'll touch on at the end.
Women's crime rate has been trending downward for decades in-line with younger whites and the immigrants don't pick up the slack, so there's a point on the scoreboard I suppose for the fairer sex.
The Conservatives felt more generalised (it was a male youth problem), but Labour seem more overt, even if it's just a comedy of errors thanks to incompetence. They're not discussing internet usage in young children (because young internet users would cover everybody born after X-year but before Y-year I.E. old enough vote) or placing the blame on parents (also voters), or even porn (Conservatives tried, their solution was banning face sitting in porn and trying to implement porn IDs essentially, both doing nothing but earning ridicule), they're explicitly targeting people like Andrew Tate since he's an easy scapegoat for an issue more complex than they're willing to handle.
Keep in mind they're doing this whilst:
1. Citing a white murderer (
the crossbow killer had 10 Tate videos in his Youtube watch history) as an example of what online influences can do to a man, when a far more horrific example of youth violence against young girls (Southport killer) is ignored/forgotten.
Crossbow killer: 26, ex-girlfriend being a common motive, but made the face of extremist misogyny by both press and government.
Southport stabber: 17, no motive known, a random act of horrific violence and assigned no labels by media or the government.
2. Having stricter sentencing guidelines for whites whilst being a lot more lenient on non-whites (I think this will get overturned if I recall correctly, or
put on pause at least until they can sneakily implement it later); this also been an objective of David Lammy since
2017, and Mahmood (secretary of Justice) being a non-white, doesn't make it too hard to accept it was done in favour of their 'group'.
3. Possibly basing policy and government action on a fictious TV show where they possibly race swapped the killer, if they did indeed base it on a true story, but the water's already been muddied on that; the fact people can point to the show's plot — a youth violently murdering a girl — happening in
real life but with a black youth is just a tragically funny timing.
If it didn't feel so targeted, I think people would be
slightly (emphasis on
slight) less pissed off what the government's solutions are, even if resentment would still ultimately be present since their 'fix' involves punishing everybody and does fuck all at the end of the day.
The most charity I can give the 'big-G' Government, is that they're stuck between trying to fix 'unfair' sentencing and lower the disproportionately high black/minority incarceration rate (which eased sentencing guidelines would enable) whilst also also trying to tackle the issue of youth crime (which the prior guidelines would harm, since fewer of them would get punished and locked away, and non-white youths are more likely to
reoffend).
| The reoffending rate of adults was highest for those aged 18-20 for ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities). | The reoffending rate for offenders from the black, Asian, and other ethnic groups was highest for those aged 18-20. For offenders from the white ethnic group, those aged 35-39 presented the highest reoffending rate. |
Assuming they're retarded and don't see the contradiction in what they're doing, they'll assume banning x-number of websites will lower the overall number of criminals due to a lack exposure to certain materials, whilst arresting more whites will make things appear more 'fair' when looking at the stats (which I'm convinced only became a 'problem' to fix after importing BLM sentiments from America) but all it'll do is result in whites getting stricter sentences, punishing everyone through restricting certain websites (assuming they do anything at all on that), and letting young minority criminals off to reoffend which they're already more likely to do.
The 'education' sentiment the government are going for (that you linked to) isn't going to amount to much. I think the main thing not addressed in either article you linked is the possibility of indifference or apathy to the material, especially from boys, but that they fellate the show so much that it might be inconceivable people come away not giving a shit.
Anecdote, feel free to ignore:
I remember in high school watching Goodnight Mister Tom, a movie about an evacuee going to the countryside during WW2, and bursting out into laughter at one point. The evacuee is told his friend might've died after returning home to visit family after an air raid on London, and he's walking back to where he's staying all sad and shit. At the gate is someone with his friend's bike, ringing the bell, with a ribbon attached to the handles. It was just so funny. They didn't even give him time to mourn at all, the kid might not actually be dead — Zero situational awareness. Got me good.
There's talk of the 'emotional distress' and whatnot, but it feels less a concern for boys than it does girls, at least in my view. People are forgetting that with all this messaging, you're basically telling younger girls to be afraid of the boys they share a classroom with, all based on fiction and vague ideas. Though I'd claim the to have the same 'fear' too for my kids if it meant saving them from watching four hours of utter shite. It's the 'loner quiet kid with his backpack in the corner' repackaged for a new, younger female audience otherwise, and it doesn't help the situation.
If Incels/Manosphere/MGTOW are a result of men feeling like women ignore them, don't give them 'what they're owned', or are just generally starved of female contact so they need to cope by hating/devaluing women, wouldn't a series being showed to young girls across the entire nation that might result in them being more afraid of the opposite sex from a young age cause a larger rift? They intend the opposite, obviously, by encouraging boys to not do what the killer in Adolescence did, but that's more to educated boys, it doesn't do shit to help girls feel truly secure from their male classmates and might just make them feel less so. What are they doing? I'm not saying girls will actually watch this shit and be traumatised or affected but it still demonstrates a complete lack of foresight.
Another bizarre contradiction about showing this in Highschools is that, according to the stats, it's also being indirectly targeted at non-whites anyway, since the white youths most likely to offend are uneducated and poor whilst non-whites did crime in spite of education.
Based Labour? Anyone?
Showing it to highschoolers feels extra redundant when you know it's the uneducated anyway.
| The educational attainment of young people who were cautioned or sentenced for an offence was lowest for the white ethnic group, across all three measures. | Of young people from the white ethnic group matched to a KS4 attainment record in academic years 2013/14 and 2014/15, 12% achieved 5 or more GCSEs (or equivalents) graded A* to C, compared to other ethnic groups at 24%. |
TLDR: Left-wing meme for a Left-wing recipient. There might not be a racial component to youth crime, but the government and media make it feel like a white problem despite evidence to the contrary (half of all youth criminals are non-white, increasing, whilst white youths have gone from 70% to 50% in 13 years according to data). It's also easy to assume an anti-white slant to it all when to consider: Mahmood secretary of justice, absence of Southport from narrative, TV show possibly race swapped the killer. The internet (be it porn or Tate) feels like the easy answer to male violence, and so of course the government took it. Trying to 'fix' disproportionate incarceration and unfair sentencing by making it easier for non-whites to get off but making it easier to incarcerate whites, but simultaneously trying to fix youth crime & young male violence, feels like a contradiction of objectives. Showing the 'young boy becomes a killer because of the internet' show, and playing it off as serious business might have no effect, indifference/acknowledgement at best, or at worst, make young girls more afraid to be around the opposite sex and doing nothing for boys.
It's never been the same since they were bullied into removing most of the salt, but I do enjoy the onion and garlic one if I can't be bothered making my own sauce.
They have these packets you can microwave that are just a sauce you pour over some pasta. Decent snack if you got nowt in and light on calories. Cousin gave me a few a while back. Had a packet it on a whim a week after with some penne for something different at lunch. Surprised at how solid they were. I tend to favour just the plain sauce but the basil or chili were decent as well. But I also like Rustler burgers so my opinion on all food-related subjects might be considered null and void...
My sausage roll experience growing up was mostly just Pound Bakery too, Greggs was an actual luxury.
Do more home cooking nowadays, bit wary about the complex stuff in case I fuck it up but simple shit I'm comfortable doing. Dolmio was used for my spag bol when I was younger so I guess I'm just attached to the brand. Might try making my own sauce next week and using slightly more expensive mince meat to see if I can make something better. You have a recipe you go by or is it just something you eyeball?
