Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Make 𝐌𝐄𝐗𝐈𝐂𝐎 a cultural marvel! ✊ Revolución government grants immediate Culture boost 🎶 Zócalo quarter adds Culture per Unique Tradition ❤️‍🩹 Soldaderas infantry heals adjacent units See more:

CivGame's profile picture

Sid Meier's Civilization VII

172,631 subscribers

42,880 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

KunstWissenschaft & TechnologieGaming
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Kommentare

Profilbild von Star
Starvor 1 Jahr

I love the music! Fantástico!

Profilbild von Parker T
Parker Tvor 1 Jahr

Now we just need a proper exploration age mesoamerican culture

Profilbild von Ibim
Ibimvor 1 Jahr

Let's goooooooo, o mejor dicho.. Vamoooooooooooos🇲🇽🇲🇽

Profilbild von Jeremiah Lewis 🦚
Jeremiah Lewis 🦚vor 1 Jahr

BANGER

Profilbild von Fernando Of Rivia
Fernando Of Riviavor 1 Jahr

We need Juventino Rosas again😊

Profilbild von 🏳️‍⚧️♧ΩPícaro (Sitlali)Ω♧🇲🇽
🏳️‍⚧️♧ΩPícaro (Sitlali)Ω♧🇲🇽vor 1 Jahr

VIVA MEXICO A LA VERGAaaaaaAAAAA

Profilbild von Jacek Milc
Jacek Milcvor 1 Jahr

The biggest failure of civ7 is the lack of hotseat mode.. 😔

Profilbild von R. Melo Franco
R. Melo Francovor 1 Jahr

Wait, culture boost is supposed to be a BRAZILIAN feature

Profilbild von TheBDU
TheBDUvor 1 Jahr

Can we get another chance at the twitch drop? Game isn't even out yet and I'm already missing cosmetics

Ähnliche Videos

🚨 I have moved a bill to abolish the Department of Multiculturalism NSW. I HATE the policy of multiculturalism and support assimilation - here's why. Most of the immigration debate in recent years has been about total numbers. The government has let in too many migrants too quickly and we’re suffering overpriced housing, overcrowded cities, overburdened infrastructure etc. This is why I advocate for a five-year immigration pause ... but it's only half the story. We also need to have a serious rethink about how we encourage migrants to assimilate into Australian culture. The woke left claim Australia doesn’t have any unique culture. They claim that our culture is “multi-culture” ... but that is logically incoherent and just plain wrong. It’s true Australians have come from many countries, but over the centuries we have developed an Australian identity that is more than the sum of its parts. Contrary to our political and cultural elites, most Australians still like Australia. We like our people, our history, our traditions and our way of life. We do not want our culture to be replaced by a sudden influx of millions of foreigners. Most of these foreigners might be wonderful people, they might bring skills, have fun festivals and spicy foods, and they might be able to tick the “not a terrorist” box on the arrival form … but even if all of that is true, people who like the existing Australian culture (i.e. most of us) do not want to see our culture so casually replaced by a hodgepodge of foreign cultures. That is why the migrants that have arrived should be expected to integrate into our way of life and assimilate into our culture. This is not a radical position. It has worked well with earlier waves of Australian immigration, and the same would be expected from you if you migrated to Japan or Brazil. We don’t need to be pricks about it … the process can take time, and obviously people will remember where they came from … but assimilation is preferable to division and Balkanisation. And yet the government promotes the exact opposite. Rather than encouraging integration, or just leaving people alone to gradually assimilate, the NSW government has an agency dedicated subsidising our differences. Multicultural NSW employs 140 bureaucrats and spends roughly $70 million of taxpayers’ money to encourage new migrants to stick with their old culture. They are literally using our money to ensure that immigration causes more division and sectarianism than it would do otherwise. The agency needs to be scrapped. Afuera! Abolishing Multicultural NSW would not ban people from eating Mexican food or celebrating Chinese New Year or speaking Polish. To each their own. But there’s no reason for the rest of the population to pay for these choices. To rub salt into the wound, NSW Premier Ho Chi Minns then uses the existence of multiculturalism to justify censorship. He has claimed several times over the last year that multiculturalism is not compatible with vibrant free speech. A reasonable person would see this as an argument against multiculturalism, but amazingly Minns uses this as an argument against free speech! The people of NSW and Australia were never asked about this trade off. Instead, the political class has taken our money to subsidise cultural division, and then used that division to justify cracking down on our free speech. This is Orwellian. That is why the Libertarian Party has introduced a bill into NSW parliament to abolish Multicultural NSW and replace it with nothing. I encourage other MPs in other state parliaments to move a similar bill. This bill will come on for debate in coming months. Labor will obviously oppose but will be interesting to see how the Libs and Nats vote. If this repeal bill fails (for now) and taxpayers continue to be forced to fund various ethnic groups etc I encourage the British Australian Community (BAC) to apply for funding. As a general rule, the larger the ethnic group, the more the funding ... so BAC should easily get more funding than all the other groups combined. Libertarian Party NSW (Liberal Democrats) British Australian Community
3:29

🚨 I have moved a bill to abolish the Department of Multiculturalism NSW. I HATE the policy of multiculturalism and support assimilation - here's why. Most of the immigration debate in recent years has been about total numbers. The government has let in too many migrants too quickly and we’re suffering overpriced housing, overcrowded cities, overburdened infrastructure etc. This is why I advocate for a five-year immigration pause ... but it's only half the story. We also need to have a serious rethink about how we encourage migrants to assimilate into Australian culture. The woke left claim Australia doesn’t have any unique culture. They claim that our culture is “multi-culture” ... but that is logically incoherent and just plain wrong. It’s true Australians have come from many countries, but over the centuries we have developed an Australian identity that is more than the sum of its parts. Contrary to our political and cultural elites, most Australians still like Australia. We like our people, our history, our traditions and our way of life. We do not want our culture to be replaced by a sudden influx of millions of foreigners. Most of these foreigners might be wonderful people, they might bring skills, have fun festivals and spicy foods, and they might be able to tick the “not a terrorist” box on the arrival form … but even if all of that is true, people who like the existing Australian culture (i.e. most of us) do not want to see our culture so casually replaced by a hodgepodge of foreign cultures. That is why the migrants that have arrived should be expected to integrate into our way of life and assimilate into our culture. This is not a radical position. It has worked well with earlier waves of Australian immigration, and the same would be expected from you if you migrated to Japan or Brazil. We don’t need to be pricks about it … the process can take time, and obviously people will remember where they came from … but assimilation is preferable to division and Balkanisation. And yet the government promotes the exact opposite. Rather than encouraging integration, or just leaving people alone to gradually assimilate, the NSW government has an agency dedicated subsidising our differences. Multicultural NSW employs 140 bureaucrats and spends roughly $70 million of taxpayers’ money to encourage new migrants to stick with their old culture. They are literally using our money to ensure that immigration causes more division and sectarianism than it would do otherwise. The agency needs to be scrapped. Afuera! Abolishing Multicultural NSW would not ban people from eating Mexican food or celebrating Chinese New Year or speaking Polish. To each their own. But there’s no reason for the rest of the population to pay for these choices. To rub salt into the wound, NSW Premier Ho Chi Minns then uses the existence of multiculturalism to justify censorship. He has claimed several times over the last year that multiculturalism is not compatible with vibrant free speech. A reasonable person would see this as an argument against multiculturalism, but amazingly Minns uses this as an argument against free speech! The people of NSW and Australia were never asked about this trade off. Instead, the political class has taken our money to subsidise cultural division, and then used that division to justify cracking down on our free speech. This is Orwellian. That is why the Libertarian Party has introduced a bill into NSW parliament to abolish Multicultural NSW and replace it with nothing. I encourage other MPs in other state parliaments to move a similar bill. This bill will come on for debate in coming months. Labor will obviously oppose but will be interesting to see how the Libs and Nats vote. If this repeal bill fails (for now) and taxpayers continue to be forced to fund various ethnic groups etc I encourage the British Australian Community (BAC) to apply for funding. As a general rule, the larger the ethnic group, the more the funding ... so BAC should easily get more funding than all the other groups combined. Libertarian Party NSW (Liberal Democrats) British Australian Community

John Ruddick MLC - Libertarian

25,073 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🔥🎻 WHILE THE WEST LECTURES US ABOUT “VALUES”, EASTERN EUROPE STILL LIVES THEM ❄️🇵🇱 High in the mountains of southern Poland, winter still has a sound — and it doesn’t come from a conference hall or a government campaign. It comes from violins played in the snow, from young women in regional dress performing kolęda not for likes, grants, or approval, but because this is how Christmas has been lived here for generations. This is Zagórzanie land, part of the wider Carpathian and Slavic world — a cultural frontier shaped long before modern borders, NGOs, or “European frameworks” existed. Slavs settled these mountains between the 6th and 9th centuries, bringing with them seasonal rites tied to nature, community, and survival. When Christianity arrived, it did not erase those traditions. It absorbed them. Winter songs that once marked the return of light became Christmas kolędy — prayer, blessing, and memory fused into one. These songs were never folklore for tourists. They were functional culture. Sung from house to house, they bound families together, blessed homes and livestock, and carried identity through sound when written language was rare and state protection nonexistent. History tried hard to silence this world. Empires mocked it as backward. The 20th century was worse — wars, population transfers, and communism all attempted to cut faith and tradition at the root. Churches were controlled, folk culture reduced to staged performances or quietly discouraged. Yet the music survived, passed on in kitchens, barns, and village churches — when no one was watching, and when watching could be dangerous. That is why scenes like this still feel uncomfortable to some. They expose a contrast Europe prefers not to discuss. In much of the West, values are explained, redefined, and regulated from above. In the East, values are practiced — weekly, seasonally, bodily. They are not slogans. They are habits learned before they are named. No one here is trying to “send a message.” And yet a message is sent anyway. Culture does not need permission to exist. Identity does not require validation. And tradition does not disappear just because it is unfashionable. While some parts of Europe debate what they should believe, others simply continue to live it — in snow, in song, and in memory that refused to die. 🎄🎻❄️ If you like what we are doing — like, repost, and invite your friends for more. Follow us also on Facebook: Slavic Networks Nirali VVeles SlavicFreeSpirit
1:30

🔥🎻 WHILE THE WEST LECTURES US ABOUT “VALUES”, EASTERN EUROPE STILL LIVES THEM ❄️🇵🇱 High in the mountains of southern Poland, winter still has a sound — and it doesn’t come from a conference hall or a government campaign. It comes from violins played in the snow, from young women in regional dress performing kolęda not for likes, grants, or approval, but because this is how Christmas has been lived here for generations. This is Zagórzanie land, part of the wider Carpathian and Slavic world — a cultural frontier shaped long before modern borders, NGOs, or “European frameworks” existed. Slavs settled these mountains between the 6th and 9th centuries, bringing with them seasonal rites tied to nature, community, and survival. When Christianity arrived, it did not erase those traditions. It absorbed them. Winter songs that once marked the return of light became Christmas kolędy — prayer, blessing, and memory fused into one. These songs were never folklore for tourists. They were functional culture. Sung from house to house, they bound families together, blessed homes and livestock, and carried identity through sound when written language was rare and state protection nonexistent. History tried hard to silence this world. Empires mocked it as backward. The 20th century was worse — wars, population transfers, and communism all attempted to cut faith and tradition at the root. Churches were controlled, folk culture reduced to staged performances or quietly discouraged. Yet the music survived, passed on in kitchens, barns, and village churches — when no one was watching, and when watching could be dangerous. That is why scenes like this still feel uncomfortable to some. They expose a contrast Europe prefers not to discuss. In much of the West, values are explained, redefined, and regulated from above. In the East, values are practiced — weekly, seasonally, bodily. They are not slogans. They are habits learned before they are named. No one here is trying to “send a message.” And yet a message is sent anyway. Culture does not need permission to exist. Identity does not require validation. And tradition does not disappear just because it is unfashionable. While some parts of Europe debate what they should believe, others simply continue to live it — in snow, in song, and in memory that refused to die. 🎄🎻❄️ If you like what we are doing — like, repost, and invite your friends for more. Follow us also on Facebook: Slavic Networks Nirali VVeles SlavicFreeSpirit

Slavic Networks

26,940 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

"Stop speaking Irish!" - how Irish nationalists were conquered by British wokeism. Ebun Joseph is a Nigerian woman who moved to Ireland. She’s now the government-appointed “Racism Czar”. And she’s just told Irish people that she’s “inherited Ireland” and they need to “stop speaking Irish”. Charming! As a Westerner, it’s always nice to get bossed around and spoken down to by someone who’d be lying next to a Red Cross tin of powdered egg with flies on her face if it wasn’t for Westerners. This is incredible, not just because a migrant feels sufficiently emboldened to make such demands on their host country, and not just because she’s a “Racism Czar” so is supposed to be reducing racism, not making people more racist. What’s truly incredible about this is that the same Irish nationalists who fought to keep Ireland Irish - Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - support this woman. These supposed nationalists who fought against British influence in Ireland now want Ireland to be subsumed by third world immigration, to the point that Irish culture and language is erased. Brits out, Eritreans in. What these Nationalists might not realise is that the Wokeism that they are implementing is an invention of the Anglosphere, especially America and Britain. British authorities tried to restrict the Irish language in Ireland over a period spanning nearly 600 years, beginning with the Statute of Kilkenny in 1367. If Margaret Thatcher had gone across to Ireland and told them “stop speaking Irish!”, there would have been blood in the streets. But forty years later, Irish nationalists have been conquered by British wokeism, and are appointing mad looking Nigerians to order Irish people to erase their culture. We see this British capture of Irish culture at every level. Kneecap received nearly £2 million of British funding. Why did Britain spend that money? Kneecap are now hanging out with Greta Thunberg, pushing climate ideology and calling for mass immigration. Kneecap are a paid-for asset of the British cultural establishment, and a vector for wokeism in Ireland. It reminds me of the late great PJ O’Rourke visiting Vietnam decades after the war and seeing American cultural influences and capitalism everywhere, and realising that cultural sublimation had worked where military might hadn’t. Anyway, I have a feeling that Sinn Féin and other supposedly nationalist Irish organisations have somewhat diverged from what genuine Irish nationalists want, and there’s about to be an almighty backlash.
14:51

"Stop speaking Irish!" - how Irish nationalists were conquered by British wokeism. Ebun Joseph is a Nigerian woman who moved to Ireland. She’s now the government-appointed “Racism Czar”. And she’s just told Irish people that she’s “inherited Ireland” and they need to “stop speaking Irish”. Charming! As a Westerner, it’s always nice to get bossed around and spoken down to by someone who’d be lying next to a Red Cross tin of powdered egg with flies on her face if it wasn’t for Westerners. This is incredible, not just because a migrant feels sufficiently emboldened to make such demands on their host country, and not just because she’s a “Racism Czar” so is supposed to be reducing racism, not making people more racist. What’s truly incredible about this is that the same Irish nationalists who fought to keep Ireland Irish - Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - support this woman. These supposed nationalists who fought against British influence in Ireland now want Ireland to be subsumed by third world immigration, to the point that Irish culture and language is erased. Brits out, Eritreans in. What these Nationalists might not realise is that the Wokeism that they are implementing is an invention of the Anglosphere, especially America and Britain. British authorities tried to restrict the Irish language in Ireland over a period spanning nearly 600 years, beginning with the Statute of Kilkenny in 1367. If Margaret Thatcher had gone across to Ireland and told them “stop speaking Irish!”, there would have been blood in the streets. But forty years later, Irish nationalists have been conquered by British wokeism, and are appointing mad looking Nigerians to order Irish people to erase their culture. We see this British capture of Irish culture at every level. Kneecap received nearly £2 million of British funding. Why did Britain spend that money? Kneecap are now hanging out with Greta Thunberg, pushing climate ideology and calling for mass immigration. Kneecap are a paid-for asset of the British cultural establishment, and a vector for wokeism in Ireland. It reminds me of the late great PJ O’Rourke visiting Vietnam decades after the war and seeing American cultural influences and capitalism everywhere, and realising that cultural sublimation had worked where military might hadn’t. Anyway, I have a feeling that Sinn Féin and other supposedly nationalist Irish organisations have somewhat diverged from what genuine Irish nationalists want, and there’s about to be an almighty backlash.

Leo Kearse - see me on tour! Links in bio

62,921 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

When The Pub Stopped Being the Center Of The Story 🍻 This is a long structural downshift in the UK’s per capita drinking that starts in the late 2000s and just keeps grinding lower, with only a brief Covid era distortion. The UK line peaks in the mid 2000s, then drops hard around the GFC window and never really rebounds. The US line, by contrast, is basically flat for decades with small wiggles, then a Covid bump and a recent pullback but nothing like the UK’s steady slide. So the story isn’t Covid changed everything. Covid just sits on top of a decline that was already baked in. How Immigration Likely Influenced It (without being the explanation) Immigration matters mostly through composition. When a country’s population mix shifts toward groups that, on average, drink less whether for cultural, religious, economic, or age structure reasons, the national per capita servings number mechanically drifts lower even if nobody else changes behavior. The UK has had a meaningful rise in the share of residents coming from (or raised within) communities where alcohol is less central to social life. That tends to show up in consumption data as a gradual, persistent down pressure on the average. Composition effects are slow. They help explain the direction and the “why doesn’t it bounce?” part. They don’t fully explain the step down you see after the mid 2000s. That sharper break looks more like economics, policy and culture all turning at once. In my opinion these are the reasons UK alcohol consumption fell this much… 1.The post 2008 squeeze changed habits and never fully reversed. When real disposable income gets pinched, people don’t just buy fewer pints they rewrite their routines. The UK’s decline lines up with that era with housing stress, austerity psychology, and a long cost of living grind that made pub as default less viable. 2. The pub stopped being the center of gravity. Pub closures, higher on trade prices, stricter norms around drinking and driving, and then later WFH and fragmented social life all hollowed out the third place. Once a culture loses a physical ritual, consumption doesn’t just fall, it becomes optional. 3. Younger cohorts are opting out and they’re not replacing older drinkers. The UK has seen a broad sober curious and health optimized shift where alcohol is increasingly viewed as a tax on sleep, training, mood, and appearance. That’s a cultural rerating, not a cyclical fluctuation. It compounds over time because each new cohort starts from a lower baseline. 4.Policy and pricing quietly did their job. Whether it’s alcohol duty, tighter enforcement, minimum pricing in parts of the UK, or just relentless price inflation in pubs, the direction of travel has made heavy drinking harder to maintain as a default lifestyle. You don’t need prohibition. You just need friction. 5.Substitution is real, even if nobody wants to say it out loud. More entertainment at home, more digital socializing, more alternative intoxicants in some demographics, and more zero and low alcohol options means the same person can still go out without stacking servings the way they did in the 90s and 2000s. Put it together and the chart reads like a quiet civilizational shift where the UK didn’t just drink less, it decentered alcohol as a social institution. Immigration likely adds steady downward pressure via demographics and norms, but the big driver is that economics rewired habits, culture rerated the payoff, and the infrastructure (the pub) lost its monopoly on social life.
0:38

When The Pub Stopped Being the Center Of The Story 🍻 This is a long structural downshift in the UK’s per capita drinking that starts in the late 2000s and just keeps grinding lower, with only a brief Covid era distortion. The UK line peaks in the mid 2000s, then drops hard around the GFC window and never really rebounds. The US line, by contrast, is basically flat for decades with small wiggles, then a Covid bump and a recent pullback but nothing like the UK’s steady slide. So the story isn’t Covid changed everything. Covid just sits on top of a decline that was already baked in. How Immigration Likely Influenced It (without being the explanation) Immigration matters mostly through composition. When a country’s population mix shifts toward groups that, on average, drink less whether for cultural, religious, economic, or age structure reasons, the national per capita servings number mechanically drifts lower even if nobody else changes behavior. The UK has had a meaningful rise in the share of residents coming from (or raised within) communities where alcohol is less central to social life. That tends to show up in consumption data as a gradual, persistent down pressure on the average. Composition effects are slow. They help explain the direction and the “why doesn’t it bounce?” part. They don’t fully explain the step down you see after the mid 2000s. That sharper break looks more like economics, policy and culture all turning at once. In my opinion these are the reasons UK alcohol consumption fell this much… 1.The post 2008 squeeze changed habits and never fully reversed. When real disposable income gets pinched, people don’t just buy fewer pints they rewrite their routines. The UK’s decline lines up with that era with housing stress, austerity psychology, and a long cost of living grind that made pub as default less viable. 2. The pub stopped being the center of gravity. Pub closures, higher on trade prices, stricter norms around drinking and driving, and then later WFH and fragmented social life all hollowed out the third place. Once a culture loses a physical ritual, consumption doesn’t just fall, it becomes optional. 3. Younger cohorts are opting out and they’re not replacing older drinkers. The UK has seen a broad sober curious and health optimized shift where alcohol is increasingly viewed as a tax on sleep, training, mood, and appearance. That’s a cultural rerating, not a cyclical fluctuation. It compounds over time because each new cohort starts from a lower baseline. 4.Policy and pricing quietly did their job. Whether it’s alcohol duty, tighter enforcement, minimum pricing in parts of the UK, or just relentless price inflation in pubs, the direction of travel has made heavy drinking harder to maintain as a default lifestyle. You don’t need prohibition. You just need friction. 5.Substitution is real, even if nobody wants to say it out loud. More entertainment at home, more digital socializing, more alternative intoxicants in some demographics, and more zero and low alcohol options means the same person can still go out without stacking servings the way they did in the 90s and 2000s. Put it together and the chart reads like a quiet civilizational shift where the UK didn’t just drink less, it decentered alcohol as a social institution. Immigration likely adds steady downward pressure via demographics and norms, but the big driver is that economics rewired habits, culture rerated the payoff, and the infrastructure (the pub) lost its monopoly on social life.

EndGame Macro

18,175 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

I asked the Safeguarding Minister, Jess Phillips, if she'd considered the impact that mass migration has on the safety of women and girls. She said that there's no reliable data on this issue. But that isn't entirely true. There is indicative data, and it is damning. It's true that people from any country, or culture, can be violence towards women and girls, including sexually. It's also true that, regardless of a person's background, we should come down hard on those who commit violent or sexual abuse. However, we should also recognise that not every culture has the same attitudes towards women and girls. In some cultures, for example, it's seen as indecent for a woman to walk around without her hair covered. In most cultures, it’s normal for men and women to be segregated for some things (like getting changed); in some cultures, men and women are segregated for many more things. In some cultures, physical and sexual violence towards women is commonplace. When men from those cultures come to this country, those are the cultural assumptions they bring with them. This makes intuitive sense. Why would we expect people to suddenly adopt British norms, habits, and behaviours, immediately upon arriving here? Particularly when so many people in the British state are unwilling to recognise that different cultures have different norms in the first place? That's not to say that everybody from these cultures poses a threat to women and girls. And of course, some of those people may have wanted to come here to get away from those very cultural expectations. But what we often see is that, 'per capita' (or per person), people from certain nationalities are more likely to commit certain types of crime when they come to the UK. That's particularly true in the case of illegal migrants, who are disproportionately likely to be young men - the group most likely to commit violent or sexual crime. Back in October, Labour MPs voted to block the release of detailed migrant crime data, which would have given us the full picture about how likely different migrant groups are to commit certain crimes. Some nationalities might be more likely to commit crime than British nationals. Others might be less likely. But at least we'd have the data, which would allow us to have an informed debate about this. However, thanks to the hard work of campaigners and journalists, we have some indicative data about the rates at which different nationalities commit crime, including crime which disproportionately targets women and girls. For example, data obtained from the Ministry of Justice last year showed that two nationalities, Afghans and Eritreans, were more than 20 times as likely to be convicted of a sexual offence than British nationals. This data showed that Afghans had a conviction rate for sexual offences of 59 per 10,000 people, while Eritreans had a conviction rate of 53.6 per 10,000 people. British nationals, on the other hand, had a conviction rate of 2.66 per 10,000. People have since disputed those figures. They say that, since the population figures used to work out this data are taken from the 2021 Census, we're likely to be undercounting the number of Afghans and Eritreans in the country. But even if that's true, the rate of conviction for sexual offences would still be much higher amongst Afghans and Eritreans than amongst British nationals. If this indicative data is wrong, then the Government should publish the full figures. Their failure to do so is a choice. We can collect a person's nationality when they're arrested, when they stand trial, and when they go to prison. People deserve to know what impact mass migration is having on the safety of women and girls. We need to be able to tell the truth about the fact that not every culture treats women in the same way, and that when people arrive here, they often bring that cultural baggage with them.
0:49

I asked the Safeguarding Minister, Jess Phillips, if she'd considered the impact that mass migration has on the safety of women and girls. She said that there's no reliable data on this issue. But that isn't entirely true. There is indicative data, and it is damning. It's true that people from any country, or culture, can be violence towards women and girls, including sexually. It's also true that, regardless of a person's background, we should come down hard on those who commit violent or sexual abuse. However, we should also recognise that not every culture has the same attitudes towards women and girls. In some cultures, for example, it's seen as indecent for a woman to walk around without her hair covered. In most cultures, it’s normal for men and women to be segregated for some things (like getting changed); in some cultures, men and women are segregated for many more things. In some cultures, physical and sexual violence towards women is commonplace. When men from those cultures come to this country, those are the cultural assumptions they bring with them. This makes intuitive sense. Why would we expect people to suddenly adopt British norms, habits, and behaviours, immediately upon arriving here? Particularly when so many people in the British state are unwilling to recognise that different cultures have different norms in the first place? That's not to say that everybody from these cultures poses a threat to women and girls. And of course, some of those people may have wanted to come here to get away from those very cultural expectations. But what we often see is that, 'per capita' (or per person), people from certain nationalities are more likely to commit certain types of crime when they come to the UK. That's particularly true in the case of illegal migrants, who are disproportionately likely to be young men - the group most likely to commit violent or sexual crime. Back in October, Labour MPs voted to block the release of detailed migrant crime data, which would have given us the full picture about how likely different migrant groups are to commit certain crimes. Some nationalities might be more likely to commit crime than British nationals. Others might be less likely. But at least we'd have the data, which would allow us to have an informed debate about this. However, thanks to the hard work of campaigners and journalists, we have some indicative data about the rates at which different nationalities commit crime, including crime which disproportionately targets women and girls. For example, data obtained from the Ministry of Justice last year showed that two nationalities, Afghans and Eritreans, were more than 20 times as likely to be convicted of a sexual offence than British nationals. This data showed that Afghans had a conviction rate for sexual offences of 59 per 10,000 people, while Eritreans had a conviction rate of 53.6 per 10,000 people. British nationals, on the other hand, had a conviction rate of 2.66 per 10,000. People have since disputed those figures. They say that, since the population figures used to work out this data are taken from the 2021 Census, we're likely to be undercounting the number of Afghans and Eritreans in the country. But even if that's true, the rate of conviction for sexual offences would still be much higher amongst Afghans and Eritreans than amongst British nationals. If this indicative data is wrong, then the Government should publish the full figures. Their failure to do so is a choice. We can collect a person's nationality when they're arrested, when they stand trial, and when they go to prison. People deserve to know what impact mass migration is having on the safety of women and girls. We need to be able to tell the truth about the fact that not every culture treats women in the same way, and that when people arrive here, they often bring that cultural baggage with them.

Katie Lam

174,806 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Ann embodied something fundamental about this House: the passion and freedom to make our arguments robustly and without fear, and the unique responsibility that we have to the people we represent. The relationship between a Member of Parliament and their constituents is unlike almost anything else. We meet people face to face. We hold surgeries. We go into their homes. If someone is too ill to come and see us, we go and see them. We do so because personal contact with the people we represent is at the heart of our democracy. We must not allow the epitaph of Ann’s terrible murder to be that we withdraw from that responsibility or lose the very thing that makes this place and our democracy so special. But nor can we ignore the increasingly visceral and violent language that is allowed to spread online. The Government, and particularly the Home Secretary, must make it absolutely clear to the social media companies that they have a responsibility to do far more to tackle personal abuse, threats and violent rhetoric. Some of what has been said online following Ann’s murder has been utterly shocking, and we cannot simply pretend that this culture of hatred has no consequences. Ann is not the only Member of Parliament to have been murdered. Jo Cox was murdered. My good friend David Amess was murdered. And the plaques around this Chamber remind us that terrorists have murdered many Members of this House. We must be bold and we must be clear. We will not accept being shut down. We will not accept being prevented from carrying out our duties. And we will not accept being silenced. Because that, I believe, is what Ann would have wanted.
3:33

Ann embodied something fundamental about this House: the passion and freedom to make our arguments robustly and without fear, and the unique responsibility that we have to the people we represent. The relationship between a Member of Parliament and their constituents is unlike almost anything else. We meet people face to face. We hold surgeries. We go into their homes. If someone is too ill to come and see us, we go and see them. We do so because personal contact with the people we represent is at the heart of our democracy. We must not allow the epitaph of Ann’s terrible murder to be that we withdraw from that responsibility or lose the very thing that makes this place and our democracy so special. But nor can we ignore the increasingly visceral and violent language that is allowed to spread online. The Government, and particularly the Home Secretary, must make it absolutely clear to the social media companies that they have a responsibility to do far more to tackle personal abuse, threats and violent rhetoric. Some of what has been said online following Ann’s murder has been utterly shocking, and we cannot simply pretend that this culture of hatred has no consequences. Ann is not the only Member of Parliament to have been murdered. Jo Cox was murdered. My good friend David Amess was murdered. And the plaques around this Chamber remind us that terrorists have murdered many Members of this House. We must be bold and we must be clear. We will not accept being shut down. We will not accept being prevented from carrying out our duties. And we will not accept being silenced. Because that, I believe, is what Ann would have wanted.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

20,896 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

📨 My Letter to the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States To serve in the U.S. Congress, candidates should be required to be at least third-generation Americans, ensuring a deep-rooted connection to American values, culture, and traditions. This policy would mean that only individuals whose grandparents were born in the United States could run for congressional office. The reasoning behind this requirement is to prioritize leaders who have been shaped by multiple generations of immersion in the American way of life, fostering a strong alignment with the nation’s core principles, such as individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, and a commitment to the Constitution. The United States has long been a melting pot, welcoming immigrants who seek opportunity and freedom. However, the rapid integration of newcomers into positions of significant legislative power can sometimes lead to challenges in preserving the foundational values that have defined the nation for centuries. By requiring candidates to be third-generation Americans, we ensure that those shaping our laws have a deep understanding of the cultural and historical context that makes America unique. This does not diminish the contributions of immigrants or their descendants but emphasizes the importance of a shared national identity forged over time. For example, third-generation Americans are more likely to have grown up in communities where American traditions—like Thanksgiving, the Fourth of July, or civic engagement through local governance—are second nature. Their families would have had decades to absorb the principles of self-reliance, free speech, and the rule of law, which are central to the American experiment. This generational connection helps ensure that elected officials prioritize policies that strengthen, rather than reshape, the nation’s core identity. This proposal is not about exclusion but about safeguarding the cultural continuity that has made the United States a beacon of freedom and opportunity. Immigrants and their immediate descendants can still contribute meaningfully to society in countless ways—through business, community leadership, or other forms of public service—while their families gradually weave themselves into the fabric of American life. By the third generation, their roots in the U.S. are deep enough to reflect a commitment to preserving the values that have sustained the nation, ensuring that Congress remains a steward of America’s enduring principles. If you agree, please share and tag your state representatives and President Trump. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
2:15

📨 My Letter to the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States To serve in the U.S. Congress, candidates should be required to be at least third-generation Americans, ensuring a deep-rooted connection to American values, culture, and traditions. This policy would mean that only individuals whose grandparents were born in the United States could run for congressional office. The reasoning behind this requirement is to prioritize leaders who have been shaped by multiple generations of immersion in the American way of life, fostering a strong alignment with the nation’s core principles, such as individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, and a commitment to the Constitution. The United States has long been a melting pot, welcoming immigrants who seek opportunity and freedom. However, the rapid integration of newcomers into positions of significant legislative power can sometimes lead to challenges in preserving the foundational values that have defined the nation for centuries. By requiring candidates to be third-generation Americans, we ensure that those shaping our laws have a deep understanding of the cultural and historical context that makes America unique. This does not diminish the contributions of immigrants or their descendants but emphasizes the importance of a shared national identity forged over time. For example, third-generation Americans are more likely to have grown up in communities where American traditions—like Thanksgiving, the Fourth of July, or civic engagement through local governance—are second nature. Their families would have had decades to absorb the principles of self-reliance, free speech, and the rule of law, which are central to the American experiment. This generational connection helps ensure that elected officials prioritize policies that strengthen, rather than reshape, the nation’s core identity. This proposal is not about exclusion but about safeguarding the cultural continuity that has made the United States a beacon of freedom and opportunity. Immigrants and their immediate descendants can still contribute meaningfully to society in countless ways—through business, community leadership, or other forms of public service—while their families gradually weave themselves into the fabric of American life. By the third generation, their roots in the U.S. are deep enough to reflect a commitment to preserving the values that have sustained the nation, ensuring that Congress remains a steward of America’s enduring principles. If you agree, please share and tag your state representatives and President Trump. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

MJTruthUltra

69,996 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Victor Davis Hanson: Western Civilization Has Reached Its Turning Point After Charlie Kirk's Assassination Charlie Kirk’s death ignited a fire within Western civilization, and it is sending a message to the Left: No more. It’s been one week since Kirk was shot dead while debating on a college campus, and the Right is reacting more viscerally than we’ve seen from it in recent memory. Not only that, but we’re seeing worldwide support for Kirk, mass demonstrations against illegal immigration in Europe, the fall of France’s government, and a grassroots movement saying, “Enough is enough,” here in America. Victor Davis Hanson analyzes the events that pushed the West to its boiling point and where we go from here on today’s episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.” “What is this moment? We're seeing it in the United States with thousands of people are commemorating the death of Charlie Kirk. There's no tolerance for the usual left-wing, socialist craziness, the abhorrent violent smears of conservatives who've died. And you don't see major bureaucrats, or generals, or Hollywood figures—increasingly, they're not coming out and rejoicing because they feel that they're going to get a big pushback. “ We also are tired of what I call boutique anti-Americanism. We see Ilhan Omar suggesting that our elected government is worse than the dictatorship in Somalia; or we see AOC calling Donald Trump a fascist, as she has in the past; or we see Rashida Tlaib just demonizing and damning the United States, even though her parents fled the Middle East to come here. And we're tired of it. It doesn't mean we're gonna outlaw free speech or try to use the same tactics as the critics of America do. But what we're saying is, we're a unique place. We're better than the alternative. We don't have to be perfect to be good. So, you can say all you want, but we're gonna not just ignore you, we're gonna do our best to make sure your voices have no influence.” 👉Don’t miss out on Victor’s latest videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You’ll be notified every time a new piece of content drops: 👉If you can’t get enough of Victor Davis Hanson from The Daily Signal, subscribe to his official YouTube channel: 👉He’s also the host of “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” available wherever you prefer to watch or listen. Links to the show and exclusive content are available on his website: (0:00) A Global Movement Ignited (0:57) The Rise of Grassroots Movements (2:26) The Collective Shrug Explained (3:45) Cultural and Political Paradoxes (5:43) Energy Policies and Economic Consequences (7:15) Conclusion: A Call to Return to Tradition
8:08

Victor Davis Hanson: Western Civilization Has Reached Its Turning Point After Charlie Kirk's Assassination Charlie Kirk’s death ignited a fire within Western civilization, and it is sending a message to the Left: No more. It’s been one week since Kirk was shot dead while debating on a college campus, and the Right is reacting more viscerally than we’ve seen from it in recent memory. Not only that, but we’re seeing worldwide support for Kirk, mass demonstrations against illegal immigration in Europe, the fall of France’s government, and a grassroots movement saying, “Enough is enough,” here in America. Victor Davis Hanson analyzes the events that pushed the West to its boiling point and where we go from here on today’s episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.” “What is this moment? We're seeing it in the United States with thousands of people are commemorating the death of Charlie Kirk. There's no tolerance for the usual left-wing, socialist craziness, the abhorrent violent smears of conservatives who've died. And you don't see major bureaucrats, or generals, or Hollywood figures—increasingly, they're not coming out and rejoicing because they feel that they're going to get a big pushback. “ We also are tired of what I call boutique anti-Americanism. We see Ilhan Omar suggesting that our elected government is worse than the dictatorship in Somalia; or we see AOC calling Donald Trump a fascist, as she has in the past; or we see Rashida Tlaib just demonizing and damning the United States, even though her parents fled the Middle East to come here. And we're tired of it. It doesn't mean we're gonna outlaw free speech or try to use the same tactics as the critics of America do. But what we're saying is, we're a unique place. We're better than the alternative. We don't have to be perfect to be good. So, you can say all you want, but we're gonna not just ignore you, we're gonna do our best to make sure your voices have no influence.” 👉Don’t miss out on Victor’s latest videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You’ll be notified every time a new piece of content drops: 👉If you can’t get enough of Victor Davis Hanson from The Daily Signal, subscribe to his official YouTube channel: 👉He’s also the host of “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” available wherever you prefer to watch or listen. Links to the show and exclusive content are available on his website: (0:00) A Global Movement Ignited (0:57) The Rise of Grassroots Movements (2:26) The Collective Shrug Explained (3:45) Cultural and Political Paradoxes (5:43) Energy Policies and Economic Consequences (7:15) Conclusion: A Call to Return to Tradition

The Daily Signal

90,989 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

India's Vulgar Content Crisis: How Algorithms, Greed, and the Erosion of a Generation Are Colliding in 2026 In 2026, open any Indian teenager’s Instagram or YouTube Shorts feed and you’ll see it: a relentless stream of suggestive reels, borderline explicit dances, and creators pushing every boundary for clicks. What began as occasional “bold” content has now become the default algorithm diet for millions. This isn’t organic cultural evolution—it’s engineered addiction, fueled by cold, hard incentives that reward the raciest material while quietly reshaping an entire generation’s sense of normal. The Numbers Don’t Lie—And They’re Alarming Official data from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal shows a staggering 76,657 complaints of cybercrimes against women in 2025 alone—an increase of over 28,000 cases from the previous year. Sexually obscene material topped the list with 37,743 reports, followed closely by sexually explicit acts. At the same time, the government has issued repeated advisories to platforms demanding immediate removal of “obscene, vulgar, pornographic” content, warning of legal consequences for non-compliance. Yet the flood continues. Why? Because the system is designed to reward it. The Algorithm’s Poisonous Incentive Loop Social media platforms don’t care about culture—they care about watch time, comments, shares, and subscriptions. Provocative, sexually charged content consistently outperforms everything else: - Reels with “bold” hooks get 2–3x more watch time. - Controversial or suggestive posts trigger 4x more comments and shares. - Once a creator dips into semi-nude, twerking, or heavily sexualized fitness/glamour content, the algorithm pushes it harder—because engagement skyrockets. Creators aren’t stupid. Many started with dance, fashion, or comedy. Then they noticed the pattern: a slightly suggestive thumbnail or outfit = exponential growth. Instagram’s subscription model (where fans pay monthly for “exclusive” content) has turned this into a direct revenue stream. The more explicit the tease, the more subscribers pay to see what’s behind the paywall. It’s not art. It’s calculated escalation. Meanwhile, young viewers—especially impressionable teens—are being trained from their first scroll. The hyper-sexualization of children and teens on these platforms is no longer fringe; it’s algorithmic mainstream. Algorithms actively promote self-sexualized content from users as young as 12 because it drives insane engagement metrics. The Hidden Cultural and Psychological Cost This isn’t harmless entertainment. Constant exposure to vulgar, objectifying content is rewiring expectations: - Relationships become transactional and appearance-obsessed. - Body image issues explode among both boys and girls. - Respect, consent, and emotional depth take a backseat to shock value and dopamine hits. - A generation is learning that the fastest path to fame and money is self-objectification. India’s rich cultural heritage—rooted in restraint, family values, and spiritual depth—is being drowned out by a globalized, profit-driven race to the bottom. The same platforms that once promised connection and creativity are now the biggest distributors of cultural decay. It’s Not Just Creators—It’s Us Here’s the uncomfortable truth: every view, like, share, and subscription is a vote. We are the demand side of this supply chain. When we reward vulgarity, platforms and creators respond with more of it. The algorithm doesn’t have morals—it has metrics. We do. What Needs to Change—Now 1. Platforms must be held accountable. The government’s recent push for faster takedowns (now down to hours in some cases) and age-based classification of digital content is a start. But enforcement must be consistent and transparent. 2. Creators must choose integrity over virality. Real influence comes from substance, not skin. 3. Parents and educators need to wake up and actively monitor, discuss, and limit exposure. 4. Users must vote with their thumbs—follow, share, and pay for content that elevates rather than degrades. The sudden rise of vulgar content in India isn’t accidental. It’s the predictable outcome of unchecked algorithms meeting human greed in a hyper-connected society. If we don’t interrupt this cycle now, we won’t just lose our feeds—we’ll lose the values that define us as a civilization. The question isn’t whether this content exists. The question is: what kind of India are we building—one scroll at a time? What do you think—have you noticed this shift in your own feed? Drop your thoughts below. Let’s start the conversation that actually matters.
16:12

India's Vulgar Content Crisis: How Algorithms, Greed, and the Erosion of a Generation Are Colliding in 2026 In 2026, open any Indian teenager’s Instagram or YouTube Shorts feed and you’ll see it: a relentless stream of suggestive reels, borderline explicit dances, and creators pushing every boundary for clicks. What began as occasional “bold” content has now become the default algorithm diet for millions. This isn’t organic cultural evolution—it’s engineered addiction, fueled by cold, hard incentives that reward the raciest material while quietly reshaping an entire generation’s sense of normal. The Numbers Don’t Lie—And They’re Alarming Official data from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal shows a staggering 76,657 complaints of cybercrimes against women in 2025 alone—an increase of over 28,000 cases from the previous year. Sexually obscene material topped the list with 37,743 reports, followed closely by sexually explicit acts. At the same time, the government has issued repeated advisories to platforms demanding immediate removal of “obscene, vulgar, pornographic” content, warning of legal consequences for non-compliance. Yet the flood continues. Why? Because the system is designed to reward it. The Algorithm’s Poisonous Incentive Loop Social media platforms don’t care about culture—they care about watch time, comments, shares, and subscriptions. Provocative, sexually charged content consistently outperforms everything else: - Reels with “bold” hooks get 2–3x more watch time. - Controversial or suggestive posts trigger 4x more comments and shares. - Once a creator dips into semi-nude, twerking, or heavily sexualized fitness/glamour content, the algorithm pushes it harder—because engagement skyrockets. Creators aren’t stupid. Many started with dance, fashion, or comedy. Then they noticed the pattern: a slightly suggestive thumbnail or outfit = exponential growth. Instagram’s subscription model (where fans pay monthly for “exclusive” content) has turned this into a direct revenue stream. The more explicit the tease, the more subscribers pay to see what’s behind the paywall. It’s not art. It’s calculated escalation. Meanwhile, young viewers—especially impressionable teens—are being trained from their first scroll. The hyper-sexualization of children and teens on these platforms is no longer fringe; it’s algorithmic mainstream. Algorithms actively promote self-sexualized content from users as young as 12 because it drives insane engagement metrics. The Hidden Cultural and Psychological Cost This isn’t harmless entertainment. Constant exposure to vulgar, objectifying content is rewiring expectations: - Relationships become transactional and appearance-obsessed. - Body image issues explode among both boys and girls. - Respect, consent, and emotional depth take a backseat to shock value and dopamine hits. - A generation is learning that the fastest path to fame and money is self-objectification. India’s rich cultural heritage—rooted in restraint, family values, and spiritual depth—is being drowned out by a globalized, profit-driven race to the bottom. The same platforms that once promised connection and creativity are now the biggest distributors of cultural decay. It’s Not Just Creators—It’s Us Here’s the uncomfortable truth: every view, like, share, and subscription is a vote. We are the demand side of this supply chain. When we reward vulgarity, platforms and creators respond with more of it. The algorithm doesn’t have morals—it has metrics. We do. What Needs to Change—Now 1. Platforms must be held accountable. The government’s recent push for faster takedowns (now down to hours in some cases) and age-based classification of digital content is a start. But enforcement must be consistent and transparent. 2. Creators must choose integrity over virality. Real influence comes from substance, not skin. 3. Parents and educators need to wake up and actively monitor, discuss, and limit exposure. 4. Users must vote with their thumbs—follow, share, and pay for content that elevates rather than degrades. The sudden rise of vulgar content in India isn’t accidental. It’s the predictable outcome of unchecked algorithms meeting human greed in a hyper-connected society. If we don’t interrupt this cycle now, we won’t just lose our feeds—we’ll lose the values that define us as a civilization. The question isn’t whether this content exists. The question is: what kind of India are we building—one scroll at a time? What do you think—have you noticed this shift in your own feed? Drop your thoughts below. Let’s start the conversation that actually matters.

MOHINI WEALTH (NRI)

520,236 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

This is Zimbabwe’s Minister of Local Government and Public Works, Daniel Garwe, at the scene of Friday’s accident, which killed 27 people in Zimbabwe on the Harare to South Africa highway. I have the utmost respect for the culture, traditions and customs of any society. But appealing to our ancestors to solve problems that require human intervention is foolish. Cultural observance cannot substitute for practical action and accountability. Police say the truck was attempting to overtake another vehicle when it collided head-on with the minibus. This demands a serious conversation about dangerous driving, road design and the enforcement of safety rules. ⁠ A two-lane road, with one lane in each direction, should not be the limit of our ambition for a major international highway linking Zimbabwe and South Africa. Zimbabwe needs properly engineered dual carriageways, with central crash barriers separating opposing traffic. These barriers help prevent vehicles from crossing into oncoming traffic and can significantly reduce such collisions. Federal Highway Administration⁠ Alongside those improvements, we need proper vehicle inspections and strict enforcement against overloading, speeding and dangerous overtaking. Drivers, transport operators and public officials must all take responsibility. We cannot expect our ancestors or God to compensate for our refusal to address preventable dangers. No ritual will widen a road, install a crash barrier or make an overloaded vehicle safe. Those things require planning, investment, enforcement and competent leadership. The further tragedy is that our black children are growing up believing that only things managed by white people work because they repeatedly see us failing to manage even the basics, including maintaining and expanding infrastructure we inherited in 1980. That would be a false and damaging lesson. Competence has no race. But we must demonstrate that through the quality of our leadership, our institutions and the services we deliver. Our children should grow up seeing that we can build, maintain and manage a country that works. They deserve more than explanations for failure, and bereaved families deserve more than condolences after every disaster. Respect our ancestors, certainly. But honour the dead by taking responsibility for protecting the living. Asking them to protect us when we can do it ourselves is the greatest sign of disrespect to our ancestors!
0:39

This is Zimbabwe’s Minister of Local Government and Public Works, Daniel Garwe, at the scene of Friday’s accident, which killed 27 people in Zimbabwe on the Harare to South Africa highway. I have the utmost respect for the culture, traditions and customs of any society. But appealing to our ancestors to solve problems that require human intervention is foolish. Cultural observance cannot substitute for practical action and accountability. Police say the truck was attempting to overtake another vehicle when it collided head-on with the minibus. This demands a serious conversation about dangerous driving, road design and the enforcement of safety rules. ⁠ A two-lane road, with one lane in each direction, should not be the limit of our ambition for a major international highway linking Zimbabwe and South Africa. Zimbabwe needs properly engineered dual carriageways, with central crash barriers separating opposing traffic. These barriers help prevent vehicles from crossing into oncoming traffic and can significantly reduce such collisions. Federal Highway Administration⁠ Alongside those improvements, we need proper vehicle inspections and strict enforcement against overloading, speeding and dangerous overtaking. Drivers, transport operators and public officials must all take responsibility. We cannot expect our ancestors or God to compensate for our refusal to address preventable dangers. No ritual will widen a road, install a crash barrier or make an overloaded vehicle safe. Those things require planning, investment, enforcement and competent leadership. The further tragedy is that our black children are growing up believing that only things managed by white people work because they repeatedly see us failing to manage even the basics, including maintaining and expanding infrastructure we inherited in 1980. That would be a false and damaging lesson. Competence has no race. But we must demonstrate that through the quality of our leadership, our institutions and the services we deliver. Our children should grow up seeing that we can build, maintain and manage a country that works. They deserve more than explanations for failure, and bereaved families deserve more than condolences after every disaster. Respect our ancestors, certainly. But honour the dead by taking responsibility for protecting the living. Asking them to protect us when we can do it ourselves is the greatest sign of disrespect to our ancestors!

Hopewell Chin’ono

114,074 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

About a month ago, a clip of mine went viral⁽¹⁾ talking about the Current State of Twitch (3rd thumbnail in this tweet). It resonated w/ people outside my community, so lemme elaborate (as a 10yr+ Twitch Veteran). Current State of Twitch isn't great and haven't been for a while. I've been passionate about Twitch since inception (I joined in April 2011 in the JTV days, a few months before Twitch debuted in July 2011), and been trying to instill positive change but I'm only a cog in the machine compared to where influence can impact — likely via Amazon-appointed Executives to help "oversee things" at decade-old-acquisition-that-has-still-generated-zero-profit Twitch⁽²⁾. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Muddled Identity ------------------------------------------------ Describing Twitch 10 years ago was easy: "Youtube, except always live, for gamers". Now, it's more muddled & fluid, at best: "Always live broadcasters who aim to connect with their viewers and foster communities(?)" — that, in itself, isn't problematic; but how it's accomplished, what methods are most effective, and how certain directories accumulate higher viewership is, I think (I may elaborate further on that in a future tweet). The most common reactive bark I've heard following TwitchCon 2025 is "Ban Politics" or "Make it Gaming-Only Again!" — People forget, but Pokemon GO (June 2016) going worldwide-viral was the crack-in-the-dam that lead to IRL as a directory because of the impracticality of continuing Twitch's "games-only" era as the site was increasing in popularity, reach, and cultural significance. IRL was a band-aid solution for the core function of Directories⁽³⁾ (which was to let would-be-browsers make better-informed decisions on what to watch based on their interest). It's too broad and encompassing, which led to an unintended dopamine-producing⁽⁴⁾ psuedo-ChatRoulette where you "never know what you're gonna see" browsing there. Without a better tool to migrate users or aggregate topical content, this problem exacerbated continuously. Just Chatting was supposed to be the solution, as it came with 11-12 other directories⁽⁵⁾ to attemptedly split the IRL monolith, but failed to inspire Social Behavioral Change tremendously. Just Chatting is more popular than ever, discoverability — like in the broad, functional sense — is busted cuz every genre of content stuffed within it and fails to disincentivize streamers from opting-out of the most popular directory. So, how do you stand-out in the overcrowded field where a fuckton of the viewership goes for a Roulette Pull on something entertaining to watch? ... ------------------------------------------------ The Era of Clout-Farming Content (and the fact it works, ugh) ------------------------------------------------ Once IRL directory came in Sept 2016, so did the meta of skirting the ToS (Terms of Service) to maximize views or push the limits of what was tolerated on Twitch. Fundamentally, the social dynamic of receiving a suspension (everyone generally refers to them colloquially as "bans") earns notoriety and "free vacation/marketing", that when coinciding with a comeback event, open the possibility of a net-positive from the boost in viewership or metrics. This isn't as relevant now because the ToS Enforcement has gotten significant buffs to be more transparent and structural in the last half-decade. I can't speak on the nuance of this now, but "Full-Time IRL Streamers" and "Sweaty IRL Affiliates" were unbearable at TwitchCons until TC Policy cracked down on requiring consent by those they bumrush'd into (while live of course), so I assume they're probably equally as intrusive everywhere else ... then Kick came along in 2022 and dominated the headlines for mischief within this realm, for the most part; but that's a different topic altogether. The burden of an authentic collab can be too much friction, slow moving — and honestly, too much work for a streamer to do — compared to the efficacy of blowing up Streamer x Streamer Conflict via self-commentary-reacts for sensationalism and maximizing parasocial viewers' worst tendencies. Effectively, ragebaiting. I'm not advocating to abolish this as a policy. I'm pointing out how this is a very effective way to garner views within the social constructs — and it shouldn't be, nor always was. Something changed at some point. I don't wanna bore you with a timeline of the last decade of controversy on Twitch, so I'll fast-forward to when I definitively see evidence that Clout-Culture is failing upward: In March 2025, the unbanning of Adin Ross⁽⁶⁾ (on Twitch) I saw as a huge moral failure that reeks of desperation for his views/clout/relevance at the direct expense of the integrity of Twitch Culture. Not sure if that was a Clancy-specific decision or what, but it encompasses "neo-Twitch" or a disconnect if there ever was one. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch Culture is diluting at the expense of recouping revenue ------------------------------------------------ A decade ago, Twitch Plays Pokemon broke news across insular-livestreaming gossip and was celebrated as a pinnacle of internet fandom⁽⁷⁾ (Feb 2014). This event was a testament to the value of Twitch because it reinforced the undeniable power of CULTURE present in Twitch Chats. I don't think the event could've worked on a YouTube Livestream (remember YouTube Gaming, introduced in 2015?). There's a certain aura present in Twitch Chat that makes it feel captivating to interact and engage with compared to a YouTube Live Chat Box. One feels like a close relative of bot-spam'd yt comments and the other feels ... real. I think that value is the culture — what could keep Twitch afloat for a long time, even if YouTube were to hypothetically obsolete Twitch in every way for delivering live broadcasted video content. I've noticed that as the meta has shifted towards revenue-maxxx'ing with the proliferation of Spectacle Events, typically marathons, that are engineered to paywall as many things as possible, at the expense of the content. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the culture has shifted. I also do think most of the marathon content isn't good; they're carried by being experiences with strong FOMO-factors to compel your participation by viewing. I do suspect there's a saturation point where the combination of the waning niches of livestreaming, 4th-wall-breaking, and manufactured spectacles can keep an audience seduced. Like, the content (in aspects) has less substance and I wonder what that means for the welfare of Twitch Culture and its content in another 5 years. Perhaps Twitch could foresee this and become proactive on the manner?... ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Conduct & Repetitive Incompetence ------------------------------------------------ Twitch has prioritized generating revenue over addressing the needs of the already-active users for years. Emmett Shear (previous CEO; 2011-2023) probably was a huge reason for sluggish changes overall to the platform as from what I hear but I can't say for certain. Regardless, we got Dan Clancy as CEO and, while there has been lots of positive changes under his reign, it really does feel like "too little, too late" with the pressure looming from Amazon's 2015 acquisition; increased competition and marketshare decline; and declining revenues, active users & monthly streamers"⁽⁸⁾. Here's a brief timeline of features implemented that I feel helped build the culture. Before COVID, I believe the biggest obstacle was helping migrate streamers from being part-time to capable full-time content creators. So, at the time, revenue-generating products were revolutionary to help there, including me at that time: ✅ 2016 — Bits/Cheers & Prime Subs (!!!) ✅ 2017 — Gift Subs (to a specific user) ✅ 2018 — Gift Subs (to randos in Community); Super Subs & Ultra Subs ✅ 2018 — Twitch Mobile App v2 (original mobile app was a constantly broken mess) ✅ 2018 — Twitch Prime no longer adblocks (I will agree how they did it was stupid, but ultimately, it was a necessary; I can defend this in the replies if needed) Comparatively, here's the hostile changes that came at the expense of the Twitch Populous supporting said-change: ❌ 2017 — Communities⁽⁹⁾ (DOA cuz it wasn't streamlined enough and vulnerable to Popularity Bias; I can elaborate in replies if needed) ❌ 2018 — Tags for Channels (DOA cuz anyone can use any tag, diluting the effort of broad categorization or filtering in any capacity) ❌ 2022 — Twitch kills Hosting⁽¹⁰⁾ (also new "craptacular" Offline Page w/ Suggested Channels idea instead) ❌ 2024 — Twitch Mobile App v3⁽¹¹⁾ (Tiktok clone dogshit) ❌ 2024 — Stories (who asked for this?) ❌ 2025 — 100hr Video Storage Limit (going back against Collections & cementing Twitch isn't an evergreen platform; also SHORT NOTICE) ❌2025 — Live Rewind ... paywall'd to Twitch Turbo & Channel Subscribers only (this is free sitewide on yt's livestreams)⁽¹²⁾ ❌ 2025 — Ability to gift 1000 subs at once (already shelved from backlash) Post-COVID, I see a pattern of prioritizing revenue-generating products at the expense of what creators need or ask for. I understand Twitch needs to appease Amazon eventually with profit, but with a half-decade passed, all the buffs I can recall are 2K Resolution Streaming*, Portrait & Dual-Canvas Streaming*, and Stream Together / Shared Chat. *Both of these sortta don't count cuz they're invite-only betas that aren't site-wide and don't apply to non-Partners 🤷‍♂️ While more features arrive that ask for more of your money to partake in the Twitch Experience, I feel like the users (both Streamers & Viewers) continue to be neglected. 10 years ago, I thought YouTube Gaming was DOA; now I anticipate when more people bail on Twitch because the functionality will decay without a compelling reason to stay if the culture dminishes. I'll conclude with the 4th thumbnail included in this tweet — a supercut of a portion from the TwitchCon 2025 Keynote from Dan Clancy, with the youtube dislikes superimposed-over for your enjoyment. Let me know what you think of what I shared today! 🎉🥳 I'm considering also breaking down the specific causes (not symptoms) of why Twitch is where it is, and my 999 IQ Pragmatic Solutions that are tenfold better than what I've seen suggested after this morale fallout following TwitchCon 2025 👀
0:46

About a month ago, a clip of mine went viral⁽¹⁾ talking about the Current State of Twitch (3rd thumbnail in this tweet). It resonated w/ people outside my community, so lemme elaborate (as a 10yr+ Twitch Veteran). Current State of Twitch isn't great and haven't been for a while. I've been passionate about Twitch since inception (I joined in April 2011 in the JTV days, a few months before Twitch debuted in July 2011), and been trying to instill positive change but I'm only a cog in the machine compared to where influence can impact — likely via Amazon-appointed Executives to help "oversee things" at decade-old-acquisition-that-has-still-generated-zero-profit Twitch⁽²⁾. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Muddled Identity ------------------------------------------------ Describing Twitch 10 years ago was easy: "Youtube, except always live, for gamers". Now, it's more muddled & fluid, at best: "Always live broadcasters who aim to connect with their viewers and foster communities(?)" — that, in itself, isn't problematic; but how it's accomplished, what methods are most effective, and how certain directories accumulate higher viewership is, I think (I may elaborate further on that in a future tweet). The most common reactive bark I've heard following TwitchCon 2025 is "Ban Politics" or "Make it Gaming-Only Again!" — People forget, but Pokemon GO (June 2016) going worldwide-viral was the crack-in-the-dam that lead to IRL as a directory because of the impracticality of continuing Twitch's "games-only" era as the site was increasing in popularity, reach, and cultural significance. IRL was a band-aid solution for the core function of Directories⁽³⁾ (which was to let would-be-browsers make better-informed decisions on what to watch based on their interest). It's too broad and encompassing, which led to an unintended dopamine-producing⁽⁴⁾ psuedo-ChatRoulette where you "never know what you're gonna see" browsing there. Without a better tool to migrate users or aggregate topical content, this problem exacerbated continuously. Just Chatting was supposed to be the solution, as it came with 11-12 other directories⁽⁵⁾ to attemptedly split the IRL monolith, but failed to inspire Social Behavioral Change tremendously. Just Chatting is more popular than ever, discoverability — like in the broad, functional sense — is busted cuz every genre of content stuffed within it and fails to disincentivize streamers from opting-out of the most popular directory. So, how do you stand-out in the overcrowded field where a fuckton of the viewership goes for a Roulette Pull on something entertaining to watch? ... ------------------------------------------------ The Era of Clout-Farming Content (and the fact it works, ugh) ------------------------------------------------ Once IRL directory came in Sept 2016, so did the meta of skirting the ToS (Terms of Service) to maximize views or push the limits of what was tolerated on Twitch. Fundamentally, the social dynamic of receiving a suspension (everyone generally refers to them colloquially as "bans") earns notoriety and "free vacation/marketing", that when coinciding with a comeback event, open the possibility of a net-positive from the boost in viewership or metrics. This isn't as relevant now because the ToS Enforcement has gotten significant buffs to be more transparent and structural in the last half-decade. I can't speak on the nuance of this now, but "Full-Time IRL Streamers" and "Sweaty IRL Affiliates" were unbearable at TwitchCons until TC Policy cracked down on requiring consent by those they bumrush'd into (while live of course), so I assume they're probably equally as intrusive everywhere else ... then Kick came along in 2022 and dominated the headlines for mischief within this realm, for the most part; but that's a different topic altogether. The burden of an authentic collab can be too much friction, slow moving — and honestly, too much work for a streamer to do — compared to the efficacy of blowing up Streamer x Streamer Conflict via self-commentary-reacts for sensationalism and maximizing parasocial viewers' worst tendencies. Effectively, ragebaiting. I'm not advocating to abolish this as a policy. I'm pointing out how this is a very effective way to garner views within the social constructs — and it shouldn't be, nor always was. Something changed at some point. I don't wanna bore you with a timeline of the last decade of controversy on Twitch, so I'll fast-forward to when I definitively see evidence that Clout-Culture is failing upward: In March 2025, the unbanning of Adin Ross⁽⁶⁾ (on Twitch) I saw as a huge moral failure that reeks of desperation for his views/clout/relevance at the direct expense of the integrity of Twitch Culture. Not sure if that was a Clancy-specific decision or what, but it encompasses "neo-Twitch" or a disconnect if there ever was one. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch Culture is diluting at the expense of recouping revenue ------------------------------------------------ A decade ago, Twitch Plays Pokemon broke news across insular-livestreaming gossip and was celebrated as a pinnacle of internet fandom⁽⁷⁾ (Feb 2014). This event was a testament to the value of Twitch because it reinforced the undeniable power of CULTURE present in Twitch Chats. I don't think the event could've worked on a YouTube Livestream (remember YouTube Gaming, introduced in 2015?). There's a certain aura present in Twitch Chat that makes it feel captivating to interact and engage with compared to a YouTube Live Chat Box. One feels like a close relative of bot-spam'd yt comments and the other feels ... real. I think that value is the culture — what could keep Twitch afloat for a long time, even if YouTube were to hypothetically obsolete Twitch in every way for delivering live broadcasted video content. I've noticed that as the meta has shifted towards revenue-maxxx'ing with the proliferation of Spectacle Events, typically marathons, that are engineered to paywall as many things as possible, at the expense of the content. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the culture has shifted. I also do think most of the marathon content isn't good; they're carried by being experiences with strong FOMO-factors to compel your participation by viewing. I do suspect there's a saturation point where the combination of the waning niches of livestreaming, 4th-wall-breaking, and manufactured spectacles can keep an audience seduced. Like, the content (in aspects) has less substance and I wonder what that means for the welfare of Twitch Culture and its content in another 5 years. Perhaps Twitch could foresee this and become proactive on the manner?... ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Conduct & Repetitive Incompetence ------------------------------------------------ Twitch has prioritized generating revenue over addressing the needs of the already-active users for years. Emmett Shear (previous CEO; 2011-2023) probably was a huge reason for sluggish changes overall to the platform as from what I hear but I can't say for certain. Regardless, we got Dan Clancy as CEO and, while there has been lots of positive changes under his reign, it really does feel like "too little, too late" with the pressure looming from Amazon's 2015 acquisition; increased competition and marketshare decline; and declining revenues, active users & monthly streamers"⁽⁸⁾. Here's a brief timeline of features implemented that I feel helped build the culture. Before COVID, I believe the biggest obstacle was helping migrate streamers from being part-time to capable full-time content creators. So, at the time, revenue-generating products were revolutionary to help there, including me at that time: ✅ 2016 — Bits/Cheers & Prime Subs (!!!) ✅ 2017 — Gift Subs (to a specific user) ✅ 2018 — Gift Subs (to randos in Community); Super Subs & Ultra Subs ✅ 2018 — Twitch Mobile App v2 (original mobile app was a constantly broken mess) ✅ 2018 — Twitch Prime no longer adblocks (I will agree how they did it was stupid, but ultimately, it was a necessary; I can defend this in the replies if needed) Comparatively, here's the hostile changes that came at the expense of the Twitch Populous supporting said-change: ❌ 2017 — Communities⁽⁹⁾ (DOA cuz it wasn't streamlined enough and vulnerable to Popularity Bias; I can elaborate in replies if needed) ❌ 2018 — Tags for Channels (DOA cuz anyone can use any tag, diluting the effort of broad categorization or filtering in any capacity) ❌ 2022 — Twitch kills Hosting⁽¹⁰⁾ (also new "craptacular" Offline Page w/ Suggested Channels idea instead) ❌ 2024 — Twitch Mobile App v3⁽¹¹⁾ (Tiktok clone dogshit) ❌ 2024 — Stories (who asked for this?) ❌ 2025 — 100hr Video Storage Limit (going back against Collections & cementing Twitch isn't an evergreen platform; also SHORT NOTICE) ❌2025 — Live Rewind ... paywall'd to Twitch Turbo & Channel Subscribers only (this is free sitewide on yt's livestreams)⁽¹²⁾ ❌ 2025 — Ability to gift 1000 subs at once (already shelved from backlash) Post-COVID, I see a pattern of prioritizing revenue-generating products at the expense of what creators need or ask for. I understand Twitch needs to appease Amazon eventually with profit, but with a half-decade passed, all the buffs I can recall are 2K Resolution Streaming*, Portrait & Dual-Canvas Streaming*, and Stream Together / Shared Chat. *Both of these sortta don't count cuz they're invite-only betas that aren't site-wide and don't apply to non-Partners 🤷‍♂️ While more features arrive that ask for more of your money to partake in the Twitch Experience, I feel like the users (both Streamers & Viewers) continue to be neglected. 10 years ago, I thought YouTube Gaming was DOA; now I anticipate when more people bail on Twitch because the functionality will decay without a compelling reason to stay if the culture dminishes. I'll conclude with the 4th thumbnail included in this tweet — a supercut of a portion from the TwitchCon 2025 Keynote from Dan Clancy, with the youtube dislikes superimposed-over for your enjoyment. Let me know what you think of what I shared today! 🎉🥳 I'm considering also breaking down the specific causes (not symptoms) of why Twitch is where it is, and my 999 IQ Pragmatic Solutions that are tenfold better than what I've seen suggested after this morale fallout following TwitchCon 2025 👀

trihex

17,788 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Candace's statement speaks VOLUMES about Charlie Kirk being DONE with defending and pushing specific countries and narratives. Listen to Charlie's own words and what he PUBLICLY stated: - Charlie publicly stated that there could have been a stand down order for Oct. 7th. - Charlie publicly stated and even said, "I need to be careful how I word this," that they "The Isr*eli government," were trying to genocide 2.5 million people, to ethnically cleanse 2.5 million people. - Charlie publicly stated that specific J*wish donors were donating to dangerous ideologies, radical open border, neo-liberalism, Kwame-Marxist policies, culture institutions and nonprofits. A beast created by secular J*ws. - Charlie also publicly stated that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, along with her father Robert Maxwell, were obvious assets and were most likely created and working for Mossad. Meaning that Isr*el have been blackmailing our members of Congress and the rest of our government to infiltrate and control the U.S. through blackmailing our politicians. Tucker Carlson also stated that when Charlie asked him to speak at an event, Tucker said he would not talk about Isr*el so he wouldn't make Charlie's DONORS mad. Charlie then told him NOT TO HOLD BACK and to speak the truth. Charlie was also offered $150 MILIION to stop speaking down on Isr*el and to be more PRO-Isr*el, and he turned it down. TPUSA's budget per year alone is $140 MILLION dollars. What happened, in my opinion, is that Charlie began to notice. He began to see the truth and they didn't like that and could NOT have that because of his influence. So he was silenced. That last thing I will cover is when Erika Kirk mentioned that they have a bunch of unreleased content of Charlie. Please remember these things: - People's opinions change over time, and we saw that with the clips played in this video when it comes to Charlie. So if they are older videos they DO NOT represent the Charlie now. - More importantly, with the advances of A.I. and how it is becoming indistinguishable from real life. Be aware and observant of the future content that comes out. I wish Erika and TPUSA nothing but the best, but I'm just curious why they are not more concerned with the whole assassination and all the holes in the story and why other people are asking more questions than they are? The question remains, is all this enough to assassinate someone over? Thoughts and comments below.
8:11

Candace's statement speaks VOLUMES about Charlie Kirk being DONE with defending and pushing specific countries and narratives. Listen to Charlie's own words and what he PUBLICLY stated: - Charlie publicly stated that there could have been a stand down order for Oct. 7th. - Charlie publicly stated and even said, "I need to be careful how I word this," that they "The Isr*eli government," were trying to genocide 2.5 million people, to ethnically cleanse 2.5 million people. - Charlie publicly stated that specific J*wish donors were donating to dangerous ideologies, radical open border, neo-liberalism, Kwame-Marxist policies, culture institutions and nonprofits. A beast created by secular J*ws. - Charlie also publicly stated that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, along with her father Robert Maxwell, were obvious assets and were most likely created and working for Mossad. Meaning that Isr*el have been blackmailing our members of Congress and the rest of our government to infiltrate and control the U.S. through blackmailing our politicians. Tucker Carlson also stated that when Charlie asked him to speak at an event, Tucker said he would not talk about Isr*el so he wouldn't make Charlie's DONORS mad. Charlie then told him NOT TO HOLD BACK and to speak the truth. Charlie was also offered $150 MILIION to stop speaking down on Isr*el and to be more PRO-Isr*el, and he turned it down. TPUSA's budget per year alone is $140 MILLION dollars. What happened, in my opinion, is that Charlie began to notice. He began to see the truth and they didn't like that and could NOT have that because of his influence. So he was silenced. That last thing I will cover is when Erika Kirk mentioned that they have a bunch of unreleased content of Charlie. Please remember these things: - People's opinions change over time, and we saw that with the clips played in this video when it comes to Charlie. So if they are older videos they DO NOT represent the Charlie now. - More importantly, with the advances of A.I. and how it is becoming indistinguishable from real life. Be aware and observant of the future content that comes out. I wish Erika and TPUSA nothing but the best, but I'm just curious why they are not more concerned with the whole assassination and all the holes in the story and why other people are asking more questions than they are? The question remains, is all this enough to assassinate someone over? Thoughts and comments below.

The SCIF

67,702 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten