Young men and boys fuelled by “strongly misogynistic” online material are hunting for vulnerable women and girls to exploit on websites such as eating disorder and suicide forums, senior officers have said.
The threat from young males wanting to carry out serious harm is so serious that counter-terrorism officers are joining the National Crime Agency (NCA) in the hunt for them, fearing they could go on to attack or kill.
Britain’s head of counter-terrorism, Matt Jukes, told the Guardian that a joint taskforce would be set up between his force and the NCA to tackle those fixated with violence online, in what he called a “decisive moment”.
Jukes, the Metropolitan police force’s assistant commissioner for specialist operations, said the new pairing would look for those consuming online material about killings or sexual abuse. Those who might go on to plot school shootings and other mass attacks, as well as those who encouraged women and girls to harm themselves, would also fall under their remit.
Just absolutely insane. Like what the actual fuck.
Fucken internet
Corporate owned, profit driven, algorithm powered social media*
If you think this shit can’t happen here, boy will you be surprised…
It’s happening everywhere. Stop collection, agregation and sale of data and promote the decentralized alternatives. To preserve democracy and stem the spread of dis- and misinformation as well as limit billionares influence on public opinion.
Essentially; make social media not profitable and less useful as propaganda platforms.
As someone who would be without a job without the internet, I truly believe we would be better off if the whole thing went away entirely.
I agree and it sucks. At the start of the internet, I was convinced that it was humanity’s single greatest accomplishment: near instantaneous worldwide communication between every human was possible. Access to all of our collective knowledge and intelligence at everyone’s fingertips.
Then we discovered what that actually meant, practically. Either all of our collective knowledge amounts to💩 or we’ll let the greedy scum just latch onto it like everything else and turn it into shit for their personal profit.
I felt the same way when I first got online in the mid-90s. I thought it was gonna bring all people together. Seems pretty quaint at this point!
Things are obviously pretty bad right now but for me the jury’s still out. It could be really good a hundred years from now!
Same here. My job depends on it, and wikipedia is one of my favorite places.
Yet so much terrible stuff has happened because of it.
This is why certain people shouldn’t have a platform to speak on. Social media is one of the worst things we’ve invented…
Yes, let’s start with people calling for censorship, like you.
(You certainly have a high opinion of the thing you’re posting on.)
It’s not censorship, it’s curation.
Now we’ve got rapists, predators and misogynists telling young boys how the world works. Trying to isolate them from society to make money off of them. To make it easier, it’s like gambling: it influences underdeveloped brains much more than developed brains. That’s why there’s an age limit, just like with alcohol.
Yes we should have some sort of censorship. The vast, vast majority of people understand and see the bullshit these people are peddling. But some don’t, and that ends up hurting innocent people. Why the fuck would you argue we should facilitate behaviour like this? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/online-groups-pressuring-youth-self-harm-1.7107885
Giving me that libertarian vibe of wanting to be fiercely independent of the thing they rely on for survival.
To clarify, this comment is agreeing with whom it is a direct reply of and commenting on the poster they are replying to.
What does the word libertarian mean to you?
Are you thinking of right or left libertarian, the most well known is right libertarianism? Or are you thinking of what America means is libertarianism, because that’s something COMPLETELY different than what the rest of the world thinks. We do not have the same cultural inheritance, and what you think of as libertarianism isn’t exactly what others think of it as.
If we have a form of “true-libertarian” it’s basically the idiots driving around claiming to be a sovereign citizen. To me the comment you replied to doesn’t really give that vibe. He seems more of a “Yes, we need government intervention to prevent extreme negative outcome”. That doesn’t really match with a the simplified way you portray “libertarian”.
To clarify I meant schnirittos was giving the libertarian vibes of immediately calling any amount of curation or harm reduction via removal on social media sites a blanket ‘censorship bad slipery slope boogie woogie.’ And was agreeing with whom I directly replied to.
Schnirittos’ (I know I’m getting it wrong but i just can’t be bothered to go check for a third time I’m sorry) comment, I think, exemplifies(in part) the American-bastardized version of libertarianism you describe.
Aaaah, that makes more sense! Thanks for clarifying my guy!
Np, appreciate the acknowledgment.
What the actual fuck.
Many boys are naturally disgusting. Some grow out of it, others double down and drag future generations even further down with them.
Remember anyone can grow up to be the president
Is this the… 764 Cult or another one?
I would argue ( happy to be countered argued and if proof can be given who knows you might even change my mind) that conservatism is the reason for the rise toxic masculinity, ergo the right is a toxic thing to embrace? change my mind.
That’s not really something that can be tested with a scientific experiment.
You can prove this with studies. Whether one has been done or not is another case entirely, but I remain steadfast imo that the right is a breeding ground for toxic masculinity.
you don’t test soft sciences that way
The recent TV show Adolescence is a good watch related to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence_(TV_series)
That was a crazy watch. Stephen Graham was incredible as the father.
You mean a sexist hit piece on boys that was based on a lie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqATMhyHJA0
Of course you’re not gonna like the truth, UK a country where men cannot look at a woman’s general direction is worried about misogyny, yeah riiiiiiiight…
- It was based on a real life person who was black, not white: The creator addressed it and said it was intentional. He did it out of concerns that people who see it as a race issue versus a gender issue. He thought it would widen the audience.
- Why a middle class kid: Same reason as above. He wanted to show that a “Good” kid from a “Good” family could find themselves being harmed by red pill content.
- Why is it about “incels?” : Yes, that main case was about an older boy/teen/man, but there have been a rise in UK stabbings and sexual assault of kids by kids. It’s not specifically about incels, but the culture that’s creating them.
- They’re trying to say that men are just evil: No, they are not. It’s literally trying to do the opposite. It’s trying to show that these men and boys are not just evil for evils sake, or born with it, but that the ideas are fed and nurtured through family, friends, social media, etc. It showing that even a really good kid from a good family can be made into something twisted if their nursed on this kind of content.
- How come women get away with this but men don’t: It’s a result of the patriarchy. Because women are seen as lesser, even their crimes are seen as lesser (think of female teachers that “have sex” with students). Women are weak, so if you’re hurt by a woman, you’re weak. You were beat up by your girlfriend? Pussy, it’s not like she was a guy. He probably did something wrong, Yada, Yada, Yada. Those ideals shield some women from rightful punishment and block men from getting justice and care. (that’s actually very feminist of this video!)
- This had nothing to do with the mansosphere or red pill content, it’s judt a hit piece on men: Men =/= red pill. The content is for men, but not all men consume it. The idea that this young man in the show who was lying about his relationships, pleading to know if the therapist liked him, went after a girl thinking she’d be “weak” enough after having her nudes shared (and thinking the guy that sent them messed up because he should have gotten more first), and then stabbing her to death when he was still rejected is the result of those toxic teachings. He even called himself a good guy because he didn’t touch her, even though he killed her.
Being held accountable can feel like an attack, but I hope you move past that initial anger. The show is actually very sympathetic towards the boy and his family. The show runner made the show to bring attention to the pressure cooker we are keeping men and boys in in the name of being masculine. Instead of thinking of it as a hit piece, think of it more of a man to man talk.
Why do you think it’s a generalization on boys rather than a denunciation of the negative impact of masculinists on boys?
And the government is just using this as an excuse to slowly expand what falls under the terrorism legislation, until everything’s terrorism and the rule of law is completely undermined.
Like, yea this is a thing to be concerned about in general, but this/here is not it my guy…
I take it you’re not a girl or woman then.
It’s a crime and terrible, but it’s not terrorism (ie. Violence for political ends). Terrorism laws allow the government to do all kinds of stuff like searches without warrants and extended pre-trial detention. It’s good that they’re taking these crimes seriously, but the terrorism units should stay far away from this (and should be abolished entirely, ideally).
And go after the influencers for incitement of crimes. If what Andrew Tate and others are publishing is causing people to do this, they should be locked up.
This falls directly under current UK terrorism laws.
If you have proof otherwise I’d be interested in seeing it.
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
- serious violence against a person;
- serious damage to property;
- endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action);
- creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. Source
What “political, religious, racial or ideological cause” is this advancing?
Ideological … misogynism, girls and women are less valuable than men, men must have power over women, etc etc
