Back when I was at school, the only piece of drama I studied in which teenage boys and girls ended up going a bit stabby on one another was Romeo and Juliet. Today, star-cross’d underage lovers are exhorted to instead examine the new four-part Netflix drama Adolescence, which is less by William Shakespeare, more by William Wagfinger.
Supposedly, say the media, this is “the TV show everyone’s watching”, which rather disregards the fact that over 40% of UK households don’t even have Netflix. Nonetheless, all the right people in politics and the mediasphere seem to be viewing it at the moment, and such elevated individuals really do think their own limited breed represent the views of “everyone”, or at least “everyone right-thinking”, when it comes to politically fashionable subjects like toxic masculinity, with which the programme purportedly deals.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If the real life youthful killers or the fictional Jamie were supposed to have been influenced by the ghastly Tate, given the fact that this man is a self-declared Muslim convert, shouldn’t Jamie be depicted as converting, and likewise the others have been ‘influenced’ to take an interest in this religion?
The other factor present in these murder cases may be the use of drugs by the youthful perpetrator. Another taboo connection.
Actor Stephen Graham’s reputation in my eyes has bombed.
Accepting a part in this propaganda demonstrates actors live and work in a world of fantasy where they blow in the winds of ideological political fads.
Non-woke Graham Lineham gets cancelled but woke Stephen Graham gets work.
Fortunately, Snow White has bombed featuring a ridiculously woke leading they/them actor[ess].
Hilarious.
No more Stephen Graham for me. Anything with him in it I am not interested in.
And the same applies to David Tennant after his making political ‘jokes’ at the BAFTAs whilst oddly dressed to virtue signal his support for LGBTQI+++ etc.
Sorry David but you fell off the edge of the woke flat earth upon which you existed.
Wasn’t Tennant also a big supporter of the COVID narrative? He lost me around then which is a shame because I rather liked his Doctor Who (ohh boy, another program lost to me these days). Googling this I came across this from just November last year. My eyes rolled.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2024/11/07/macbeth-david-tennant-covid/
Matt Smith in my view was the best Dr Who. Tennant over-acted dreadfully whereas Smith managed to keep that tendency in check. And the shortest serving Dr Who is best forgotten – Christopher Eccleston as The Ninth Doctor. He was extreme. He played it so angry I got fed up watching him spraying bits of spit over other cast members. Never thought much of him after that.
And Dr Who rapidly went down the pan. Crap story lines, or even none, and crap acting with it IMHO.
Steven Tucker on the money again. Warp Films by name, warped film by nature. You couldn’t make it up if they tried, except of course they have.
From Romeo and Juliet to Adolescence in the blink of a generation of Education, Education, Education. Meanwhile, at the 5th anniversary of the onset of State-sponsored Granny Killing, State-sponsored Online Harm, through State- and media-sponsored mis- dis- and mal-information, continues unabated.
Glorious morning in prospect out there. Once mist clears, off outside to exert some aged toxic-masculinity clearing up the debris, after that epic session with the chainsaw a couple of weeks ago on the hedge getting ideas above its station.
Important to get out into the fresh air and tune up Vitamin D levels, in readiness for any online respiratory-harm disseminated through the usual channels.
As neatly summed up in one of yesterday’s vintage Sceptic articles…
…Legacy media and the administrative state have worked together for at least a century to cobble together what was conventionally called “the news”.
Yes of course it is. That’s why Two-Tier has hyped it up.
If the programme was about a brown-skinned, second generation Muslim immigrant … who had been radicalised by his local Imam at the Mosque and participated in a so-called “honour killing” of his sister along with his controlling father …. Two-Tier, and the MSM, would have howled in fury and condemned it.
But interestingly, Adolescence is opening up discussion about this. That’s either an unexpected consequence or very clever – they knew they could never make the above program but could do indirectly.
A fair summation and look at the whole shebang from a different angle here. It would appear that the absence of a decent father, as opposed to the presence of a lone mother, when a boy is growing up, should also be taken into consideration when looking at child-development, and the knock-on effects on a particular demographic specifically. But once again, the show doesn’t depict the reality at all;
”Young black males are a group disproportionately impacted by fatherlessness. Based on data from the Office for National Statistics, young black people – especially those of Caribbean heritage – are significantly more likely to live in lone-parent households. These will overwhelmingly be families headed by single mothers. This means young black men are the least likely group of young men to have a positive male role model living with them at home – a world away from Jamie’s nuclear family, as depicted in Adolescence, in which the boy is ‘radicalised’ by online influencers.
It is a good thing that Adolescence has drawn attention to the problem of misogynistic violence. But in the chatter surrounding this excellent drama, we should be careful not to overstate Tate’s influence. The idea that he has a unique hold over Britain’s youth – of whatever background – and that many of them will mindlessly act on his disgusting rantings is fanciful and reductive. Still, a more productive conversation would examine the deeper social problems that may draw some into his orbit. Fatherlessness and a lack of positive male role models is of much greater significance than who young men are following online.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/21/why-ethnic-minority-boys-are-more-drawn-to-andrew-tate/
Can’t say anything against the Muslims can they? Too many votes to loose., but for some warped reason white children in a nuclear family are fair game for attack.
The perps are by far and away predominantly black, even way more than ‘Asian’, when you look at this table with data focused on London knife crime, Feb 2019 – Feb 2024;
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-12/GPS%20knife%20crime%20comparison%20November%2024%20AC%20%281%29.pdf
”Despite making up only 13% of London’s total population, black Londoners account for 45% of London’s knife murder victims, 61% of knife murder perpetrators and 53% of knife crime perpetrators.”
https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/commission-on-knife-crime-in-black-community
This source gives more up to date and easier access to stats than the hyperlink in the Spiked article. It cites a study done on families from 2021/22. There seems to be no explanation on why there’s such a disparity when looking at the ethnicity of lone-parent families. Why are so many of them black?
”There were also significant differences by ethnicity: 57% of black Caribbean and 44% of black African families were lone parents – compared with 22% for white British families.”
https://news.sky.com/story/nearly-half-of-uk-children-now-growing-up-outside-traditional-family-says-review-12686586
The establishment are really pulling out all the stops to remain in control of the mental programming of the population.
The idea that the population choses it’s own mental programming really terrifies them.
And the argument goes like this:
If you don’t let me programme you, someone evil like say Andrew Tate will do it. So I have to control your programming. For your own good. Not for our benefit, no no no, it’s for your own good.
Sadly most people don’t even know this is what is going on. And those that do, way too many still submit thinking it’s really all quite harmless really. Doesn’t affect them.
Just like most people didn’t realise in 2020 that they were subject to psychological manipulation by SAGE etc.
I did an internet search to try and find out more about the UK govt. funding this show, but all I got back in the results was bleating and hand-wringing from show makers and their lefty supporters that shows like this won’t be made any more without money from the taxpayer. Almost as if stuff that preaches at you is not commercially viable because people don’t want to watch it.
There should certainly be a prohibition on the state funding the arts.
I read in passing Brad Pitt co-produced the show, which is a bit random if true. A mega famous and successful Hollywood star who has the pick of films/TV shows to choose from but he goes for something like this? I don’t even know what goes into producing a TV series/movie, to be honest. Didn’t the Obamas produce that Netflix movie where the Teslas took on a life of their own? An ex-President producing a film is surely a first. Can anyone just walk off the street and do it?
I guess it’s some combination of having money, a well known name and some knowledge of the industry.
I didn’t realise Pitt was involved. Most Hollywood people seem to be lefties – have been for ages.
That’s why Trump got Stalone & Mel Gibson to be his eyes & ears in Hollywood. It triggered them no doubt.
There should certainly be a prohibition of the state funding propaganda-tainment used to establish certain “narratives” even if they’re completely fictional and then utilize this propaganda-tainment as fake proof that the policies it was created to promote are actually urgently necessary. However, this has no relation to state funding of art.
You’re the only person I would trust to honestly implement such a rule and I don’t think you are going to get appointed to the role of deciding what is and is not propaganda
Nothing is ever perfect. Nevertheless, I think outlawing attempts by politicians to use public money to manufacture support for their preferred policies in this way would be a very good idea. This would obviously include the behavioural insights team if it (or a similar body) wasn’t behind this “documentary” to begin with. The notion that voters make rational decisions about policy choices and politicians is fundamentally incompatible with attempts at sublime manipulation like this.
A totalitarian system may need a propaganda apparatus to justify its own existence but one that’s supposedly liberal and democratic certainly shouldn’t have one¹.
¹ That the system does implies that it’s neither liberal nor democratic and not even seriously meant to be.
I totally agree and I despair that it seems this kind of activity is not frowned upon by most. “For the greater good” seems like an appealing idea still, to many.
I asked ChatGPT
“The series Adolescence was primarily funded through a collaboration between:
These companies handled the production and financing, with Plan B playing a major role. The series was also backed by Netflix, which likely contributed funding as the distributing platform.
So, in short: Plan B Entertainment, Warp Films, Matriarch Productions, and Netflix were the main funders.”
I read somewhere it was funded in part by UK government. Can’t find the source now. It may be through some general tax relief for film production rather than specific sponsorship.
May a deepdive into these companies may reveal other funding.
Where is Charlotte Gill when you need her..
Investigative journalism seems to have declined significantly. If only DS had a bigger budget.
I’m always suspicious when something like Adolescence comes along, and we’re told how amazing it is and that “everyone” is watching it or talking about it, it’s rammed down our throats and all over the media so that even someone like me with minimal online presence can’t get away from it. Then you know that someone, somewhere really wants you to watch it and really wants you to think a particular thing about it. It hadn’t occurred to me that it might be all be tied to the Online Safety Act though. Good one.
Yes I must admit I missed that obvious link, so you’re not alone.
So in his Guardian article, co-writer Jack Thorne states:
Really? Do you?
Who is he speaking for here?
Well, not me.
In my limited use of social media, I choose not to go there, and so, I suspect, does the vast majority of users.
What this really illustrates is the psychopathology of the Left. In their carefully constructed echo chamber world view, if anyone doesn’t share their enlightened “progressive” views, it must be because they’re being brainwashed by the forces of evil.
Notions of free will and individual choice or responsibility must therefore be subsumed by the power of the supposedly benign and enlightened state.
Departures from the chosen path are not to be tolerated.
No surprise, then, that Leftism always leads to totalitarianism.
In this you admit you don’t really use social media and therefore your view is limited. I haven’t a clue of your age but I suspect you’re not under 20. I’m well over 20!
The current under 20 generation are the first generation going through what I call “new generation social media”. Last generation had Facebook. This generation shun that – primarily because it’s viewed as what their parents use. They live in “Insta”, Snapchat and TikTok. It really is a whole different world. But I don’t think we needed a series like this to show us the some social media is highly toxic and I’m not sure a force for good in the young.
I administer a local community Facebook group and I’m well aware how toxic even that can become. Bullying has always existed but it’s on a new level with social media. Just this weekend I had somebody threatening me because we’d taken down one of their posts naming and shaming somebody.
I was “censored” as a child from porn, drink and smoking for what I believe were good reasons. I have no worry about extending that list to include social media for children. This isn’t internet censorship anymore than preventing me from drinking was censorship.
The tech companies making billions out of all this do IMO have some responsibility in this area. As does society as a whole, parents, government and teachers.
This series has got everyone talking about this and IMO that’s a good thing.
The government jumping on the bandwagon, less so…
You state: “In this you admit you don’t really use social media”
No, that’s not what I said.
As I stated, I’m a limited consumer of social media, which is different from saying I don’t really use it.
I regard the DS (and other publication) comments as social media, even if they’re different in kind from some of the ones you mention. I use other platforms as well, selectively.
You’re right that I’m over 20.
Like I believe most adults do, I exercise my judgement on the basis of experience.
I share your concerns about the effects of some forms of social media on younger people. However, your statement:
“I have no worry about extending that list to include social media for children. This isn’t internet censorship anymore than preventing me from drinking was censorship.”
is deeply problematic if you really think through its implications.
Of course there are always unintended consequences of any action these days. The so-called pandemic showed us that.
What are the implications of restricting access to social media and maybe the wider internet to the under 16s? Something that it sounds like we did perfectly well without.
Do you think it was wrong that we were prevented from viewing pornography as children?
You think the consequences of the actions taken during the “pandemic” (I missed the pandemic, must have been asleep or something) were “unintended”????
Who decides what children should be able to see and not see? IMO – parents only. Not the state. I want the state out of our bloody lives. If you don’t think social media is healthy, don’t use it, don’t let your kids use it, but what other people and their kids do in this regard is none of your business, or mine.
Yes of course it should be the responsibility of the parents but there are a lot of bad parents. Maybe not all bad, but overstressed, overworked and out of control of technology. It’s literally the definition of government to control actions. You’re suggesting anarchy.
Bad according to who? Who decides?
We need more anarchy certainly. I believe in very limited government – the bare minimum. I think we are better with laws via some sort of democratic process that cover the obvious things laws ought to cover, that they always have covered, against murder, rape, theft and assaults and that protect property rights and govern commerce. I think it makes sense to have some kind of police force controlled democratically, and a judicial system. National defence, border control, infrastructure network planning. Not much else. Certain not the state as surrogate parent.
But we’re not going to agree. It’s just a different way of looking at life, what life should be about, the way it should be lived, and how others should be treated, and when it’s morally acceptable to impose your views on others and steal their money “for their own good” and call it “taxation”.
I’m in a tiny minority, sadly for me.
It would be nice sometimes, if Road Tax actually went on the roads, because there are plenty of potholes out there.
I thought the purpose of Government was to serve their electorate, call me old fashioned.
I would also add that while I think mobile phones and social media can be harmful if not used wisely*, they are also a way for people to share information and opinions and goodness knows we need to keep that process going to counteract propaganda coming at us from the establishment.
*But I think people should be allowed to go to hell their own way.
Well, I don’t know about you, but access to pornography, in the form of magazines, was never a problem when I was growing up. Of course, the content is nothing like as graphic as can be found online.
That touches on a more general point, which is that harmful influences have always existed, and that some people, thankfully a tiny minority, will be affected to the extent that they cause harm to others.
Steven Tucker’s article reflects on this: there was no internet when the Moors Murderers committed their heinous acts.
As you state, we’ve moved into a new era with the advent of the internet and social media, which undermines the control that parents used to be able to exert over their children’s development.
The question is what, if anything, should be done about it?
In an admittedly nonexistent ideal world I’d like to think this should remain exclusively under the control of parents, because the alternative, which is control by the state, must inevitably lead to total control over individuals’ lives. Moreover, this is clearly the direction in which we are headed.
How would you propose to do that?
Seems to me any possible solution destroys privacy and anonymity which is what they want.
The current under 20 generation are the first generation going through what I call “new generation social media”. Last generation had Facebook. This generation shun that – primarily because it’s viewed as what their parents use. They live in “Insta”, Snapchat and TikTok. It really is a whole different world.
Read: You’re still trying to sell the story you were already trying to sell 20 years ago, just with some product names updated and the claim (also still made 20 years ago) that the internet (alreadly blamed for everyting by the likes of you 20 years) is now something altogether new and different instead of still just the internet because of some new product names?
Doesn’t this get a bit long in the tooth after a few decades?
No not really because it’s changed beyond recognition in 20 years. Did everyone have a device in your pocket 20 years ago?
This has just enlargened the audience somewhat by readily usable “client devices” becoming much more common-place and so-called smartphones are almost 20 years old technology by now (first iPhones were being sold in 2007). And “everybody” was online and wasting his time with Youtube videos of people falling from chairs etc way before that. Youtube will have existed for 20 years this year.
Nothing has changed with regards to the fundamental operating principle of platforms like this: Everybody can publish stuff everybody else can access. And that’s exactly what sets off the people who believe that “narratives” must always be carefully controlled because it fundamentally undermines their ability to do so and it sets them off more the more the audience increases.
You agree that the first iPhone was released less than 20 years ago. Before that the smartphone market didn’t really exist – some phones had a little bit of very limited internet but mainly limited to geeks and business use.
Therefore I think “changed beyond recognition” is a reasonable statement for the last 20 years.
By 2010 (just 15 years ago), a large proportion had smartphones. By 2020 ownership was almost ubiquitous. By 2024, 93% of mobile phone owners use a smartphone.
This time line has gone hand in hand with the rise of social media. A time period that happens to coincide with the current generation of teenagers.
These two things have “fundamentally changed the operating principals” and I am having difficulty accepting that nothing has fundamentally changed in the last 20 years.
I can completely agree though that this freedom of information worries those who wish to control the narrative but that’s a different discussion than online bullying via social media, easy access to material that was restricted to me as a teenager, amount of screen time etc. All of this is a new concern for current parents.
I agree with you.
At the same time parenting has become more difficult. I remember not wanting my 13 year old son to play ‘Grand theft auto’ (rated 16) as it was quite violent.
So what happened? He played it at friend’s houses, where the parents were allowing them to play it…
I don’t like the State interfering, but don’t know how best to solve this issue.
And there is an issue.
Need to know what other 37% think because if it’s 37% view him positively then that’s a concern? I know it’s probably X% have no view and Y% view him positively.
The level of interest this series has caused is fascinating. I binged watched it and thought “wow that was intense”. The format probably contributing to that more than the story. I knew before that social media wasn’t all flowers and pleasantry in the young – having having lost a young female friend to suicide with shared compromising photos from boyfriend been a contributing factor. Read up more on Andrew Tate than I wanted to and determined that some of the emoji use is real.
I love a good conspiracy theory and rely on Daily Sceptic to provide a counter-narrative angle. But the theory that this is all part of a big plan to get internet censorship in through the backdoor is a bit of a stretch for me – and I’m very sceptical.
I overhear teenagers chatting quite often and I have never heard any of them mention Tate, or “green” issues, or “trans” issues or any of the other things we’re told concern them. They talk about what they did yesterday, school, their mates, who is snogging who, how drunk they got on the weekend, what a pain their parents are, football, fashion…
I asked two male teenagers whether they knew about this hidden meaning of emojis. A mixed response. Red/blue pill for sure but more linked to it’s original use in the Matrix. Kidney bean incel – one yes, one no. Awareness of Tate – yes. Didn’t dig any further as really not my place. Neither of our points is exactly a sound scientific study.
Verbal bullying often never got back to teachers and parents as a late 70s child. Social media bullying is even more hidden. It certainly exists but what the level is, I haven’t a clue. Asking the wrong person.
As for green and trans issues, yes there does seem to be a disconnect there between what we’re told teenagers are interested in and reality. But then again, it’s a rare young teenager who engages with “old” people. Friend’s son is hard work to engage. He comes to the pub with us all but sits there 99% of the his phone.
I think my kids were pretty open with us when they were teenagers (perhaps all parents think that) and I don’t remember them mentioning this kind of stuff. That was 10 years ago though.
Indeed and a lot has changed in 10 years in this space. Instagram launched 2010, SnapChat 2011, TikTok 2016.
Interesting aside/question. I’ve got an Instagram account but rarely use it – follow a few celebs, sci-fi shows and model railways. My timeline is normally reasonably accurate. However, if I click the search button, I’m presented with a page of ladies, often AI generated. Yes, I know what you’re thinking
Asked a male friend to do same and exactly the same. But bizarrely, asked his wife to check hers and very similar. Not quite so many ladies but certainly half of them.
Not sure what algorithm Instagram is using on it’s search page but it’s pushing a very clear agenda. It’s porn as they’re all dressed, but not far off!
Possibly what’s trending?
I don’t have any of the mainstream social media accounts. Just reddit for Lockdown Sceptics and YouTube to comment on content. Not really social media though.
It may not be a big conspiracy to get censorship in, I’ll agree with that, but it will almost certainly be used in that way which, in my opinion, is wrong because it’s fictional and supposedly entertainment. Personally I’ve got very mixed feelings about social media and kids – I absolutely don’t want my 10 yo to use it and I wish she was growing up in a time when it didn’t exist. But at the same time, I’m sick of the constant impulse to ban this and ban that just because a small minority have come to harm. Now I’m sure social media causes a lot of misery to kids and teens and they’d be far better off without it, but 99.9999% of them aren’t going out murdering their friends because of it. So the case for banning it for kids isn’t because a tiny percentage (who had big issues already and would likely have caused trouble regardless) might be prompted to harm or kill others, but because it’s generally damaging to mental health and horrible for kids to use.
My problem is that I have no idea of the scale of harm. I do have a close friend who monitors her son’s online activity. I think he’s around 12. I’d be interested in her POV.
How about monitoring use of mobile phones via remote recording/viewing rather than censorship? Is that too big brother or a good compromise? Sadly it relies on overworked parents to do a lot of monitoring. Maybe this would be a good use for AI?
We have parental controls for our daughter’s phone, whereby we put a designated time limit on each of her apps. We control this via our phones and can restrict access altogether ( usually as a punishment ) or change the time limits accordingly. You have to ration access because otherwise it becomes a bloody nightmare and they just become addicted and could be on their devices for multiple hours, wasting time, avoiding school work and getting influenced by God knows what.
It’s still a challenge as she often pleads for more time if she’s busy on Snapchat then her time runs out so chews our ear off to give her extra time. It’s something and gives some degree of control back to parents though because they do need their devices. I wouldn’t be happy about her going off out with friends and not having her phone to stay in touch. We also installed a tracker on it, which she doesn’t know about.
Yes, that will be the downside – it will increase resentment if you’re seen to be too controlling or “her friends are allowed to XYZ”.
What has this “harm” got to do with you? I mean, you can have a view on what is good for people, and how other people should live their lives, how parents should bring their kids up, and you are welcome to express it and try to persuade people to take your advice, but you seem to want the state to impose views you agree with on all of us.
Because I live in a society where we support each other and create a government to govern us. You’ve already admitted you want anarchy. We’ll never agree. You’re also attacking the person and not the debate. I come here for reasoned debate, not to be attacked. You’re almost proving the point of the toxicity of parts of the internet.
I support all sorts of people in all sorts of ways.
I didn’t “create a government” – I inherited it from history and I think we have too much government.
I said we want “more anarchy” which isn’t the same as “anarchy” – I actually enumerated the things that a government/state should do – including laws and law enforcement. How do you read that as “wanting anarchy”?
You say I am attacking the person – not sure how – and then you say I am “almost toxic”. Exactly what did I write that is “attacking the person”?
I mean great harm such as that portrayed in Adolescence, but of course all the lesser harms add up too and like you say it is very difficult to know the true scale.
I would definitely monitor my daughter to some extent, it does make me uncomfortable in terms of privacy etc but at the same time I just think mobile phones and social media are so addictive and seductive that it can be necessary at times. My 10 year old is very clever in that way though; we used to set timers on her tablet (which she uses fairly innocently for Minecraft/gaming and similar, and has no access to social media) but she worked out how to change or disable them very quickly. It is locked via a code so she is only allowed on at designated times but she also uses it to listen to endless audiobooks and will ask for it to be unlocked to “choose” a new one from her library. She has also gone through phases of very systematically trying to work out the passcode! Doesn’t really bode well for the teenage years but fortunately at the moment she has no interest in getting a phone, long may that last.
Censorship of the internet for children may be a good idea. However, we are concerned it will lead to censorship for ALL including adults.
The UK already has a censored internet as a number of Russian main stream media sites are banned.
It will lead to the erosion of free speech and the ability to counter the lies, propaganda and omissions of the truth by governments and their proxies.
Even the BBC facebook site is already monitored, censored and regulated so that benign posts which go against their warped view of the world are not seen. They also “block” many people for these benign posts. I’m on my fifth BBC profile already.
“Censorship of the internet for children may be a good idea.”
There’s a debate to be had there I think. To what extent is it OK or helpful for the state or private firms to step in and perform the role of the parent in restricting what kids can see or buy (online content, alcohol)? Kids are vulnerable and not all parents are sensible, and maybe making parents do ALL the work is inconvenient, but I don’t like the state encroaching more than is absolutely needed. I remember the boy next door used to buy fags for his mum from the local newsagent when I was a boy. The fag shop knew us all though.
18+ content could be monitored so that children don’t see it.
I use the term “may” and “could” deliberately because I agree with you that there needs to be a debate.
However, I’m opposed for any type of censorship for adults who are old enough to make their own minds up.
Agreed although I think some adults spend far too much time on their phone. But that’s a different issue.
Concerns that the censorship of the internet might be spread wider is of course a concern as authority does seem to be stretching its control. Not censorship as such but preventing anyone from buying cigarettes is certainly taking the decision by adults away from them. But then again, we control many aspects of our lives with things like speed limits, wearing seatbelts etc. It’s where you draw the line that’s the debate.
But evidence from the recent past doesn’t indicate that censorship would go wider that restrictions on children.
Seatbelts are just medical fascism – which I now believe is the inevitable endpoint of socialised healthcare.
Speed limits are IMO too low and maybe should not exist. All part of safetyism/general infantilisation.
“But evidence from the recent past doesn’t indicate that censorship would go wider that restrictions on children.” Hasn’t every state in history censored things, to a greater or lesser degree. Countries with more or less absolute freedom of speech are pretty rare.
Seatbelts were a terrible law, and many Lockdown fascists would cite “well we do wear seatbelts”…..If there was no law, I doubt everybody would stop wearing them as long as good advise is out there like the highway code, Stop – Look and listen were drilled into us as kids in the 80s.
Yup I agree. The trouble starts when someone is given the power to decide what should be “18+”.
TV Drama now State Propaganda
Nothing new. Those of you of a certain age will remember Threads.
Nothing new, but today it seams that all TV drama is State Propaganda. In the past drama was sometimes just that, drama.
No more than the BBC. Eastenders a prime example. I did enjoy the punch ups though.
Try watching one of the newer series of Greys Anatomy. Used to be a good watch, now every other episode is lecturing us on climate change/extreme weather, abortion, the dangers of guns, racism and barriers to non-white people (despite half the cast being non-white). Also most of the younger characters are either gay or bisexual, and one recently was trans (I think, or possibly non-binary, I’ve got no idea) and had a relationship with an older cast member who was 100% straight until this character appeared and now seems to be very bisexual. It’s hard work.
Society seems to be sending the wrong message to young men, particularly young white men. Masculinity is toxic, white people are inherently bad and it’s OK to use equity as an excuse to discriminate against them. These attitudes have created a void that Tate has exploited. He is one of not many influencers that actually builds their self esteem. In effect liberalism and wokeness have created Tate. If we want to get rid of the Tate influence, and I think he is toxic and we should, then society needs to start treating white boys with a little more respect. Give them the hope that their efforts will be rewarded, and that they will only be chastised when they actually deserve it.
The Online Safety Act will do nothing to help, protecting children is simply a vehicle for censorship in a desperate effort to get back to the old days when they could control “the news”.
You’re right. Tate is a toxic piece of shit, but let’s keep things in perspective. He’s not omnipresent, you’ve got to go search out his stuff online, whereas the ‘usual suspects’ most certainly are. They’re your neighbours, classmates etc. So who’s going to be the biggest influence to young, impressionable lads, and most easily accessible? This show is going over the top in attempting to divert our attention away from the real threat in our communities ( more so in inner city areas than rural ) and feed us lies into the bargain, and we’ve got the data to support this fact. I’d like to think most are savvy enough to see right through this obvious attempt at misdirection.
“a question that got people talking on their sofas, in pubs, in schools,”
With the average pint now £5.00 the pub is hardly the place where people get together now!
” so where’s the quasi-state-financed Netflix drama aimed at stopping the spread of the dangerous, women-hating messages of people like him, then?”
The message of Islam then!
Since when have the lives of 13-year old boys become so dominated by the social pressure to have an active sex life that they could meaningfully be described as incels? I mean, that’s 3 years below the age of consent which applies equally to members of both sexes. Further, isn’t that still the age where boys are lacking in development compared to girls and are thus still more interested in doing boyish stuff than joining the almighty shagaround? The actor playing this boy certainly exactly looks like that.
The last 20 minutes of the last episode is where the real propaganda deployment kicks off. While the first two episodes play like a slow-burn drama/thriller/whodunnit, as the “plot” (if you can call it that) winds up toward the end, you might as well be looking at a public service broadcast of a piece of deviously-scripted agitprop.
The scene involves the parents of the accused sitting on their bed despairing the fact that their son was allowed every evening to disappear down the black hole of the internet, where the “dark web” supposedly influenced him into committing murder.
Is this four-part series an argument for a Stalinist top-down control of the flow of information (the Online Safety Act), or does it merely point to the very real need for parents to take more responsibility for the material their kids are exposed to on a daily basis? Are the habits of kids and adolescents these days really so far beyond their parents’ scope of control that nothing less than a censorious filtering of internet content by a self-appointed Ministry of Truth is required?
Perhaps “Jamie” (the main progenitor, the accused, for those who have not permitted themselves the torture of ploughing through this rhetoric-heavy and plot-thin excuse for entertainment) would have refrained from his adoption of the misogynistic worldview of Andrew Tate and not committed his dastardly crime if his well-meaning folks had curfewed the use of his laptop and secured it in a padlocked drawer from 10.00pm!
Interested untill I heard two-tier laud it, then I KNEW it was propaganda
Apparently he referred to it as a ‘documentary’
Another great reason to turn tv off.
brilliant analysis. The west keep committing societal
suicide by kowtowing to one religion while destroying its own culture and values. Blaming a social media character and using banal expression like toxic masculinity doesn’t help educate our children to be good and successful.
Why do some people here hate Tate so much? It must mean that they actually follow him and watch his show or read his ‘rankings’? I have never had the privilege of either – he doesn’t even feature in my YouTube likes and ‘you may want to watch this…’ list.
so I wonder if this is another Tommy Robinson / Trump / Farage derangement syndrome: when their name is mentioned you are triggered to say something negative?