Filin

Child safety starts with parents, not the state. Children do not independently acquire smartphones. These devices are bought, configured, and managed by parents or carers. No child enters the online world without an adult making that decision first. And parents already have tools available to them. A parent who wants a child-lock on a phone can switch one on today. For free. It is already built into modern devices. Screen-time limits, app restrictions, and content filters exist right now and are widely available. Despite this, what is now being proposed is a shift towards mandatory, system-wide enforcement built into every device, and applied to every user.

@YoungStarOn It would be a big mistake to start a relationship with such a "mistaken" woman.

HOMBRES: tu esposa quedó embarazada de otro hombre por error, como buen esposo, ¿qué harías?

I agree with you. But as they said here, it's worth considering the time spent playing games and the cost of playing / investing money in online games. If you remove men, the gaming market will shrink very much. I'm not going to say "games are for men!". It's stupid. I believe that women have their own priorities. If women want games for women, then I think it's worth specifically targeting a female audience. And not to take men's franchises and distort them, making something little recognizable in the end, like with the "Dragon Age" series, which I liked it. This is the source of the disturbance.

My Analysis of Gender and Gaming: Women are nearly HALF of gamers, BUT WITH A HUGE CAVEAT: We play less skilled games, overall. Women are only outplaying men in what appears to be mobile games (match 3) and the cozy genre. We’re not far behind in: -Casual Puzzle -Exploration -Interactive Drama -High Fantasy These are not “gamer games” They’re the casual genres. We’re far behind in most other categories. What does this mean? Well, I’d need revenue and margin for each of these genres to have anything solid to glean in terms of “if men left gaming.” But gaming likely wouldn’t fall based on this, it would just change. A lot of the most popular games, and gaming as we know it, would shift into something that hardly takes advantage of the medium. It would be so one-sided. So un-innovative. And that’s to say nothing of the gender split or sides within making games (which I’d also need data on). I’d actually venture to say that without men, gaming would be so fundamentally different, I would hardly enjoy it, even as a lifetime gamer woman. If what remained were only the genres my gender likes, I still would’ve enjoyed Animal Crossing, maybe dabbled still with Sudoku/Chess/Poker (which are also IRL games…something to be said there), but I wouldn’t really be a GAMER as a hobby… There wouldn’t be enough challenge, anything to push me to improve, anything that I think makes gaming exercise for the brain. Men, are indeed, doing the most challenging and most innovative gaming more than women are. We still, in 2026, need men in gaming more than we need women. But women DO game. I just can’t believe we’re an embarrassingly low 18% of my personal favorite genre: Action Adventure. If anything, this tells me I need to inspire more women to exercise their brains with games.

@ce_msm The anti-hate law is complete nonsense. The most complete! Hate is a part of man. If a person hates, how can he stop? Now you can go to jail for any disagreement or criticism there, because to you can say "You just hate me because (enter your own version)".

C’en est fini de la liberté d’expression au Canada. Les libéraux font passer en force les projets de loi suivants : - C-9 (loi contre la haine) - C-22 (accès légal/surveillance) - C-34 (sécurité numérique) Trois projets de loi qui, ensemble, anéantiront nos droits fondamentaux. - C-9 (Loi contre la haine) : Élargit considérablement la définition de la haine (haine/diffamation), supprime les défenses religieuses établies de longue date pour l’expression de bonne foi et facilite les poursuites criminelles sans le consentement du procureur général. Critiquer, prêcher ou même afficher certains symboles pourrait désormais vous valoir des accusations criminelles. Finies les protections pour la liberté d’expression religieuse et les débats publics sensibles. - C-22 (accès légal) : Oblige les fournisseurs d’accès Internet à conserver les métadonnées pendant un an, facilite l’accès à vos données par la police et le SCRS et permet au ministre d’imposer des droits d’accès (des portes dérobées déguisées). Surveillance de masse de vos communications numériques sans mandat. Votre vie en ligne devient totalement transparente pour l'État. - Projet de loi C-34 (Loi sur la sécurité numérique) : Ce projet de loi crée une puissante Commission gouvernementale de la sécurité numérique qui dictera aux plateformes, aux chatbots et aux services en ligne ce qu'ils doivent censurer, comment vérifier l'âge des utilisateurs et comment se protéger contre les contenus préjudiciables. Contrôle d'âge obligatoire, plans de sécurité imposés, amendes colossales et pouvoir discrétionnaire étendu pour décider de ce qui est acceptable. Une censure centralisée au nom de la protection des enfants. Ensemble, ces trois projets de loi transforment le Canada en un État de surveillance et de censure généralisée. Vous ne pourrez plus parler, partager ni même penser librement sans risquer d'être signalé, surveillé ou poursuivi. Les voix dissidentes, les critiques de l'immigration, les débats religieux, les opinions controversées, tout devient risqué. Roman Baber l'explique parfaitement dans cette vidéo de 9 min 36 s. Regardez-la avant qu'il ne soit trop tard. Ce n'est plus de la gouvernance. C'est la mort de la liberté d'expression telle que nous la connaissions au Canada. Les libéraux ont choisi de bafouer totalement les droits des citoyens. Réveillez-vous ! Partagez ce message. Résistez ! Le temps presse.

I'm going to give you a long thought without proof. Sexual attraction consists of 2 components: visual (what we see) and intellectual /mental (what is in our head). I will not whitewash lolicon, as part of it is indeed with fictional children. But it's worth understanding that anime style is very far from reality. The reference anime faces don't even look close to reality. And that's the whole point. Lolicons like anime, not reality. A pedophile likes real kids. Both visually and mentally. And the only thing lolicon and pedophilia have in common is the intellectual component. Anime generally prefers young characters more, as the most popular genres are intended for teenagers. And so. Why would a real pedophile eat bread (lolicon) if there are cakes (real children)? But that doesn't mean that pedophiles don't care about Lolicon. After all, there is still an intellectual part in lolihentai. But this kind of hentai doesn't look like real people anyway. Even a book would be more like reality, since you were imagining real people in your head, not an anime surrogate.

BREAKING: Asmongold reignites the war with the lolicons and triples down on his take that lolicons are far more likely to be pedophiles than the general population. "If someone actively consumes child abuse material, you would call that person a pedophile. If someone watches a violent movies, you wouldn't call them violent."

Aquwa Fan Character Design Art (Summer Theme) Based on her summer starting soon screen #aquwarium

I disagree. If the game focuses on gameplay. So yes, I see no reason not to make the main character beautiful. But if the plot emphasizes appearance. That's important. But I have to admit. That games are much more primitive than movies or books in terms of plot. And they cannot deeply and subtly sum up such moments. But in theory it is possible.

@VladFilin6 @Asmon_Updates Whatever the plot is, the game character should be attractive. NPC can be ugly or whatever, but the main character should not be ugly as fuck. Imagine you see these ugly fuck whenever there are cut scenes... remember beauty sells period.

Asmongold says nobody wants to hear an unattractive female character talk in a video game "If you're going to make a character that's a female, she has to be fuckable. If she's not fuckable, she can't be talking." "Nobody really wants to hear any of that. Just cut it out. Just turn it off. We don't want to hear it. We don't need to hear it."

Not "should" but "perhaps". It's wrong to say that women should talk less. And for the sake of what? There are a lot of games of different genres and even more different number of plot tropes. There are just games where there isn't much talk. There are games that are purely about the story. It all depends on the plot and its logic.

@VladFilin6 @Asmon_Updates "Video games are a media product that should not correspond to reality." - so women should talk less, so he's right by your own logic /facepalm

@LeContempIateur No. Mistakes, logical mistakes and mental gymnastics have not been canceled yet. I would allow such a thing to exist like alternative that showed its results before sentencing.

🤖⚖️ Imaginez que l'IA ait accès à toutes les lois, toute la jurisprudence et soit incapable de corruption. Lui confieriez-vous le pouvoir de juger les humains ?

@Gabbyv23 @jellyumevtuber Yes, Vedal's style.

@jellyumevtuber Then there's vedal raiding random ppl in the vtuber tag and making them famous 🤷‍♀️ idk I don't think it's that hard to understand or even necessarily a bad thing. It just works.

One of my non-VTuber friends sat me down and spent an hour explaining his conspiracy theory about VTuber nepotism. His argument was that every year a seemingly unknown VTuber appears out of nowhere, immediately starts collabing with some of the biggest names, joins established creator circles/friend groups, and then seemingly blows up overnight despite having little prior presence or following. He even brought up 3 recent examples of this. I went into the conversation thinking he was completely insane, but by the end I had to admit he actually had some surprisingly solid points. His theory is that a lot of “new” indie VTubers who break through aren’t really unknowns at all and that they’re friends or family of established creators being quietly introduced into the scene. He thinks that to make them more palatable and marketable they’re made out to be small indie creators like me and you, when in reality they have backing, funds from being previously successful creators and a team behind them. Guys do you think he’s right? 😭

@jellyumevtuber There are quite a few cases. When vtuber is active and growing slowly. And then a bigger vtuber gets to know him and they make a collaboration. And it "explodes" as a talented person is brought to the "stage". And everyone else notices its existence.

@Technom31 @Asmon_Updates What do you mean, no? I'm talking literally about the basics of plot construction and design. I'm not a supporter of any feminism or any other nonsense. But looks won't save you if your character is boring and cardboard.

@VladFilin6 @Asmon_Updates No

No, man. Of course, I love beautiful women like in games and so on. But that your statement and Asmongold's is just terrible. Of course, the highlight of video games is the gameplay. But the plot is far from the last part. And the plot often dictates the character design. Right now, the main problem with video games is that they are being done badly. Where a character should be beautiful, he is beautiful. And if history dictates that the character is ordinary-looking, that's how it should be. For example, there should never have been a new War of God. And if that's what they wanted, then it was worth changing the names.

@fwprism The truth of the matter here being, plenty of people will stop in to denounce this in pursuit of moral reinforced likes and shit. At the core of the matter, 95% of the planet thinks this way, because 95% of the planet, thinks with their genitals.

Asmongold gives his piece of advice to game developers, says if you're going to make a girl character, she has to be f*ckable. If she's not f*ckable, she can't be talking regularly 👀😳 “If you have a female character that's talking, you wanna reduce that as much as possible. Nobody really wants to hear any of that sh*t, Cut that sh*t off. We don't wanna hear it”

@hey_Manue @CarlLefavre I apologize for the interference. But I know. You need to be a professional so that the promotion is not because of "just a woman", I do not know you. I say this in theory based on the context of the message.

@CarlLefavre Sorry i dont know what can i do with your tweet 😂

Je bosse dans une boîte qui emploie 90% d'hommes. Je suis la + jeune des bureaux et je dois être la 2ème + jeune de la boîte entière. L'avantage de bosser avec des mecs c'est qu'il y a quasiment jamais de problèmes. Tu les remplaces par des meufs, la boîte prend feu.

@Asmongold You should show this speech to a wider audience. youtu.be/1Yq_5aDdJ24?si…

@YUY_IX I hope you're okay. And there are no complications.

Almost a full year of getting shots for my debilitating allergies and I went anaphylactic on the second last appointment 🤡 it’s never too late

Okay, I'm not paying enough attention. But communism is a stronger version of "socialism," so to speak. And replacing words doesn't really change anything. Leaving everything to capitalism is not the right decision. First of all, companies are looking for ways to get money. More money. And if at some point they behave honestly. There always comes a time when they starts fleecing her clients and running a dishonest business. All for the sake of greater profits. It's not even worth going far here. Look at Netflix or Google.

That's not how communism works. To begin with, in your "equation", capitalist and communist are not on equal terms. Let's say they both have potatoes. They both plant potatoes and get a kilogram of harvest. A communist should give half to someone who needs food. Whether he wants to or not. And the capitalist will sell his kilogram. For the proceeds, he will receive money and buy any more liquid crop for cultivation and sale. Capitalism is a more mobile and reactive system. But greedy and mercenary in its essence. Which is at its maximum development. Where capitalism will reach its end is to give birth to a corporation that will own almost all of the capital of planet Earth. Which is just terrible. Why? Because there is no endless competition, endless struggle. Someone will win in the end. Communism is a system that wants everyone to be happy. But it breaks against reality. Because only in an ideal world there are no human vices like corruption, greed and stupidity. In our reality, communism is possible only with some kind of super technology that will cover up human vice.

Zwei Nachbarn, ein Kapitalist und ein linker Sozialist haben jeweils eine Karttoffel. Der Sozialist macht sich daraus eine Ofenkartoffel und freut sich über ein gutes Abendessen. Der Kapitalist isst Brot und pflanzt seine Kartoffel ein. So hat im nächsten Jahr ein paar Kilo Kartoffeln, von denen er einige essen und ein paar wieder einpflanzen kann. Der linke Sozialist sieht bei der Ernte die vielen Kartoffeln seines kapitalistischen Nachbarn und beschwert sich darüber wie unfair die Welt ist und dass er ein Anrecht auf die Hälfte der Kartoffeln seines Nachbarn hätte!

@Indroneel_13 In fact, limited, trimmed socialism is not even bad. For example, public healthcare like in Canada for example. Capitalism as a system works. But I'm afraid of what it might lead us to in the end.

@VladFilin6 I saw a tweet few weeks ago that said "SOCIALISM is the flat earth theory of economics." Observing my TL from the last 24 hours that is proving to be true🙄

Elon Musk and his fortune. Human capital and the super-rich is a complex topic. If we proceed from the simple logic of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," then we can say: Damn Elon Musk and the rich like him! You're causing inflation, and my salary isn't going up! And not to say that they are completely wrong. Rather, they are wrong about Elon Musk himself as a target for retaliation. Is wealth limited? Let's just simplify it (I'm not an economist myself) Since the global economy and its growth are very difficult, let's apply logic to make it clear. Because it is wrong to say that the capital of the whole world is finite. So let's simplify the situation for understanding. To see if it's really true that "the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer." The most basic business model: the owner creates something (by himself or with someone) - the sale goes to the buyer. The owner receives the money, the buyer receives the goods. It seems that the owner has become richer, the one who bought has become poorer. But is this really the case? The business has received income from this transaction. Thanks to this, a new employee will be hired. As a result, there will be more products. The quantity and quality of the product will increase. The money from future transactions will not just go into the owner's pocket, they will go to the salaries of an employee who will make exactly the same purchase from someone else. The business of which will go to the salaries of employees and into the pocket of the director. That's about how the economy is growing. Infrastructure is developing, and more people are getting involved. But you will say: but the owner still gets a big benefit! Yes. Even though he will pay taxes to the state, such a business owner will benefit. Here's the tru. If the business wasn't profitable, no one would do it. Communism is just a dream that will work only in an ideal world that is clearly not ours. In socialist countries, government business does not develop well. At best, he will fulfill his tasks. Progress is about these very rich people who pay and organize everything. It's worth acknowledging. They are moving the world forward for their own benefit. So, the growth of the global economy. Global capital is not a numerical end point. You can't say that when I pay off my loan, I become poorer, and the CEO of the corporation that received my money becomes richer. No. Where you work, money has also been received from someone else. Due to your growth and diligent work, you should get a salary increase. In fact, it is precisely thanks to this salary increase that inflation is growing. This means that you all shouldn't complain about the fact that Elon Musk is getting rich. It's about the fact that the company you work for doesn't raise your salary like everyone else does, and you can't keep up with inflation. I can understand why people might hate the rich. From banal envy, to the fact that they may be treated badly, not in good faith. And that's a bad thing. Also, the stratum of rich and super-rich people have the most power and minimal transparency in their actions. Which makes them suspicious. Those rich people who create new jobs and support society. They are vital for all of humanity. But most often it happens that rich people indulge in all kinds of vices (because they can). They accumulate luxury and conduct unscrupulous business both with their hired people and with those to whom they provide their services or goods. In addition, the rich can engage in even more destructive and dark activities. People can be different, but megacorporations can exist for a very long time. And capitalism, in theory, can allow them to grow to that state. When their actions can become destructive. I've strayed from the subject. Elon Musk creates jobs. He conducts his business in the developing scientific field. The existence of his Twitter alone (whatever it is) this is already a useful thing. As I said, Elon Musk is not the kind of person who should be criticized for being rich. Salaries should be raised by the companies where you work. And for compliance and conscientious behavior. That is, for the systematic growth of wages and the creation of an environment where this salary could grow. The government must monitor and manage. Which is a completely separate topic.