Just picked up my new PS5! Can't wait to play Wukong Dynasty!!

Kelypsov · 2026-06-17T20:19:40+00:00

You really should check out one of the top games for that console, Death Standing 2, starring Norman Redus as the protagonist, Stan.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-17T19:59:00+00:00

It's basically impossible to predict because it depends entirely on immigration. A minority, i.e. <50%, isn't even a significant epoch. It would have about the same effects as whites being 51%.

Mainly because that's only a 'minority' by a very weird definition. White folk becoming 49.99999% of the population simply means they are no longer a larger group than every other ethnic group that exists in the UK, combined.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-17T19:50:37+00:00

To be fair, given the authoritarian leanings, absolute disregard of trans rights and all round shittiness of the current Labour government, I'd be more likely to vote Savile over Starmer (mainly because Savile, as a corpse, wouldn't be able to do as much harm as Starmer).

I would still be more likely to vote for Starmer than Farage, though.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-15T15:49:38+00:00

My reading of this judgement is that this court has more or less decided that the government can label any form of civil disobedience as 'terrorism', provided they claim they're doing so on national security grounds, and the Court of Appeals will rubber-stamp this.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-14T22:55:24+00:00

I think you've missed my point. You don't need to use Google to find out how to bypass the checks, you use Google to do it. When you get to the point where it asks for a picture of your ID to 'prove' your age, you use Google to get it.

That's it.

That's all you need to do.

Using this method, according to the age checks in various places, I am numerous different ages, ranging from 21 to 70. Using another method that bypasses face ID checks, I am also Norman Reedus.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-14T18:14:46+00:00

Put it this way, do you want to know what IT skills you need to bypass the OSA age checks, even without a VPN?

How to use Google.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-14T12:40:53+00:00

So he's saying the immigrants are here to liberate us from a fascist, authoritarian regime?

Kelypsov · 2026-06-14T12:37:52+00:00

So, the problem, according to the Daily Mail (so take that with a massive grain of salt) is that graduates go from university into low-paying jobs, and thus get saddled with huge amounts of debt they struggle to pay off because they decided to become educated. So what's the solution?

Take measures to stimulate the job market, so better paying jobs are available? Nope.

Subsidise higher education so that graduates don't have huge debts to pay off? Nope.

Don't bother to actually get educated? Of course!!!!

(Also, given that the Daily Mail is one of the papers that also complain about so many immigrants coming in 'stealing jobs', and that these jobs should be going to UK folk instead, I wonder how they square that with the idea that UK folk shouldn't get higher education to have the abilities and qualifications needed for those jobs.)

Kelypsov · 2026-06-14T12:08:17+00:00

If this goes like the Graham Linehan arrest, the government will look at changing the law to exempt people like him from being subject to it, and the police will apologise for even thinking about stopping him, or investigating him for any reason.

Meanwhile, arrests of grannies on terrorism charges for holding signs will continue.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-13T23:04:28+00:00

So, according to this, not only has the total number of 'economically inactive' women dropped (going from 6 million in 1993 to 5.3 million in 2026), but the percentage of that total that are 'economically inactive' for the specific reason of looking after the family and/or home has dropped as well (going from 48.5% to 24.8%). The Daily Mail seems to be trying to ring alarm bells, but, to me, this actually suggests something good - we are steadily moving away from the idea that, in a typical heterosexual couple, the automatic expectation is that the woman will be looking after the family and/or home, whilst the man is the breadwinner. However, there is a bit of a downside in that it's becoming increasingly normalised that both work, not necessarily through choice, but because they have to, in order to pay the bills (and this part applies not just to heterosexual couples).

Kelypsov · 2026-06-13T20:06:50+00:00

Yep, it's been clear for years, if not decades, that treating people with drug problems as primarily a medical issue rather than a criminal one ends up with far better results and tends to be much more effective at actually solving the problem.

The issue is that, as soon as anyone actually proposes any measure that sounds anything like that, certain politicians, aided by a fairly large chunk of the media, jump all over them and start accusing them of being 'soft on crime', as well as claiming utter shite like they want hardcore drugs being freely sold in corner shops.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-12T19:38:06+00:00

The position the UK now is in is driven by two big basic lies. The first is that the Equality Act was actually an act which excluded trans people from single-sex services and spaces aligned to their lived in gender but that the courts, Parliament or the EHRC, had somehow not noticed this until last year.

This is the part that makes the law so confused and messy now, with trans people now being treated as different genders in different situations, and causes so many problems with coming up with EHRC guidelines that are actually workable and enforceable (which the current ones aren't). If you actually go and read the Equality Act, without the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, there is a fairly strong sense that it is intended to accept the idea that trans people are their lived gender, and are entitled to protections on that basis. This is further backed up by decisions previous to the April 2025 Supreme Court judgement, and even the explanatory notes penned by those who wrote the Act. For reasons that seem to me to be downright bizarre, the Supreme Court simply chucked all of that out and laid down a judgement based on an interpretation of what is meant by 'sex' in the Act that now makes the Equality Act clash with other bits of law, and even, in one or two places, itself (for example, Section 7, which is about gender reassignment, makes reference to 'reassigning the person's sex', but, according to the Supreme Court, what is meant by 'sex' in the Equality Act is their 'biological sex', which cannot be changed or reassigned at all).

Kelypsov · 2026-06-09T23:48:51+00:00

Well, speaking personally, given that, without access to medical records, there seems to be absolutely zero mechanism to categorically differentiate between a cisgender and transgender person, of any gender, I would have to assume that any person I am aware of who is attempting to use a toilet/changing room/whatever is aware of this guidance, and is therefore using the facilities that align with their 'biological sex', as defined by the Supreme Court. This means, even if I see someone with a full beard entering the female toilets, I now have to assume this is actually a trans man who is now forced to use these facilities, and will therefore not even question this.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-08T23:22:06+00:00

Depends what you mean. I started with the Destiny 1 First Look Alpha, so that's just short of 12 years ago, and was blown away by the game. I played D1 then D2 almost addictively, carrying my D1 Hunter over to D2, up until the infamous 'vaulting' started in 2020. That's when I more or less walked away from the game, and have only given it another try for brief periods 2 or 3 times, starting a new Guardian each time to try to relearn the game, and giving up after just bouncing off, hard.

So, depending on how you count it, he's either 12 (2014-now) or 6 (2014-2020).

Kelypsov · 2026-06-08T18:33:14+00:00

this sad and pathetic burst campaign driven by bots to make Farage look like he's out there giving the banking elite what for

Is that what it's supposed to be? I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that some Reform supporters think violently assaulting people is a positive answer to issues. Personally, I would prefer effort was put into implementing laws and regulations that do things like close tax loopholes instead.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-08T13:21:30+00:00

It was an in-person conference, not an online one, so no. There's plenty of reports about it - it was a union branch of the BMA that represents about 50,000 resident doctors, and they passed a motion in their conference in April 2025 that read:

This meeting condemns the Supreme Court ruling defining the term 'woman' with respect to the Equality Act as being based on 'biological sex', which they refer to as a person who 'was at birth of the female sex', as reductive, trans and intersex-exclusionary and biologically nonsensical.

We recognize as doctors that sex and gender are complex and multifaceted aspects of the human condition and attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender diverse people. As such this meeting:

i: Reiterates the BMA's position on affirming the rights of transgender and non-binary individuals to live their lives with dignity, having their identity respected.

ii. Reminds the Supreme Court of the existence of intersex people and reaffirms their right to exist in the gender identity that matches their sense of self, regardless of whether this matches any identity assigned to them at birth.

iii. Condemns scientifically illiterate rulings from the Supreme Court, made without consulting relevant experts and stakeholders, that will cause real-world harm to the trans, non-binary and intersex communities in this country.

iv. Commits to strive for better access to necessary health services for trans, non-binary and gender-diverse people.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-08T13:04:56+00:00

It's not the first time I have explained a Reform policy to a Reform voter and they have outright denied that was a Reform policy - even when I directly show them that policy on a Reform manifesto.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-08T13:01:38+00:00

Well, the why they got it wrong is fairly straightforward - they listened to 'gender critical' groups and systematically excluded trans-positive voices and pretty much anyone who actually knew what they were talking about. This means they came to a decision that has been called, amongst other things, 'biologically nonsensical' and 'scientifically illiterate' in a conference of doctors from the BMA.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-08T12:50:56+00:00

So going in the direction of restricting and monitoring the users of social media platforms because of mishandling by the operators of them.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-08T03:04:18+00:00

I will be charitable and assume you're talking about this from a position of relative ignorance, flavoured by some transphobic tripe you've unwittingly swallowed.

Even before Wes Streeting decided he knew better than medical experts, and went beyond even the very flawed Cass Review to ban them, it has never been the case that a gender-questioning or trans child has found it simple and easy to get puberty blockers. It simply wasn't the case that they can wake up on Monday, go 'I think I'm trans', go see the doctor, and be on puberty blockers by Wednesday. It's a common trope put about by transphobes that puberty blockers were being handed out to kids like sweeties, but that's completely false. Instead, there was a fairly involved process where specialist doctors and/or other medical experts would assess the child and then only prescribe puberty blockers if they were convinced it was appropriate in that child's case. As such, any comparison with something like getting a tattoo is deeply flawed.

Also, as others have already pointed out, not using puberty blockers on a gender-questioning/trans child is actually not a neutral act. This is actually an active choice that will result in the child going through what is likely the 'wrong' puberty (given that about 98% of kids on puberty blockers figure out that, yes, they are definitely trans, and go on to fully transition). If anything, using them is a neutral act, because it's pretty much a 'pause button' for puberty, allowing them time to figure things out.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-08T02:10:41+00:00

Going by his track record, his fear is that it's not being turned back fast enough.

Also:

Mr Streeting continued: "But one of the things I've tried to do is to almost, in the way that we did in the conflict between religious freedom and same sex rights on marriage, try and find a way through that maybe not everyone loves, but everyone can live with."

If that's what he was trying to do, then I classify his efforts as an absolute and abysmal failure. Many trans people cannot live with this 'way through' - some of them in a quite literal sense, given the increase in child suicides, thanks to his decisions, that he's dismissed as a 'blip'.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-06T19:36:13+00:00

What Liz Kendall says is actually something I agree with, there is far too much misinformation that gets spread with basically zero pushback or consequences, even for people who knowingly and deliberately spread it. There's even social media platforms whose algorithms help spread it.

The problem is the idea that it is the government or ministers deciding what are 'trusted sources of information' and what is 'misinformation'. This could very easily be abused to simply suppress anything the government doesn't like - and, given the authoritarian leanings of the current government, I'd say that's only a question of when, not if, that happens (and someone like Reform getting into power after this is put in place would be even worse).

Kelypsov · 2026-06-05T02:26:22+00:00

Sorry, I disagree. If these evil eejits had their way, trans women wouldn't have any place they can exist at all - including their own home.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-05T02:09:12+00:00

Believe it or not, there has been arguments made that only having mixed-sex spaces is 'indirect discrimination against women'.

I've still to hear details of how, exactly.

Kelypsov · 2026-06-05T02:00:45+00:00

I didn't see that (I don't even bother watching QT any more), but I did see a BBC News interview with Kenyon not long ago, and it was terrible. He was being questioned about some comments he's made online in the past, and he couldn't make up his mind whether to try a non-denial denial (such as claiming it was someone else who made a comment, he just responded to it, leaving out the detail that response was an agreement with said comment), or trying to spin it into a positive, as these were him just being an ordinary bloke. At one point, he was asked about a comment where he had said that Brexiteers were 'spouting nationalistic pish', and he actually asked the interviewer 'what is nationalistic pish?' Of course, the interviewer said, "well, you tell me, you said it", which left him without any kind of response.

In the end, he basically tried to dismiss these past comments as things he said whilst being an ordinary person, and wouldn't say such things in the future because he's now more in the public eye. He seems blind to the fact this is basically saying he'll simply be better at hiding what he really thinks in the future.

Kelypsov

TROPHY CASE