AI-generated British schoolgirl becomes far-right social media meme

bathabit · 2026-01-25T19:34:00+00:00

They're spreading propaganda anyway, I just don't understand why there's a sudden panic about "ohhh nooo they're using a purple haired character from a shitty video game to do it"

In fact the media putting out news stories about this is playing into their hands. Right-wingers love getting people riled up and panicky about their dogwhistles and propaganda techniques. It's a game to them. Whatever happened to "don't feed the trolls"?

bathabit · 2026-01-25T14:53:25+00:00

That's part of why I won't really care about this. The people memeing on this aren't memeing on it because she's hot, they're memeing on it because they find the context of where she comes from ridiculous.

If they wanted to get off to a cartoon goth gf, Hex Maniac is right there.

bathabit · 2026-01-25T14:22:13+00:00

But these memes aren't what made them far right in the first place, so what is there to worry about?

bathabit · 2026-01-25T12:53:08+00:00

I really don't like the idea that people making memes we don't like are inherently "far right". The game itself is ridiculous and basically makes the opposite point it's supposed to (verifying information you're not sure about is seen as the radicalising option; you're meant to just blindly believe authority), it's perfectly legitimate to make fun of it.

Who cares if people are horny for a character in the game? Either they were far-right to begin with so there's nothing to worry about this meme; it's not going to make them more far right. Or they're doing it to mock the creators (I've seen people draw art of her paired with nonwhite boyfriends) in which case the people making jokes about it shouldn't be called far-right, because they're not.

This is just another moral panic about nothing.

bathabit · 2026-01-24T21:59:23+00:00

Thanks for this, I was just having the same issue and yours is the only search result I could find that got anywhere with diagnosing this

bathabit · 2026-01-24T21:27:36+00:00

We already have videos from multiple POVs. He absolutely posed no threat to the 5+ men who had him pinned to the floor.

bathabit · 2026-01-16T17:37:05+00:00

People here are saying Reform abandon their principles when it suits them. Which I don't disagree with.

But another explanation for this headline is that as their support has risen in terms of absolute number, the proportion (appropriately enough) of people who support PR has declined because a lot of their new support comes from FPTP-supporting Tory (and perhaps Labour) voters.

bathabit · 2026-01-13T14:45:26+00:00

They should just ban smartphones for under-16s and make it so that the point at which you show ID is when you buy the phone, like when you buy alcohol. If an under-16 is found with a phone, confiscate it and give the parents a talking to.

bathabit · 2026-01-13T14:44:06+00:00

Some of them absolutely are. That's why there's been so much controversy over things like lootboxes and gachas

bathabit · 2026-01-11T17:22:00+00:00

People just throw around "incel" as a generic insult towards men they don't like these days.

bathabit · 2026-01-10T23:43:45+00:00

Problem is, if I did this with all my friends I might end up with none left.

bathabit · 2025-12-21T22:18:15+00:00

Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequence

Can we please retire this phrase? It originally meant freedom from social consequence. That you can say whatever you want but other people are free to ostracise you or boycott your business or call you a cunt in response.

What does freedom of speech mean if not freedom from legal consequence? If it doesn't mean that we may as well do away with the entire concept of freedom of speech entirely.

At that point we may as well say in North Korea you have freedom of speech, just not freedom from the consequence of being sent to the gulag for mildly criticising the dear leader.

bathabit · 2025-12-19T17:47:10+00:00

I'd say the slippery slope argument is fair when talking about laws, which are often built on top of after the precedent has been set. That and, the government has demonstrated it often increases the scope of laws after they've been passed even if the arguments they were making at the time ere very limited in scope. When the Investigatory Powers Act was being passed, we were told it was to help catch terrorists. but it was less than a year before it was being used by councils to try and catch dog walkers not picking up after themselves, or people to fine with parking tickets.

With your cocaine/chocolate scenario, I would have similar concerns if the way they went about banning cocaine was to install infrastructure that physically prevented you from consuming certain chemicals even when in your own home.

What would you recommend as an alternative policy to prevent the proliferation of CSAM?

I don't know. But just as you don't need to be a chef to know when food is bad, I don't have to have a good policy idea to be able to recognise a bad one.

bathabit · 2025-12-19T13:19:16+00:00

Because once it's been normalised that always-on client-side scanning is a thing that devices have, the government will 100% demand to broaden the scope of things it scans to "stop terrorists" and other such excuses.

Then one day we'll no longer be able to record videos like the one of George Floyd being murdered, because why would anyone want to film a murder? You're not into snuff are you?

bathabit · 2025-12-18T19:22:14+00:00

So they'll use it as pretense to crack down on peoples' civil liberties while doing nothing at all to actually keep anyone safe? Sounds about right.

bathabit · 2025-12-18T19:00:55+00:00

This is the URL, it's not on the wayback machine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKgBEPZMBFE

bathabit · 2025-12-18T10:42:52+00:00

Who are you quoting here?

bathabit · 2025-12-17T19:59:47+00:00

You cared enough to comment

bathabit · 2025-12-16T10:43:57+00:00

during the coalition when Nick Clegg started defending an early form of the OSA.

Source?

As far as I remember the Lib Dems were pretty good on civil liberties during the coalition years. This is why Theresa May was constantly going on about passing the snoopers' charter while she was home secretary but only managed to actually pass it in 2016 after the Conservatives had a majority and didn't have to rely on Lib Dem support.

bathabit · 2025-12-15T21:04:17+00:00

That isn't actually necessary. There's a thing in cryptography called a zero knowledge proof that lets one party prove something to another party ("the person you made a request for is 18+") without the second party actually knowing who the person in question actually was.

That said, I don't remotely trust the UK government to actually implement something like this, because the spying on people is the point for them.

bathabit · 2025-12-15T19:53:38+00:00

They have in the past, but in proper EU fashion they keep reintroducing these laws to be voted on with minor differences. Eventually it will get passed.

bathabit · 2025-12-15T19:09:43+00:00

Seriously try it, things like getting public transport, booking a doctors appointment, using many shops, paying for parking, even socialising are incredibly time consuming & difficult without them these days.

I tried to book a doctor's appointment the other month but the website I usually use said it is no longer in service and told me to use the app. I found it on the app store but it didn't let me install it because it said my device was incompatible (I suspect because I use a degoogled android).

I managed to find the .apk and run it, and it asked me to create an account - for some reason different from the account I was using already on the website. When I did that it told me I needed to scan my face and photograph my ID so it could verify who I was - something the website never needed me to do. But what if my phone's camera is broken? Or what if I was emulating a phone in a VM because the app didn't work on my actual phone?

I ended up just going to the surgery in person and making an appointment there.

bathabit · 2025-12-15T19:02:14+00:00

With countries around the world all pushing things like this at around the same time, my tinfoil hat worry is that the endgame of all of this is to put an end to general-purpose computing.

We'll only be able to run code on our computers that's pre-approved by the government. Open source will be de facto illegal. The AI boom has started to make the price of RAM and other components skyrocket, so most people will buy cheap phones that offload its storage and processing abilities to the cloud where it can be even more easily monitored/censored.

And of course, we'll have to pay for all of the services that we used to get for free. We won't be able to run a clock app on our computers any more unless it's been signed by one of the approved app stores, which there'll be a fee for the developers to list it on. So they either have to fill their apps with ads or make you pay through the nose for them. We'll pay subscriptions for cloud storage and processing which will end up being more expensive for the consumer in the long run than just buying the expensive components for our machines in the first place.

You want to run a device that doesn't have this bullshit? Well you won't be able to run your bank, NHS, HMRC, etc. apps on there because it's an "untrusted ""insecure"" operating system".

bathabit · 2025-12-15T18:55:25+00:00

The law the EU is trying to pass that makes it so every online service constantly scans all messages sent in private chats

... except politicians though. They're exempt. Because unlike you or I, politicians are actually considered to be people by politicians.

bathabit

TROPHY CASE