Silencing Black Lives Matter: Priti Patel’s anti-protest law

Watch
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by Durham Lad)
I would never say black lives do not matter, because they do. They matter just as much as anyone else. We should all be fighting for ALM instead of concentrating on only BLM is what I mean.
Then why are you making it seem as if it applies to you? Right they matter except when they're shot and killed by police. They matter except when they're searched for drugs more than: 'white people' (I find these normative descriptive labels deeply unscientific and unhelpful by the way.) Of course in an ideal society All Lives Should matter that's the goal right and yet in the system we live under there always seems to be an exception to whose lives are valued more by the state. That's literally all that means. It's in no way to guilt trip individuals like yourself who may have a subconscious ignorance and bias on the matter. (That's perfectly normal.) We al have those. You aren't the state and you aren't the system so Black Lives Matter isn't necessarily targeted towards individuals. To put things into context it was only 60 years ago black people in America were even allowed to vote. 100 years ago they were justified as slaves. 60 to 100 years is not a lot of time it terms of established human rights.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by Napp)
Lol. Seriously? :lol:
And what bias is this exactly? You seem to be getting very personal for some odd reason on a supreme lack of a base for it. I have made no comment on it yet other than the observation that you're talking claptrap half of the time. Well, most of the time given these assumptions you seem intent on making for no reason.

I would list the err 'problems' with you but you've done a good job of it yourself already. Aside from a mild insult though was there a point to be made here?

I suggest you crack open your dictionary and reacquaint yourself with the definition of 'buzzword' if you think i used one as opposed to an apt description. Unless you are under the amusing belief that thought policing is but an expression of liberty.
Again, you parade your self described aptitude for history, as well as nominally in politics, yet you havent actually said where it comes from? However, given you seem to have based this tirade on some very strange extrapolations from a supreme lack of evidence i would seriously question any claim on your part to having a solid academic grounding in either topic. Never mind your repeated misuse of words from genocide to fascist and 'gaslighting'.
Better question though, again, what makes you think i support your government? You seem to be under the quaint illusion you know a thing about the views i hold yet you havent made a single correct observation. As any more established member of this site can happily attest, i rarely speak in polite terms of the government. That might fly in the face of your amusing opinion on the matter but hey ho.
A right wing bias. In addition apologies when I feel the need to get personal with someone who is trying to undermine the severity of a former criminal cabinet minster who was removed from her position and who is now putting forth a bill ultimate decided what she thinks is or isn't: 'criminality.'

Thanks but I already am quite familiar with the definition of that term. For instance you attempted to use the terms: 'Authoritarian leftist' in an improper and broad fashion that anyone vaguely left leaning to you is an: 'Authoritarian leftist' hence buzzword and or more accurate since there's more than one word used buzz-term. In addition you tried presuming that I was somehow a Stalinist and or Maoist which as a Libertarian Socialist who'd have probably been killed by either along with the Anarchists this is pretty silly on your part.

You also claimed that I said that all government's in the world are: 'right wing' which is something I just never typed. What I did was that it'd appear that mostly left leaning political orientated countries have dealt with this virus more effectively and efficiently than any right wing country with perhaps a view exception to places that are hyper authoritarian like North Korea or China. North Korea cause it rarely if ever lets anyone either out and or in the country unless they've close ties with the Jong dynasty. China cause of their current hyper traditionalist authoritarian attitude immediately locked their citizens in place with dire consequences for anyone who broke the rules. (I shouldn't have to point out that I don't support either one of these countries.)
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
This is why the bill was introduced: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54038591
I fully support it.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by -Imperator-)
This is why the bill was introduced: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54038591
I fully support it.
Even the part where it suggests that protesters being: 'annoying' can be imprisoned up to 10 years; you even read the bill and in addition shouldn't Rupert Murdoch's propaganda empire be stalled for the good of society? Cause not only have they been selling anti-Climate conspiracies they've also capitulated to crack-job anti-vaxxers as well and were heavy proponents of: 'herd immunity.' Can you explain in terms of absolute deontological ethics how it's a it's a benefit for a crime bill to be put forth via a foreign policy traitor who was removed from ministerial position and is using this as an excuse to not only protect those clear propaganda institutions but chip away at civil-disobedience in general? Cause from a consequentialist act-utilitarian philosophical frame-work I see no long-term benefit to this and consider anyone in support of this either naïve or a traitor to democratic right to protest. Again I'll preface the fact this bill was introduced by someone who was fired from her ministerial position illegally having secret meetings with Israeli policy advisers and was accused of bullying her staff. Give them an inch and they'll go a mile. If this goes past what happens when Sun, Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Spectator (Which had articles in favour of Greek Nazi movement) and The Express just creates this back n' forth situation when protest groups are mass systemically vilified via media/press till point where protest itself is seen as a negative?

Cause this is precisely how it started. Nazis and the German aristocracy had massive pockets to fund various media/press outlets and institutions to whip the general populace into a frenzy classing those in opposition to the regime as: 'sub-human and undesirables' of the state machine. This lead to gradual desensitization until such dissent was outright despised by the general masses. As Joseph Goebbels said give me the media/press and I'll turn a nation into a herd of pigs.

No offence but people like you and anyone else think this is okay. A criminal minster pushing a bill with little and worse zero scrutiny really ought to look into the intricate history concerning the how's and why's the Weimar Republic in Germany fell to fascists. Cause little hyper-normalised legislation like this that overtime gradually turns a country into a police-state is precisely how you lose not only just your democracy but almost every single historical human right fought for.

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum when 150 human rights institutions have all collectively sounded their alarm on this legislation this is clearly beyond simply just a partisan disagreement. If either the left and especially the right genuinely cares about their political and societal freedoms as they so preach to then we should all be in opposition against this draconian piece of legislation that's currently being forced through by a criminal who shouldn't even have her job at Westminster anymore.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
She did say on record that she is against protest so cracking down on legitimate protests does make sense for her.

"I do not support protests" - Priti Patel

You can only express your distaste of the Government through Government mandated routes such as... saying nothing at all.
1
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Shouldn't Rupert Murdoch's propaganda empire be stalled for the good of society?
No, freedom of the press should not be done away with "for the greater good".
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by -Imperator-)
No, freedom of the press should not be done away with "for the greater good".
The Tories don't even support free press.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-reporter-ban
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by -Imperator-)
No, freedom of the press should not be done away with "for the greater good".
It's not being done away. There's no state implication to say remove press/media credentials. It's merely individual members of a society disrupting what is quite literally state propaganda. That's not freedom of press that's supremacy of state misinformation against a greater utility of good. We've hyper-normalised propaganda in this country and this is a dangerous place to be. If it's not corrected in any way say via way of a: 'Leavson Two' then we're just going to overtime similar to something like Hungary where the state control and dictate the press/media therefore public perception to a large extent when it comes to influencing elections or again diving/conquering. If you don't believe me look into the history of press/media landscapes in it, Poland, India and Brazil. Similar to Hungary which sate now practically owns the Supreme Courts Tories have been going round calling Supreme Court Judges: 'Lefty do-gooders.' In addition to outright showing contempt for checks n' balances altogether with unlawful prorogation of Parliament as well as silencing people working within Civil Servants.

Boris Johnson threatened to remove Chanel 4's press credentials for hosting a climate debate with him choosing voluntarily to not be there and hamulating his think skin placing a ice statue in his stead.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by DiddyDec)
The Tories don't even support free press.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-reporter-ban
Plus. Guido, Telegraph, Express, Daily Mail, Sun, Talk Radio, Spectator are no more than propaganda distributors for the state and Tories are trying their best to use this as peer-pressure against the BBC in order to also transform it into a state propaganda distributor. These are not news outlets. They're propaganda institutions owned by non-accountable billionaires that live abroad and pay zero taxes in this country. Their interest is to maintain low taxes and lower them further in addition sharing a mutual goal with Tories or other right wing leaning aristocrats of sustaining tax-havens thus their power of influence over the country.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Plus. Guido, Telegraph, Express, Daily Mail, Sun, Talk Radio, Spectator are no more than propaganda distributors for the state and Tories are trying their best to use this as peer-pressure against the BBC in order to also transform it into a state propaganda distributor.
I wouldn't quite call them state sponsored media but they are leaning that way.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by DiddyDec)
I wouldn't quite call them state sponsored media but they are leaning that way.
Well as you point out the lines are getting increasingly blurred and we certainly shouldn't wait to find out cause that's how countries succumb to hyper-normalisation. Also we've gone systemically backwards a lot if a crime bill written by a woman can't even mention women once throughout all of its 163 pages. This is just a tenant of fascism. Fascists view femininity and along with feminists movements as a weakness therefore the strength and power of the state can only be protected via a masculine approach to society which potentially would fall under these points by Umberto Eco.

1. "The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”

10. "Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”

12. "Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
It's not being done away. There's no state implication to say remove press/media credentials. It's merely individual members of a society disrupting what is quite literally state propaganda. That's not freedom of press that's supremacy of state misinformation against a greater utility of good. We've hyper-normalised propaganda in this country and this is a dangerous place to be. If it's not corrected in any way say via way of a: 'Leavson Two' then we're just going to overtime similar to something like Hungary where the state control and dictate the press/media therefore public perception to a large extent when it comes to influencing elections or again diving/conquering. If you don't believe me look into the history of press/media landscapes in it, Poland, India and Brazil. Similar to Hungary which sate now practically owns the Supreme Courts Tories have been going round calling Supreme Court Judges: 'Lefty do-gooders.' In addition to outright showing contempt for checks n' balances altogether with unlawful prorogation of Parliament as well as silencing people working within Civil Servants.

Boris Johnson threatened to remove Chanel 4's press credentials for hosting a climate debate with him choosing voluntarily to not be there and hamulating his think skin placing a ice statue in his stead.
Freedom of the press is not conditional on whether some members of the public think that they are producing distorted nonsense, just as the right to freedom of speech is not conditional on the accuracy of one's views. I think in both cases, freedom is a good heuristic for achieving maximum "utility of good" as you put it. Of course, extreme authoritarians believe that they can maximise utility without freedom - after all, if people are free, they will sometimes make the wrong choices. You seem to be objecting to the idea of whichever political party is currently in power influencing public perception through the press - but isn't this simply what campaigning is? Mayoral candidates write columns for mainstream newspapers, political advocacy groups run their own newsletters/papers etc. A working democracy depends upon the free flow of argument and information.
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Well as you point out the lines are getting increasingly blurred and we certainly shouldn't wait to find out cause that's how countries succumb to hyper-normalisation. Also we've gone systemically backwards a lot if a crime bill written by a woman can't even mention women once throughout all of its 163 pages. This is just a tenant of fascism. Fascists view femininity and along with feminists movements as a weakness therefore the strength and power of the state can only be protected via a masculine approach to society which potentially would fall under these points by Umberto Eco.

1. "The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”

10. "Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”

12. "Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
This is such an appallingly weak argument. The fact that fascists are anti-feminists does not mean that anti-feminists are fascists. The three tenets you have mentioned above apply to a wide range of right-wing ideologies.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by -Imperator-)
Freedom of the press is not conditional on whether some members of the public think that they are producing distorted nonsense, just as the right to freedom of speech is not conditional on the accuracy of one's views. I think in both cases, freedom is a good heuristic for achieving maximum "utility of good" as you put it. Of course, extreme authoritarians believe that they can maximise utility without freedom - after all, if people are free, they will sometimes make the wrong choices. You seem to be objecting to the idea of whichever political party is currently in power influencing public perception through the press - but isn't this simply what campaigning is? Mayoral candidates write columns for mainstream newspapers, political advocacy groups run their own newsletters/papers etc. A working democracy depends upon the free flow of argument and information.
Nor is the press free when it's clearly capitulating and or working in tandem as a state disinformation organ. Again if you want to see the history of how press and media were eventually hollowed into Government mouthpieces look at the media/press history of India, Hungary, Poland along with Brazil. You can deny it all you want but this is precisely how through a process of hyper-normalisation propaganda ends up becoming and treated in equivalent to that of useful information. The problem here is you can't seem to acknowledge that as long as the media and press capitulate to the state due to administered pressure from the working government it's a stretch to say you even live in a functioning democracy anymore. Why do you think I use other examples where this same exact process overtime has occurred? As countless contemporary European studies have shown the UK media and press is on record being one of the lowest in modern history in terms of reliability. This never bodes well for the health of the democracy.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by -Imperator-)
This is such an appallingly weak argument. The fact that fascists are anti-feminists does not mean that anti-feminists are fascists. The three tenets you have mentioned above apply to a wide range of right-wing ideologies.
Explain why it's a: 'appallingly weak argument' instead of just erecting a deontological response that by itself you think equally constitutes a contention. Also yes that's the point Fascism historically and presently is a inherently incoherent idiosyncratic movement in that as a political force of non-stop religious inconsistency will draw from any or all political movements in order to establish itself as a dominant power against any or all opposition against it. Fascism is the political power of incoherence, exploitation of fears and the hatred of outgroups.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Nor is the press free when it's clearly capitulating and or working in tandem as a state disinformation organ. Again if you want to see the history of how press and media were eventually hollowed into Government mouthpieces look at the media/press history of India, Hungary, Poland along with Brazil. You can deny it all you want but this is precisely how through a process of hyper-normalisation propaganda ends up becoming and treated in equivalent to that of useful information. The problem here is you can't seem to acknowledge that as long as the media and press capitulate to the state due to administered pressure from the working government it's a stretch to say you even live in a functioning democracy anymore. Why do you think I use other examples where this same exact process overtime has occurred? As countless contemporary European studies have shown the UK media and press is on record being one of the lowest in modern history. This never bodes well for the health of the democracy.
The idea that newspapers like The Times and The Guardian publish "state disinformation" is utterly ridiculous. If you have a range of political viewpoints expressed in the press, you can expect some to side with the government and some to side against it.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by -Imperator-)
The idea that newspapers like The Times and The Guardian publish "state disinformation" is utterly ridiculous. If you have a range of political viewpoints expressed in the press, you can expect some to side with the government and some to side against it.
They're an exception to the rule but I never used those as examples. Yes there's still some media and press that's against the state influences however; the vast majority of it at this point is either a mouthpiece for the state or it's a mouthpiece for Brexit. (Which by the way checks off the first point of Ur-Fascism: 'Powerful and continuing nationalism.') As well as of course point 13: 'selective populism' it's quite clear that the current Tory junta has shown and demonstrated via political rhetoric or action that it has very little regard to the remain populace of the UK. To the point where it's as if such people are being devalued of even being citizens in this country anymore.

Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Explain why it's a: 'appallingly weak argument' instead of just erecting a deontological response that by itself you think equally constitutes a contention. Also yes that's the point Fascism historically and presently is a inherently incoherent idiosyncratic in that as a political force of non-stop religious inconsistency will draw from any or all political movements in order to establish itself as a dominant power against any or all opposition against it. Fascism is the political power of incoherence, exploitation of fears and the hatred of outgroups.
First, please stop using the word "deontological" incorrectly.
Second, you asked for it:

You say "Also we've gone systemically backwards a lot if a crime bill written by a woman can't even mention women once throughout all of its 163 pages. This is just a tenant of fascism."
The implication is that the mere fact that a crime bill doesn't mention women (i.e. is anti-feminists in some sense) indicates that the government is fascist. You back this up by providing three criteria for fascism: traditionalism, elitism, and disdain for women and nonstandard sexual habits.

My argument is that each of those criteria are also met by reactionary ideologies. Reactionaries are very traditional, want to maintain social hierarchies, and are socially conservative. Yet, reactionaries and fascists are violently opposed. Fascists are militantly anti-establishment (populist) and want violent revolution leading to national rebirth. Reactionaries are avowedly pro-establishment. The fact that reactionaries are one of the main opponents of fascism can be seen in the anthem of Mosley's Fascists, which include the words:

'gainst vested powers, Red Front, and massed ranks of reaction,
we lead the fight for freedom and for bread.

Vested powers = owners of capital (heavily implies Jews in particular)
Massed ranks of reaction = Reactionaries
Red Front = Communists

Traditionalism, elitism, and social conservatism are components of a wide range of right-wing and conservative ideologies. (American Conservatism, High Toryism, One-nation Conservatism...)
The idea that opposing feminism in any way indicates fascism is simply ludicrous.
0
reply
Wanttobreakfree
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by -Imperator-)
First, please stop using the word "deontological" incorrectly.
Second, you asked for it:

You say "Also we've gone systemically backwards a lot if a crime bill written by a woman can't even mention women once throughout all of its 163 pages. This is just a tenant of fascism."
The implication is that the mere fact that a crime bill doesn't mention women (i.e. is anti-feminists in some sense) indicates that the government is fascist. You back this up by providing three criteria for fascism: traditionalism, elitism, and disdain for women and nonstandard sexual habits.

My argument is that each of those criteria are also met by reactionary ideologies. Reactionaries are very traditional, want to maintain social hierarchies, and are socially conservative. Yet, reactionaries and fascists are violently opposed. Fascists are militantly anti-establishment (populist) and want violent revolution leading to national rebirth. Reactionaries are avowedly pro-establishment. The fact that reactionaries are one of the main opponents of fascism can be seen in the anthem of Mosley's Fascists, which include the words:

'gainst vested powers, Red Front, and massed ranks of reaction,
we lead the fight for freedom and for bread.

Vested powers = owners of capital (heavily implies Jews in particular)
Massed ranks of reaction = Reactionaries
Red Front = Communists

Traditionalism, elitism, and social conservatism are components of a wide range of right-wing and conservative ideologies. (American Conservatism, High Toryism, One-nation Conservatism...)
The idea that opposing feminism in any way indicates fascism is simply ludicrous.
I'm not using it incorrectly you clearly thought before hand that what I pointed out was from a feeling: 'wrong' and that's what Deontology mostly boils down to. I think therefore I am and or I think therefore it is ranging from a argument of the utility of human agency and or from a position of existential force that's unable to be seen. I've no time for it personally. Consequentialism act-Utilitarianism have their faults too as every moral philosophical framework on ethics will but I've never been one to value the ego of humans so I personally see no need for Deontology to argue for what I believe in axiomatically. It's also why I find it hard to have little if any respect for religion and wonder if rate we're currently going humanity will even exist in the next 200 years to provide a generous guess.

In addition yes as other examples of fascistic characteristics I've already highlighted such as: 'powerful continuing nationalism', 'selective populism', 'pacifism is trafficking the enemy' it's a core tenant of fascism to be anti-Feminism and women's rights. The fact that a crime bill was written all from the position of machismo is very concerning to anyone who has again studied history.

Again Fascism has no consistent ideology it's idiosyncratic and historically has always defined itself as a force as anything that's deemed: 'politically expedient.' It's why Jong Dynasty calls North Korea: 'Democratic Republic' (Newspeak), why China calls itself: 'Communist' and why Nazis even after Night of Long Knives killing all the socialists masquerading under the aesthetics of those movements. Why? Cause it's easier to then propagandise against a potential future threat of rebellion that'll learn those political movements. Fascism has never cared for accuracy or factual merit merely the power to be incoherent for power's sake for the supremacy of the in-group in addition to the state that: 'protects' said: 'in-group's' interest.

Keep in mind that I include Stalinist Russia and Maoist China being arguably closer towards fascistic tendencies than they ever were Communist (least going by the actual definition) and I don't associate with those societies as a Libertarian Socialist.

Don't know if you've noticed but a lot of fascist leaning countries (Poland, Hungary, India and Brazil or outright fascist nations like like Saudi Arabia, China or Russia do nothing other than enforce social conservative views or hyper traditionalists outlooks on reality.) It's less about Tories just opposing feminism and more that at no point in history of this country until now has a piece of legislation been written exclusively towards machismo of the state or institutions of its enforcement.
Last edited by Wanttobreakfree; 1 month ago
0
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
(Original post by Wanttobreakfree)
Again Fascism has no consistent ideology it's idiosyncratic and historically has always defined itself as a force as anything that's deemed: 'politically expedient.'
This could not be further than the truth. Fascism is a consistent ideology including: extreme nationalism; extreme populism; extreme authoritarianism; anti-capitalism; anti-communism; anti-establishment; extreme social conservatism etc. As an ideology, fascism is much easier to define than something like British conservatism, which evolves over time. If you think that fascism is defined by whatever's politically expedient then I guess I can see why everything you have to say about it is so completely deluded.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (192)
5.07%
Uncertainty around my education (555)
14.66%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (422)
11.15%
Lack of purpose or motivation (520)
13.73%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (189)
4.99%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (226)
5.97%
Loneliness (317)
8.37%
Financial worries (139)
3.67%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (148)
3.91%
Exposure to negative news/social media (170)
4.49%
Lack of real life entertainment (215)
5.68%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (338)
8.93%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (355)
9.38%

Watched Threads

View All