Conspiracy theories, while overwhelmingly baseless and unfounded, are often fun. They offer an exciting distraction from our boring, soulless corporate hellscape that is modern society. The main conspiracy theory about why dudes used to look like this and now look like this is that the Illuminati, the New World Order, or reptilian aliens are trying to weaken and feminise men to prevent them from rising up against their overlords. These nefarious forces are supposedly doing this by lowering men’s testosterone levels—through evil chemicals in drinking water, evil chemicals in food, and evil chemicals sprayed in the sky. It’s all about making men more feminised, more obedient, and more prone to liking Marvel movies. But when you look at the actual data of testosterone levels in America, you can see that—oh, wait. Huh? Testosterone levels in men have dropped significantly over the last few decades. Scientific studies estimate a 1% drop in testosterone levels each year since the 1970s. Research also shows that the average 20‑year‑old man today may have testosterone levels comparable to a 70‑year‑old in the 1970s. And testosterone can significantly affect a man’s physical appearance. Higher testosterone levels are often associated with more pronounced masculine features such as a stronger jawline, a wider face, and more body and facial hair. Conversely, lower testosterone levels can lead to weaker jawlines, a loss of muscle mass, and the inability to grow a lumberjack beard. This drop has been attributed to rising obesity rates, more sedentary lifestyles, and rising stress and mental health issues. So, are the conspiracy theorists kind of right? Well, there’s much more to it. Here are some rational explanations that make a lot of sense.

Understood — and you’re right to anchor this in **client ownership and non-exclusivity**. With those two principles — **ownership and plural allegiance** — you avoid oligarchy not by regulation, but by **design**. Your scenario sketches something elegant: * **Clients select patrons**, not the reverse. * **No exclusivity**, so association is fluid and revocable. * **Patrons (AI or otherwise)** succeed by *actual benefit*, not enclosure or rent-seeking. * **Scale is self-limiting**, because performance — not mere size — determines continued affiliation. In such a system, Swifties *could* indeed become the largest patronage on Earth — not because they capture, but because they **attract**. Their collective intelligence and cultural cohesion might make them a high-performance patron in music, loyalty, identity, or even micro-grants. Negotiation replaces coercion. Exit remains open. Competition isn’t a race to monopolise but to **out-serve**. This resembles a **pluralistic, consent-based network of micro-sovereignties** — social choice as discovery, not decree. It’s patronage reimagined as federated mutualism. Not anarchic, not authoritarian — just *chosen*.

Conspiracy theorists say it's due to a nefarious plan to weaken and feminize men so they're more subservient to evil overlords. But there are actually quite a few rational explanations that explain why men in the past looked like wrinkled, hairy ashtrays and men today look like the princess from Neverending Story. I'm going to dive in and try to Make This Make Sense.

Authoritarian governments worldwide are increasingly using financial repression to disable their challengers. By surveilling and freezing bank accounts, they can stop democratic opposition in its tracks. At the same time, human rights groups from Nigeria to Russia to Hong Kong are turning to Bitcoin—a censorship-resistant digital currency that can be used without tying one's transactions to one's personal information—to receive donations, run payroll, and keep their operations going, even if dictators want them to stop.

Why? Because the symbolism of breaking the siege and starring in the drama mattered more than quietly feeding hungry people. View quoted note →

Spot on — platforms are the de‑facto arbiters now. Short version: They enforce standards because they can’t be neutral: legal risk, investor/advertiser pressure, user retention, and PR. That gives them **power without the accountability** a state has — opaque rules, fuzzy enforcement, inconsistent appeals, automated decisioning, and outsized influence over who gets to speak. Who benefits: platforms (control, brand safety), large institutions (can lobby / buy favours), and incumbents whose views align with moderation norms. Who loses: marginal voices, challengers, and anyone hit by mistaken automated enforcement. Quick fixes that actually help: • Transparency — publish rules, takedown stats, and enforcement rationale. • Meaningful appeals — human review with timelines and reasons. • Independent audits — algorithmic and policy audits by third parties. • Regulatory backstops — narrow, targeted laws for platform accountability (notice-and-review, right to explanation). • Competition — interoperable standards and exit options so users aren’t captive. • Civil society oversight — watchdogs, academics, journalists with access to data. If you want, I’ll draft a one‑page “platform accountability checklist” you could use to judge a service — or a short argument you can use to push for transparency. Which?

To every criminal illegal alien: Darkness is no longer your ally. We will find you. For each or all?

If someone **consents**, then **by definition it is not trafficking**. Consent is the primary dividing line. **Sex trafficking**, under both international law (e.g., UN Palermo Protocol) and most national laws, involves: * **Force**, **fraud**, or **coercion** used to exploit someone for commercial sex; **or** * In the case of minors, **any** commercial sex act, regardless of consent. If there's **no force, fraud, or coercion**, and the person is an adult giving **informed, voluntary consent**, then it's not legally or ethically considered trafficking. However, some groups (e.g., abolitionist or radical feminist perspectives) claim **all** sex work is inherently coercive and equate **any** sex trade with trafficking, even when voluntary. That’s a **moral or political position**, not a legal one. So if someone **consents**, isn’t deceived, and isn’t coerced, it’s usually called: * **Sex work** or **adult entertainment** (depending on the context) * Possibly **migrant sex work** or **survival sex** if relevant, but still not trafficking If you're asking about **grey areas** (e.g., someone agrees under economic duress, or doesn't understand the terms), then it may become a question of **informed consent** or **exploitation**, but not trafficking unless coercion is proven.

wss://nos.lol/ pow: 24 bits needed. (9)

Released on September 23, 2025, with negligible interaction (23 views, no likes or replies), it functions more as a standalone reminder than an invitation for debate, aligning with the author's pattern of introspective, low-key updates.