Objectionable behavior

Pokimane, I am once again writing to you, because I am not writing to or contacting anyone else until you make a third post on Chirp Club, in addition to the two you have already made this year, that you don't delete. I don't think that you will read this. If people use the idea, maybe this site will become commonly known and you will discover this post and the previous one.

I am now stalking your Instagram, TikTok and YouTube accounts, in addition to Twitch and Chirp Club.

This is a public medium. If I were still emailing you, this would be an email. I don't think this being public harms you, but it could embarrass me if anyone else reads this.

I have waited a long time to stalk all of your accounts because of what I feel is the perception that it's fine to waste time, and that demanding that someone not waste time is either not acceptable, or simply not likely to lead to any useful results. Like, a few thoughts that I had three days ago:

"Streaming while PvPing is subjecting yourself to the judgement of stupid people, who might not notice when bullying takes place"

"Dramas are more attractive than movies for romantic stories because the storyline extends for longer"

I think it's accurate to say that males are more likely to be rejected romantically because they are poor, than females. People might consider the ideal to be that people are treated the same regardless of their gender, but in practice, genders are treated differently.

Objectionable behavior from females: ignoring a male while being interested in him.

Objectionable behavior from males: being poor while being interested in a female?

I can only speculate about this. As a male, I can reach the conclusion that the first behavior is objectionable, because I object to it. It's likely that males also act in ways which, although they think it justified, deserve or receive criticism, and this was my guess as to what such a behavior might be.

I have been trying to change society such that males would not feel the need to act in this way: to express or admit interest in a female while the male is poor (or when he predicts that he will be poor). I don't think I can say that I observe anyone trying to cause change to make the first behavior unnecessary.

As a male, I don't try to defend males who exhibit the second behavior, even though I might benefit if acceptance of this behavior was widespread. I say that males who are poor, and suffer as a consequence, should make attempts to stop being poor. If they feel that the ways of becoming rich are unethical, whether fundamentally (like "being paid to bully poor people", or "being paid to lie") or situationally due to other people who are 'in line' needing money more, then they should support changes that would resolve this dilemma, i.e. by sharing this idea.

My most recent idea for a poll, which I might make myself if Reddit polls on desktop weren't disabled:

An unknown person makes a petition that explains how to fix problems in the world. The explanation is too short to answer all questions. How many signatures would you want the petition to get? 5, 100, 5k, 100k

I'm not sure if I emailed you about this one, from 22 Dec 2025:

Poll: "If you earned more money than most people you knew or worked with, would you find it hard to ask or fight for higher pay?"
- Yes, I do
- Yes, I would
- No

Maybe I'm not really justified including it, since it might sneakily be intended for anyone else who reads this post. I ask that no one who is not Pokimane make a poll with that question, and I will not explain why I think it's a useful question with relevance to this idea.

___

Update 25 Jan 2026, 01:01

I am not trying to get you to share this idea, nor do I expect you to. I just thought of a thing which I am randomly sharing on this post directed at you.

"A company contracts you to do 1 hour of work each week, but it pays you $300 per hour. It's your only source of income, despite hundreds of job applications. Other employees at the company are paid $50 per hour but work 40 hours per week. Would you accept a raise, to $500 per hour, even if it means other employees are paid less?"

"You are employed by a company that pays you $80 per hour. Other employees are paid $50 per hour. Would you accept a raise, to $100 per hour, even if it means other employees are paid less?"

*Also see, "what is 3 times 3 times 3". Some people might have no idea what is 50 times 40 unless they enter it onto a calculator, which they will be too lazy to do, so the first question might be better with the product in parentheses, or "and $2000 per week" instead of "but work 40 hours per week".

For Pokimane

This is for the benefit of your viewers, in case it becomes relevant.

I came across an old clip of yours: https://nitter.net/jt0hny/status/2007580034274361750#m

10 million views.

For no particular reason, I visited the URL from the clip. It didn't work for me the first time and I thought it was old and broken; the image at the bottom of the page is broken, and the URL has been redirected from what it was when you visited it.

Anyway. The number changing without any apparent action from you made me think the clip was edited, to combine a continuous camera with skips to scroll down the page and edit the standards (it wasn't). It didn't seem to make sense that the number would be so low.

But it is that low. The data is a little sparse: if restricted to males 45 to 50, it says that none of them (0.000000%) smoke but don't drink, whereas 3.8% (6 million) smoke and drink.

There are other small problems: try to include all males, it gives 74% (apparently excluding under 18), whereas putting smoking to Yes says 38%, to No says 54%, adds to 92% instead of 74%.

On the other hand, drinking to Yes says 68%, to No says 5.6%, which does add to 74%. This doesn't match up with 2025 Gallup poll which said 60% drink alcohol.

But it might still be accurate for its data sources, which it says is US Census and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

Anyway, the standards you're shown selecting in the clip are reasonable. The most influential selection was no to smoking or drinking, with "Either" on both increasing the number from 0.32% to 5.6%. If males wanted you to be interested in them, choosing not to smoke or drink is certainly something they could do. Removing the height standards, in contrast, only increases it to 0.34%.

The same site's resources page links to several books, and I looked at the page for one of them. Note that the site, Keeper, says that 1.2m females and 186k males have joined: a reverse of the male-heavy ratio found on dating apps. And the description of this book also suggests a female audience:

It’s not that he’s just not that into you—it’s that there aren’t enough of him. [..] The shortage of college-educated men is not just a big-city phenomenon frustrating women in New York and L.A. Among young college grads, there are four eligible women for every three men nationwide. This unequal ratio explains not only why it’s so hard to find a date . . .

implying that college-educated females can only date college-educated males.

The calculator definitely seems to have some problems here, because it seems to think all the males in the specified age, even the ones who smoke and drink, have a Master's degree (5.8%). PhD decreases it to 0.06%, High School to 2.6%, so they apparently are doing something wrong with the data's classifications since Bachelor's and Master's both return the same percentage as Any, instead of a lower percentage than High School.

But the point is that you didn't add this restriction yourself, so it didn't influence the percentage. And the percentage is low. Basically, it gives you justification.

On my first Twitch account, which was supposed to be a joke where I would make an innocuous comment in stream chat any time my username happened to be relevant, I said on the About page, "I don't like the use of anything that is smoked or the consumption of alcohol."

The whole page was for the benefit of Peyton Chorvat. When I watched her play Classic World of Warcraft in 2019, she started smoking something when she was going to Gnomeregan with other players, on the night elf priest that she later deleted after giving away all of her stuff. Maybe she was experiencing stomach pains and it helped with that. But I unfollowed her and signed out, and then signed back in to follow her again and eventually comment, more than once, and my unfollowing her was probably for this reason.

And yet, she does drink alcohol, and I am still mentioning her. And Nadine Saikaly posted in late 2013 a photo of herself holding an alcoholic drink.

Once when I tried to make yoghurt and added some fruit too early, it might have ended up fermenting into some alcohol over a period of several days, but I have never deliberately drunk alcohol.

Edit: except in World of Warcraft:

Too Young, Too Simple, Sometimes Naive

Putting that as the title means I can't use it as the anchor text when linking to this video:

Rare Footage of Former China Leader Jiang Zemin Freak Out (With English Subs!)

https://nitter.net/IPTower/status/1998142495251693993#m

In ~1918, the world dreamed of peace (the League of Nations). According to the thinking at the time, one of the ways to ensure peace was to heavily punish Germany, the loser of the Great War. What the world got was the Great Depression.

"You can think and you can fight, but the world's always moving, and if you want to stay ahead you have to dance."

 

This is about Death Note. I have been logged into my YouTube account for the past 4 days, which means that my watch activity has been influencing recommendations and it has been giving me Death Note parody videos. The most recent one I watched, 818k views, by PolyDawg with 5.93k subscribers: 

Death Note but Light is Sexist

It shows L's death. I have never read or watched the series so I wasn't sure how he died, but a commenter mentioned the cause. I was reading the wiki page, for no particular reason (since I was still just trying to understand the particular circumstances of his death, which at this point I only know to be some threat against Misa), when I read that "After Kira begins to kill innocents to prove the fact that they're Kira" and clicked links to find out whether this meant Light.

Videos like the one above show that people have a distorted view of Light. (Another one I watched was Columbo SOLVES The Death Note Case.) So, many people who had forgotten details of the story, but had formed an impression of Light, might not be surprised to hear that he killed innocent people. But to me it sounded unusual for him to do this, so I clicked links to investigate. ('AI' also works reasonably well to answer questions I have had, like "in Death Note, why did L have one arm handcuffed?" although it worked less well for questions about, in which scenes L wore shoes.)

And so I came across this fact, on the page for Amane Misa:

Despite her typically cheerful personality, Misa has been mentally afflicted by seeing her parents murdered right before her eyes. It is unclear how much the trauma has affected Misa psychologically, but in the films, Rem indicates that Misa went through a deep depression immediately after she discovered the murderer was acquitted of the crime.

A few days ago, Giggly aka Madison posted a note on Substack; a quote by John Adams that it was better for society that guilty people to go free than for innocents to be imprisoned.

Giggly aka Madison has cosplayed as Misa before, and made other comments about the series and character such as that one of Grok's companions on Chirp Club is modeled after Amane Misa.

But to be honest, and I'm glad I didn't forget this, I think a better show about the topic of justice is the Netflix live-action adaption of Jiok, or H***bound. In it, someone who killed a person does go to prison, with no doubt about their guilt, but they are later released and an affected character does not think that the punishment was enough.

I shouldn't imply disagreement: maybe a week ago, I replied to a post on Reddit in which I gave an opinion . . . well, since I have linked my Reddit account before, here is my comment:

https://old.reddit.com/r/hypotheticalsituation/comments/1p85vss/an_ai_jury_is_developed_in_2_versions_for/nr3wrts/

(Note the relevance of this scenario to the upcoming film Mercy.)

Although I have read about Death Note before, I did not know (or forgot) this detail about Misa. I assumed her actions were basically just "because of l***".

So, in the song LEVEL5 -judgelight- (the slideshow version, deleted from YouTube, that I shared with Giggly aka Madison on 02 Nov; includes an image of a notebook that says Death Note), when it says — well, all it says is "Believe in Judgelight". But in this context, one can understand it to mean that if there was no corruption or improper behavior by the authorities, then someone in Misa's position should accept the result.

In the real world, of course, Japan has a very high conviction rate for serious crimes. The drama IWGP has the main character falling under suspicion for the death of his girlfriend in the first or second episode, and the main character in Nobuta wo Produce is also suspected of a crime he did not commit. (I might have mentioned this detail before.) This can be contrasted with, say, Tatta Hitotsu no Koi, where characters commit a minor illegal act (fishing where they shouldn't) but are not punished.

So, at least in the context of Japan, someone who is found innocent of a crime is probably innocent.

But note that in my answer to the question on Reddit, I suggested that letting guilty people go free is more acceptable if they are likely to be punished if they commit further crimes. Someone who commits crimes but is never caught, will never be punished. (I won't comment on the situation where someone commits many crimes, is frequently caught, but is never punished.)

In the drama Liar Game season 2, the episodes with the angels and demons game: several of the characters who have met the point requirement to progress to the next round are just enjoying themselves in the bowling alley place, without worrying about the situation of other people who have not yet met the point requirement. They don't feel guilty, as they have not harmed anyone.

I don't actually remember the resolution to the problem, just the general outcome, but one could say that the irresponsible people are irresponsible because they know they are stupid. The problem is, I think, eventually solved, but by the other, smarter characters. People cannot help if they are stupid. Just as they often cannot help if they are poor, or if they are powerless, whether power comes from real-world things like money or social influence, or from fictional things like a Death Note or scientifically-derived teleportation abilities, as in the Toaru Kagaku no Railgun series. (Unless the lore is that it's all actually magic, I don't know, but the title is A Certain Scientific Railgun, not A Certain Magical Railgun.)

Basically: I don't know if it was significant that Giggly aka Madison posted on the topic of letting guilty people go free, when she has cosplayed Amane Misa in the past; I am not checking her accounts right now.

Poor people have fewer options than rich people

There are some things that a poor person can do that a rich person cannot do, like state "I am poor" without lying, but a rich person has the option to become poor.

Many danger, so much threaten

I'm just watching this news article about the Black Mirror episode, Metalhead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv2Teo18oNs

I'm disappointed by 'AI'.

clean your neck in wuxia series explained

In wuxia series, "clean your neck" is a metaphorical expression often used to warn someone that their life is in danger or that they are about to be executed. The phrase draws on the imagery of beheading, which is a common form of capital punishment in historical and fictional Chinese contexts. When a character is told to "clean your neck," it means they should prepare for death, typically at the hands of a powerful martial artist or as a result of a failed mission or betrayal.

Meaning and Usage

- The phrase is dramatic and is used to heighten tension, often before a confrontation or execution scene.
- It is not a literal instruction but rather a way to convey that the character is facing imminent death and should accept their fate.
- In some contexts, it can also be used sarcastically or as a threat, indicating that the speaker has the power to end someone's life.

Cultural Context

- In wuxia and historical Chinese dramas, honor, loyalty, and martial prowess are central themes, and death is often portrayed as an honorable or inevitable outcome for those who fail or betray their sects or masters.
- The phrase fits into the genre's dramatic style, where threats and warnings are often delivered with poetic or archaic language.

Example in Wuxia

- A villain or master might say, "Clean your neck, for your time is up," signaling that the character will be executed unless they can escape or redeem themselves.
- The phrase is also sometimes used to add gravitas to a scene, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation.

In summary, "clean your neck" in wuxia series is a dramatic way to indicate that a character is about to be killed, drawing on historical and cultural motifs of honor and execution.

why would someone clean their neck in this situation?

Someone would "clean your neck" in a wuxia series as a metaphorical way of preparing for execution or imminent death, not a literal act of hygiene. The phrase is a dramatic warning or threat, suggesting that the person should accept their fate, often because their life is about to be taken—typically by beheading, which is a common method of execution in the genre.

In this context, "clean your neck" is used to emphasize the seriousness of the situation, urging the character to face death with dignity or resignation. It reflects the wuxia tradition where honor, fate, and martial justice play central roles, and characters are expected to meet their end bravely if necessary.

So, "cleaning your neck" is symbolic, indicating readiness for death rather than a physical action.

First point, the message at 1:52 is in Japanese. This is like when after the Islamic State attacked Paris, they posted a message in French.

I remember in 2008 or 2009 when I was in Iraq and had nothing to do but read the news (since I literally did my job, which was to prepare and give intelligence briefings to convoys that drove at night, before my shift even started). There was a news story about a naval exercise that involved the Japanese and Chinese navies, and it was a point of interest that the language they used to communicate was English. So, out of the three languages the Chinese official could have chosen: English, Japanese, and Chinese, they chose Japanese.

This was not unusual. But it just shows how, in making a threat, they were also being respectful to Japan.

Second point, at 2:15: "China wouldn't hesitate to cut off a dirty neck."

It seems obvious from this wuxia story that the purpose of cleaning one's neck is so that if another person's sword encounters that neck, the sword will not get dirty. In that story, everyone complies with the request for them to wash their neck. Unlike what an 'AI' said, it is a physical action.

I was going to say that I failed to find a mention of cleaning one's neck in Chinese drama The Prisoner of Beauty, but just as I had already clicked on Ep 04, I saw in the transcript for Ep 03 that the main male character tells the main female character that her family should wash their necks.

So I'm slightly disappointed that the Australian news staff did not understand that the important word in this threat was "dirty", not "cut". And I'm not watching any more of this video about Black Mirror, because I should not have posted about it, but I cannot stop myself from hitting Publish.

3 times 3 times 3

I said in 2011 to amrayu of SARS-fansubs that my initial failures with causing change meant that the next step was having more discrimination between people, instead of assuming that everyone had about the same ability.

This is me saying that people are stupid.

INSANE: Young Americans Don't Know ANYTHING!

Deleted post

A post I made on my personal weblog, in December 2009. It was a like allegory: a very short story, which I can practically recreate from memory at much lower quality:

A village setting, before fossil-fuel-based technology, so 'medieval' or a typical fantasy setting.

Character 1 or characters, who are strangers, address Character 2, saying something like, "we have come to free your village from the dragon who has been terrorizing it."

Character 2 looks past them, at the peaceful village and fields.

In this analogy, I was Character 1, being upset at Mei, who was character 2, for things like her not talking to me.

I deleted this post at some point after, maybe within a few days, and I think also deleted some other posts that I don't remember. I don't think I deleted the one where I linked to an old post where someone talked about how they hated the word "blog" and implied that most writings in "blogs" were useless; but if no such post exists, then it's because I deleted it.

I wrote this post because by that point, it was possible that Mei knew about that weblog. One could imagine that after I wrote it, Mei could have read it and changed her interactions with me. Me deleting it followed from my conclusion that this had not happened. I don't know if she read it, before I deleted it, and so if she is alive and remembers my existence, this post about it might be the first she has heard of that post.

If I had left up this post, which appeared to be a fictional narrative with no conflict and no resolution, it could have been interpreted as a subtle critique of Mei. I think that, by this point, any possible negative consequences are now unavoidable, and I am, of course, to blame if not deleting this post would have avoided these consequences.