To Pokimane: Weird Sex Post

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

To Pokimane, pt 6

I realized a few days ago that even though I will not check Greta Thunberg's Chirp Club account, I can check her Instagram account. I didn't want to do this in case I was wrong, and you do know me, since I felt me checking Greta Thunberg's Instagram account would make you less happy.

I will watch your Twitch stream "kinda moody td but i have an hour before my meeting!! hello!!" but I don't think I will learn anything from it. And so I felt justified in procrastinating. Based on the title and the timing of this stream, I felt that if you do know me, it wouldn't make you less happy if I started checking Greta's Instagram account, so I am now doing that as well as checking Malala's Instagram account.

The reasoning is that if I check Greta's Instagram account, or do anything else (like I had been thinking of checking climate trends, and decided against it for the same reason), then it's like I'm trying to get Greta to share the idea. Even if I'm not trying to get you to share the idea, I didn't want to imply that I was just trying to 'use' you by convincing you to share the idea, even if that might in fact be the case.

Now I feel like, if I am wrong and you do know me, then you are convinced that you will not share the idea and that it's only a matter of time before I stop paying attention to you, and that it would be better for that to happen sooner rather than later.

By checking Greta's Instagram account, I am removing any suggestion that it might be better for the world if I stopped paying attention to you.

It seems that Greta might only, like, repost things from other people. I did not even know this was possible with Instagram, but when I clicked on her most recent three posts, they all redirected to posts by other people. It appeared the only way to know this for a particular post was to click on it, since the URL when mousing over each post still included her username @gretathunberg, and it only changed to a different username when loading the post in a new tab.

Instagram frequently redirects to a login page so I am forced to use Picuki to check a profile more than once per day, and there doesn't appear to be any way in Picuki to check who the author of a post was. So I am just assuming Greta only reposts things, based on incomplete information.

So, her second-most-recent post is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Alex_Pretti#Shooting.

Law enforcement in the US shooting unarmed people is a topic that I am familiar with. Most people didn't care that the police shot Dzhokhar Tsarnaev many times when he was getting out of the boat, which led to uncertainty about whether he would die and then uncertainty about whether he would be able to speak again as he had been shot in the throat. And most people also didn't care when an acquaintance of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother was fatally shot by law enforcement while wielding a plastic broom as a weapon.

So I just thought of a poll that could be interesting: "Would you rather that ICE reduce its anti-immigration raids by 50%, or that the Border Patrol agents who shot a nurse 10 times in 5 seconds while he lay on the ground go to prison?"

It seems doubtful that the agents who made poor decisions that led to someone's death will be punished. But do people really care whether the agents are punished?

Unplanned confession

To Imane, aka Pokimane, again. A normal person makes conclusions based on evidence. One piece of evidence that I use to conclude that you don't know me is the video, "get to know me pt 2" that you posted on TikTok and Instagram. It let me know how to pronounce your name (silent 'e'), but you also stated, "i plan for my next partner to be my husband".

I try to act in a way that discourages the possibility from occurring, but if I had to get married to get people to use the idea, I would do it. It just makes sense.

I feel that I am, at this moment, someone who still cares about certain people. Like the person Kate mentioned on this site, who seems to have lost her first Chirp Club account and made a second account on which her only activity was to message a male adult content creator, and whom I haven't tried to email in 13 years. She only emailed me once, in Dec 2010, after the events I mentioned before and was going to say more about later in this post. She might not have thought of me in years; despite the excuse of not being a native English speaker, the language mistakes on her second post on her first account suggest she might not have understood this idea, if she read my emails about it; and yet I would like to be able to say, like a character in the film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as translated for the original DVD, "I would rather be a ghost, drifting by your side as a condemned soul, than enter heaven without you."

About the post titled "Entropy": https://daughterofankh.blogspot.com/2010/12

I checked the date, for science, via chat logs. The night that I stayed outside the public library was Dec 8 to 9, so 12:47 on Dec 10 was well into the next day, when I was at a hotel.

I would, of course, post the chat logs if it was relevant. These ones would not contain anything particularly embarrassing. I feel like Mei is someone who values the truth, and benefit to the world, over any potential embarrassment to herself.

According to (a) Wikipedia (editor), Napoleon III's last words when he died in 1873 were, ' "Isn't it true that we weren't cowards at Sedan?", directed at Henri Conneau, his attendant who fought in the battle alongside him.'

In what in fact turns out to be a footnote in the Book of Five Rings, which reveals that this version which I happened to have bookmarked must have been the same edition that I read years ago, someone who was less famous than the author of that book is quoted as having wrote,

The Way of the warrior is death. This means choosing death whenever there is a choice between life and death. It means nothing more than this. It means to see things through, being resolved. Sayings like "To die with your intention unrealized is to die uselessly", and so on, are from the weak Kyoto, Osaka Bushido. They are unresolved as to whether to keep to their original plan when faced with the choice of life and death.

For science, I checked my chat logs from the day when I was at the library, and am pasting basically the last page of the logs here:

(03:32:35 PM) Lillium: i'd get annoyed, probably be intolerable and we'd never talk again?  How many times do I have to say I'm not interested in a relationship? At all.
(03:32:55 PM) Misaki: mm that'd be fine, i still want to
(03:33:38 PM) Lillium: If you already know the result, then there isn't much point.
(03:34:02 PM) Misaki: maybe i just want sex!
(03:34:54 PM) Lillium: Then why ask me. Not like there arn't plenty of people who don't require travel time. And are probably far more willing.
(03:35:31 PM) Misaki: but they aren't you, so~
(03:42:41 PM) Lillium: ... Fake blizzard emails about cata beta invite. Hmm
(03:42:46 PM) Lillium: China missed the memo I guess.
(03:43:58 PM) Lillium: anyways~ off for now.
(03:44:07 PM) Misaki: address~
(03:44:39 PM) Lillium: No -_-;
(07:34:44 PM) Misaki: library is closing, need address~
(07:34:44 PM) Message could not be sent because the user is offline:
(07:34:44 PM) library is closing, need address~
(07:34:55 PM) Misaki: test
(07:34:55 PM) Message could not be sent because the user is offline:
(07:34:55 PM) test
(07:35:04 PM) Misaki: test
(07:35:04 PM) Message could not be sent because the user is offline:
(07:35:04 PM) test
(07:35:13 PM) lyciena@hotmail.com is now known as a.

System log for account r[redacted]@yahoo.com (msn) connected at Thu 09 Dec 2010 10:13:58 AM PST
---- +++ r[redacted]@yahoo.com signed on @ 12/09/2010 10:13:58 AM ----
---- Misaki (r[redacted]@yahoo.com) changed status from Offline to Available @ 12/09/2010 10:13:58 AM ----
---- Lillium (l[redacted]@hotmail.com) changed status from Offline to Available @ 12/09/2010 01:15:52 PM ----
---- Misaki (r[redacted]@yahoo.com) changed status from Available to Away @ 12/09/2010 07:34:58 PM ----
---- Misaki (r[redacted]@yahoo.com) changed status from Away to Available @ 12/09/2010 07:35:02 PM ----
---- +++ r[redacted]@yahoo.com signed off @ 12/09/2010 07:35:06 PM ----

So what would have happened if I had sent a message earlier in those four hours, before the library closed? Would I have sent an email like, "I am staying outside the library again", and then died? After I did send a message, four hours later, when it was already cold and dark, did not doing this make me a coward? Am I someone who would take an action most likely to lead to someone being happy, even if I died, or am I only willing to appear to risk death as a future possibility that can still be averted?

One could make a joke about how this is a question I don't know the answer to.

Also, of course, one could speculate that I tricked Mei into not agreeing to meet me, in order to benefit Kate. But what if that isn't true?

狂った真実

Clip in Livestream Fail: popular male streamer reads a comment in chat from a female username, "your shirt makes me feel so hot can you undo one of the buttons". Streamer says, "yeah you are getting permabanned" and waves to the camera while banning the chatter.

Polzie's two rogue videos, made before Gegon's first PvP video, and parodied by the last World of Roguecraft video:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1g80EUBDJr54tYKqhjW1HEBjHPlicUw14

I spent a while trying to fix the first one a little, making slight volume adjustments to the louder songs and waiting two hours for a 1080p transcode to finish, and then I uploaded it to YouTube but there's a several-hour processing delay because of all the 4K videos people upload and I don't even know if the songs will be muted. So I'm just linking the original files.

(I probably only watched the World of Roguecraft videos once, and am not watching them again now, but from the first one, Episode 3, the quote "Warlocks can't beat warriors either": compare to Polzie's warlock PvP video where she says that warriors are the weakest 1v1 class and defeats several warriors.)

Females are more likely to be offended by someone saying they are attracted to the female. This is, to some degree, a problem created by itself, just like how bad words are only bad because people know that they are bad. There might be males who feel they are just as upset when a female says she is attracted to the male, but because most people don't think it's wrong for a female to say this, a male who encounters this does not have to deal with the aspect of "someone doing something that they should know is wrong".

And so, especially when using a public communication method, I am careful about whether I imply that I like you, or about any suggestion that I think that you might like me.

Having started to stalk your TikTok page, I have watched a number of your recent videos. These reveal things about your life, attitudes, and activities that might not come up during a typical stream. I would say that I am critical of some things. But it's possible that the things I criticize are part of why you are popular. The common perception is that TikTok is filled with things that are unimportant, including dances to snippets of songs, and this perception would not exist if it were not true. Short videos about topics that people consider to be serious do not get as much attention as short videos that do not require a viewer to know anything that isn't contained within the video.

And if you weren't popular, I wouldn't have learned that you existed and tried to contact you. If you acted in a way I couldn't criticize, maybe you never would have become popular enough as a streamer to put off continuing your engineering degree.

For example: I deleted a few temporary files to free up memory for the video I was transcoding into a memory-based filesystem, including a copy of this video, by the dance group Oh Hi Yo (which sounds like the pronunciation of Japanese おはよう ohayou, meaning "good morning", which is probably intended as Japan is viewed positively in Taiwan). That video only has 10k views, not a lot. But a video from the same day, uploaded by the actual group 歐嗨呦OhHiYo on their YouTube account, has only 520 views, and the account only has 8k subscribers.

I might say, "what these people choose to do as friends and the attitudes that it appears they might have, seem better than what you, Pokimane, and your friends do". But their account has 8k subs. Your account has over 6 million.

Your Chirp Club like count has been creeping up today and I am just waiting for you to say something there. I don't really have a point with this post and I was thinking earlier that it's like the posts here from 2013~2019 or whatever that I unpublished. It's just sort of about a thing which could be "common knowledge" in the game-theory sense, but might not be purely because of people being stupid, and I might have decided to say something simply because of your like count going up, with no other way for me to indicate that I had noticed this.

Also, a few days ago I read about the two generals problem (which is relevant to "common knowledge") and you know what, I think it's poorly defined. It mentions that it's relevant for TCP (protocol), and in general it's probably a useful problem to think about, but what I thought:

If the generals keep sending the message, "I'll attack if I know that you're going to attack and that you received this message", then it makes sense that unlimited messages don't help, because each message includes the "if".

Whereas if one of them sends the message, "I will attack if I receive confirmation that you received this message", and the other replies with the exact same message, then both of them will know what the other is doing after a few replies. As an intermediate step, after the first reply, the first general knows he or she will attack while being uncertain whether the second general will receive the second reply and therefore commit to the attack, but it doesn't seem like a flaw in the decision-making process. Either the default without further communication after a certain point is to attack, or the default is to not attack; there has to be a default action, and the problem setup does not point to a default of 'attacking' being worse than 'not attacking'.

People, Events, Ideas

To Pokimane, who won't read this. On a scale of 1 to 5, this post has an importance of 1.

Since my browser is old, I can't access TikTok directly. I am using Tikvib, and it appears that you unpinned the GRWM in French video that you had pinned yesterday.

I was reminded of the quote, "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." A discussion about the origin on Eleanor Roosevelt's Wikiquote. The accuracy of the statement is debatable; I think there is a definite tendency for females to discuss 'people' more, or at least people they know, aka gossip. And females are just as smart as males.

Anyway, I noticed that your second YouTube account, @PokimaneToo, is similar to the Black Mirror episode Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too. And it came out a few months before you created the account. No idea whether it was an influence, but that is basically my excuse to link to an interview of Miley Cyrus, who acted in that episode. One of the videos I sent to Sherine in 2013 used a song by Miley Cyrus; it's deleted, but this is from the same day. From the interview:

If she’s being honest, Cyrus thinks adoption is a great option and while she’s got no beef with people who want to have children, it’s just not a priority in her life. “For me I don’t just really think about marriage and things like this anymore… I follow a lot of feminists online and it’s kind of like, how many men do you ask if they are going to get married or have kids,” she said. “I’m sure maybe you do want to buy into Jonas Brothers and things like that but I don’t think that many men feel the pressure to have kids and to get married.”

I just want to acknowledge this viewpoint. Some people think there is a crisis of low birthrates, but other people think that low birthrates is a good thing.

No one knows the future of this whole 'intelligence' experiment. I'm hesitant to say 'sentience' because of the recent evidence that birds use grammar. Maybe even with this idea, intelligence is something that will just fade out over millions of years. Or humans will stay intelligent, but people will just not have children. (I have not read the comments on the post I made on this topic.)

So there is no real logic on whether, in 500 years, it would be better for 100 million humans to be alive at the same time or 10 billion humans. People have opinions, but aren't likely to be able to change other people's opinions.

I just want to point out that not only do people not ask males when they are going to get married and have children, they do not even concern themselves with whether males are going to be alive in the future, or if they will die while fighting in a war. Most people who are dead cannot have children; would it be fair for a reporter to interview a Ukrainian male who was walking along the street when he was abducted and forced into the army, and ask him when he plans to have children?

In late 2012, my oldest brother said he considered me to have similarities to the subject of a story about a male professor, like 70 years old, who was caught trying to smuggle drugs out of a South American country. It was at the like behest of someone who claimed to be a certain female model, who said they were being coerced by criminals. I don't remember her name, but I do know that I have photos of her. In the story, the professor alluded to sacrifices that he had made, and when the reporter asked him to elaborate, he directed the reporter's attention to the fact that he was not married and did not have children. This interaction revealed that the reporter assumed, like many other people might assume, that the professor not having children was because he didn't want children.

If his colleagues had said to him, 30 years earlier, "you should stop working so hard and find someone to marry", maybe he would have.

So, really, I think it's similar to the situation of the poll that I suggested you make, about choosing a gender to be treated worse. Which gender that people think is treated worse is probably a less accurate indicator of the truth, than which gender people would choose to be treated worse, because people often think inaccurately about things, are rewarded for thinking inaccurately, and act and say things which increase the likelihood that other people will think inaccurately as well (like not correcting falsehoods, but just changing the subject).

Also, unrelated

Poll: "Can people who think that opposite genders can be be friends without any problems, be friends with people who don't think that?"

I just thought of that from your second pinned TikTok video, about your gifts to your friends, and how the party would not have worked as well if males were present.

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: