wtfNeedSignUp
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Ironically he is the kind of demographic that the authorities will actually pursue. CPS and local councillors will happily tear down a middle class white family that won't threaten them.
Adolescence - British TV Crime Drama Where 13 Year Old Schoolboy Murders Classmate
- Thread starter Breadbassket
- Start date
-
🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2022
I thought the acting was good but it falls flat with it's message and the pacing is kinda ass. Should've just made it into a movie. Kid has talent though and I hope to see him in better shows or movies.
YourName56
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2023
That's my reason i don't waste my fucking time on this shit. Damn, can we get a good series on this time? Why don't make an series about the extreme inmigrants issues on UK?
The life have more important issues than propaganda bullcrap.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2024
If anyone dared to make a show about the immigrant-related issues in the UK, they'd have to make it elsewhere, and it would be banned in the UK and even talking about it would land your ass in jail.
Multiculturalism at work!
Mister Ferro
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2021
So I was just browsing r/television and they were PRAISING the acting of the white kid.
Finally, Hollywood and the Brits have really cast the perfect actor regardless of race!
/sneed
But it's truly inspirational that this studio decided to race swap from a black migrant to condemn white boys only to launch a new white actors career!
Finally, Hollywood and the Brits have really cast the perfect actor regardless of race!
/sneed
But it's truly inspirational that this studio decided to race swap from a black migrant to condemn white boys only to launch a new white actors career!
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2021
A kind soul over in the discontent thread highlighted a Twitter thread noting that Tender, the charity ready and raring to go with Adolescence educations in schools, is largely tax payer funded and exactly the sort of stuff you would expect.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
It's kind of been mentioned, but the government and the shows proponants keep flip flopping between "it's a documentry" "it's a drama based on a true story" and "it's completely fictional".
And I've heard claims that there's going to be laws passed based on the show. I've seen no confirmation, only clips of Kier saying that it's a documentry.
I don't want to watch it as it sounds like complete shit. But I might be able to bite the bullet and give it a watch with my parents, if they can stomach it.
Unifier of Hispania
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 6, 2024
So it's just another instance of Soyflix being Soyflix and promoting fake outrage to sell a tv show? Sometimes capitalism is just so stupid.
It‘s bizarre how obsessed the streaming service is with teenagers: Skins, Elite, Adolescence, etc. Netflix must be full of pedos. At least this time they are not showing the teens having sex (I hope).
It‘s bizarre how obsessed the streaming service is with teenagers: Skins, Elite, Adolescence, etc. Netflix must be full of pedos. At least this time they are not showing the teens having sex (I hope).
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Pentex
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2020
I've already ragged on the writer for being a reedy dysgenic angloid, but I'll do it again.
He already has the soul of a harem eunuch. He might as well have the balls of one as well (none at all).
Speaking of lack of balls, Jamie's lawyer/solicitor was about as inept as it gets at least if he were American (sure, take blood and strip search my client without a warrant! Sure, I'll let the police question my minor client without raising a peep in opposition! Sure, I'll let a 'psychologist' bait my client into making admissions against his interests!) Ineffective assistance of counsel bordering on flat out malpractice.
Time to preload a counter before giving more thoughts:
Stabbing people is wrong. You shouldn't stab people.
With that out of the way, interestingly, the insertion of 'Andrew Tate, RedPill, manosphere shite' wasn't by Jamie, it was by the dead girl and the black detective's son, which cuts against the establishment talking point of evil white boys. I know the KANGZ like to lay claim to the creation of everything under the yellow sun, but they do have a fixation on manipulative sexual strategies to get and keep women (Iceberg Slim) that predates the 'redpill' probably because their own women are so difficult to deal with.
Next, the term 'incel' has been so overblown and overused that it is practically meaningless, but it does have some underlying presumptions, especially when used by women:
1. That the woman using the term is sexually desirable.
2. That the ability to seduce or arouse sexual desires in any particular woman is a socially good or moral attribute.
3. That the lack of sexual desirablity of a particular man supercedes all other aspects of his character.
4. That a man who is not sexually desirable to a particular woman deserves to suffer social stigma and/or psychological distress.
The only lesson to be taken from Adolescence is that no woman is worth going to prison over, no matter how mad she makes you.
He already has the soul of a harem eunuch. He might as well have the balls of one as well (none at all).
Speaking of lack of balls, Jamie's lawyer/solicitor was about as inept as it gets at least if he were American (sure, take blood and strip search my client without a warrant! Sure, I'll let the police question my minor client without raising a peep in opposition! Sure, I'll let a 'psychologist' bait my client into making admissions against his interests!) Ineffective assistance of counsel bordering on flat out malpractice.
Time to preload a counter before giving more thoughts:
Stabbing people is wrong. You shouldn't stab people.
With that out of the way, interestingly, the insertion of 'Andrew Tate, RedPill, manosphere shite' wasn't by Jamie, it was by the dead girl and the black detective's son, which cuts against the establishment talking point of evil white boys. I know the KANGZ like to lay claim to the creation of everything under the yellow sun, but they do have a fixation on manipulative sexual strategies to get and keep women (Iceberg Slim) that predates the 'redpill' probably because their own women are so difficult to deal with.
Next, the term 'incel' has been so overblown and overused that it is practically meaningless, but it does have some underlying presumptions, especially when used by women:
1. That the woman using the term is sexually desirable.
2. That the ability to seduce or arouse sexual desires in any particular woman is a socially good or moral attribute.
3. That the lack of sexual desirablity of a particular man supercedes all other aspects of his character.
4. That a man who is not sexually desirable to a particular woman deserves to suffer social stigma and/or psychological distress.
The only lesson to be taken from Adolescence is that no woman is worth going to prison over, no matter how mad she makes you.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2018
So while this show is obvious agitprop, I really do wish more of the criticism of it was coming from people who you can tell have actually seen it (or if they have, more than half-remembered it). This point is addressed in the show. The shock factor is supposed to be the idea of a 13 year old expressing these thoughts and frustrations in the first place. It's a central part of the "social media is corrupting young people" message of the show.
If this Jonathan Wang guy thinks the show is accepting the idea of Jamie being an incel at 13, then I'm just left wondering what the fuck he thinks the show is supposed to be about in the first place.
HairyBadger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2024
The premise of the show is that young boys are broken girls.
When you remove father figures from children growing up you end up with maladjusted young adults. Have you seen the black population in the USA?
This TV adaptation is nothing but political psyops. On one hand it is an interpretation of what could happen, on the other it's a comically bad example of trying to remove real life events for dramatic purposes.
Pick one. If true to form then you need to address black and immigrant violence, but you don't, you want to make pretend about boys being coddled seeking a masculine figure.
Put Fathers, or father figures back into their lives, and given have a chance these boys will actually grow up with relatively normal outlooks. Treat them like broken girls and they, through nature, will seek out their own father figures, and you see how that works.
Last edited:
HairyBadger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2024
Boys are not broken Girls.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2022
This is actually the show being realistic. Most of British Law is a joke. Southport Rioters were told by their crown appointed defense to plead guilty and get moths for their rioting without any fighting back. And knowing how the UK has shit where you literally are forced to talk to police, without a lawyer, or else you are written up for obstruction of justice it is likely the whole blood/strip search thing is perfectly legal.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2018
i keep seeing people claiming the murder is based off the murder of those 3 poor girls at the taylor swift dance class.
but just looking over the synopsis, i see very little similarities
has the creator ever stated he based the show off those murders?
but just looking over the synopsis, i see very little similarities
has the creator ever stated he based the show off those murders?
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2021
This is not a father, this is a prop. Just like this young boy is seen as a prop. Just as, despite the wailing, the victim of the crime is a prop. Every single person in this show is a prop held up to paint out a message and nothing makes this clearer than the decisions the show seems to have made in regards to what and who gets focused on episode to episode, and how his father responds to all of it.
A 13 year old boy is taken in and his father, this seemingly good and loving man, folds over like paper in the face of his innocent child getting arrested and pinned for murder. He does not know his son well enough not to have doubts he's a killer but we are made to believe it is the internet, bullying, and manosphere figures like Andrew Tate that radicalized him into committing a brutal act of violence.
So was this a good father, who spent every hour he could helping his child grow into a normal human being, or is Eddie an inattentive piece of shit that believed being a father was buying his child tech and leaving him in his room for hours on end, exposed to who knows what, because dad didn't check in regularly and never bothered to ask his son what he was watching, what he liked, or how he was feeling?
This question is never answered. We are treated to an episode where instead of showcasing the day to day life of this family, because even Dahmer's behaviors come into slightly sharper focus when you learn of how unstable his upbringing had been, we sit the boy down with the woman tasked with wielding the decision of whether or not the 13 year old boy was of 'sound mind' when he killed another human being.
There is no situation where a 13 year old child is not mentally unstable if they choose to take a life. This does not make them innocent but there is no normal, healthy, loved 13 year old killing anything or anyone in anything other than stomping goombas in their newest Mario game.
Stabbing is one of the most intimate acts of murder and I'm to believe that this boy, with his loving family and suburban home life and supportive father figure, with a loving sister and a loving mother, turned on a dime and because a murderous incel-esque woman hater because he had 'one bad day' and killed a girl in his class over a few comments on Instagram?
This boy who, at age 13, has likely dealt with or witnessed teasing, rough-housing, and insults hurled at him or someone else from boys his own age worse than a secretive emoji morse code? Likely from the boys with shittier families, less money, and a more fucked up nest to grow up in? But HE'S the one that kills a girl?
Disregarding that I'm sure I read someone mention they do not show the audience this information and they are assuming that is what is shown on the tapes, you're telling me a loving parent who truly believes they have reared a good kid would lay down and accept that with little to no push back? You're telling me that a mere 13 months later this parent would be willing to say goodbye to their son, possibly forever, over a crime they committed at the age of 13 and just be okay with that? Kiss for the teddy bear's head that's there to replace my prop son, see you after your life sentence. It's been real!
Partners and family members of people who have committed just as if not more egregious crimes when all parties were of age will staunchly defend the version of that person they remember. No matter how much evidence is put in front of them. No matter if they're guilty or not. But dad is content to have his son forever labelled a misogynistic murderer at the age of 13 despite not seeming to believe there was something wrong with him before this all happened?
There is one big, strong driving force throughout the narrative and the hand of punishment.
The child is swiftly taken by armed police in a raid. No one fights back, everyone follows the process. Evidence is presented and his own flesh and blood begins to detach itself from him; there is no push back, no demand for more, no belief that this could have been fabricated if only through the knowledge of the fabric of this child's basic morality. The system has spoken. He is kept away from his friends and his family. No one bats an eye, this is fair treatment for the child. He is subjected to verbal sparring with an adult he clearly distrusts, as though he hadn't tearfully claimed innocence in the first episode, as though all of his experiences leading up to the murder don't all boil down to nonsensical but typical teenage angst and sexual interactions over the internet.
But it is atypical for his age. He is 13. He is still a child. It does not matter that the number itself ends in a teen. Legally, he is an adult at 18. He can drink 15 (with adult supervision), and even the youth detention facilities are meant for youth younger than 15.
No one bats an eye that 13 year old CHILDREN were exchanging porn of themselves over the internet. That they are familiar with the application of terms like incel, with pimps like Andrew Tate. That their immediate thought when wanting to intimidate a girl is not to loudly laugh at her hair the following Monday in class but to get a knife and scare her into submission. No one cares that these children are behaving like 15-18 year olds on Euphoria; everyone acts like any of this is normal for a child, let alone an entire group of children raised by different families in different homes.
Who cares that this child is a victim of negligence and a societal disinterest in maintaining the innocence of his youth? Accept that he and his peers are all under the legal drinking age, driving age, even the legal age of consent, and demonize him as you would a 18 year old in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of society. He is the problem, this sprout of a human being is the poison in the soil. We do not believe him capable of most acts befitting an adult but murder? Just another Friday for Jamie.
The last we hear of him, he submits to the processes churning around him and his family submit right along side him, as if moved by the hands of fate. From the moment he was apprehended it was decreed: Jamie will be punished. No matter the reasons, no matter the cause, no matter the actual factual evidence. It does not matter what the evidence is, it does not matter what circumstances led to this: this 13 year old boy was seemingly groomed into murderous intent over the course of who knows how many years, despite the loving family, the comfortable home, the picture perfect frame to his unbecoming monstruous portrait, and that is normal.
Let the hand of punishment fall where it must. Let the law do as it deems fit. Ignore the people behind the curtain and everything else going wrong. Look at this 13 year old boy and see how evil he is. Doesn't that scare you? You wouldn't want this hand hovering over your son, would you? Maybe if you cut of access to the internet. A little bit here and there, just to keep your child safer. Who knows what they're learning when you're not watching? Certainly not you. Let the hand of punishment guide you. When has acting solely out of paranoia ever steered you wrong?
A 13 year old boy is taken in and his father, this seemingly good and loving man, folds over like paper in the face of his innocent child getting arrested and pinned for murder. He does not know his son well enough not to have doubts he's a killer but we are made to believe it is the internet, bullying, and manosphere figures like Andrew Tate that radicalized him into committing a brutal act of violence.
So was this a good father, who spent every hour he could helping his child grow into a normal human being, or is Eddie an inattentive piece of shit that believed being a father was buying his child tech and leaving him in his room for hours on end, exposed to who knows what, because dad didn't check in regularly and never bothered to ask his son what he was watching, what he liked, or how he was feeling?
This question is never answered. We are treated to an episode where instead of showcasing the day to day life of this family, because even Dahmer's behaviors come into slightly sharper focus when you learn of how unstable his upbringing had been, we sit the boy down with the woman tasked with wielding the decision of whether or not the 13 year old boy was of 'sound mind' when he killed another human being.
There is no situation where a 13 year old child is not mentally unstable if they choose to take a life. This does not make them innocent but there is no normal, healthy, loved 13 year old killing anything or anyone in anything other than stomping goombas in their newest Mario game.
Stabbing is one of the most intimate acts of murder and I'm to believe that this boy, with his loving family and suburban home life and supportive father figure, with a loving sister and a loving mother, turned on a dime and because a murderous incel-esque woman hater because he had 'one bad day' and killed a girl in his class over a few comments on Instagram?
This boy who, at age 13, has likely dealt with or witnessed teasing, rough-housing, and insults hurled at him or someone else from boys his own age worse than a secretive emoji morse code? Likely from the boys with shittier families, less money, and a more fucked up nest to grow up in? But HE'S the one that kills a girl?
Disregarding that I'm sure I read someone mention they do not show the audience this information and they are assuming that is what is shown on the tapes, you're telling me a loving parent who truly believes they have reared a good kid would lay down and accept that with little to no push back? You're telling me that a mere 13 months later this parent would be willing to say goodbye to their son, possibly forever, over a crime they committed at the age of 13 and just be okay with that? Kiss for the teddy bear's head that's there to replace my prop son, see you after your life sentence. It's been real!
Partners and family members of people who have committed just as if not more egregious crimes when all parties were of age will staunchly defend the version of that person they remember. No matter how much evidence is put in front of them. No matter if they're guilty or not. But dad is content to have his son forever labelled a misogynistic murderer at the age of 13 despite not seeming to believe there was something wrong with him before this all happened?
There is one big, strong driving force throughout the narrative and the hand of punishment.
The child is swiftly taken by armed police in a raid. No one fights back, everyone follows the process. Evidence is presented and his own flesh and blood begins to detach itself from him; there is no push back, no demand for more, no belief that this could have been fabricated if only through the knowledge of the fabric of this child's basic morality. The system has spoken. He is kept away from his friends and his family. No one bats an eye, this is fair treatment for the child. He is subjected to verbal sparring with an adult he clearly distrusts, as though he hadn't tearfully claimed innocence in the first episode, as though all of his experiences leading up to the murder don't all boil down to nonsensical but typical teenage angst and sexual interactions over the internet.
But it is atypical for his age. He is 13. He is still a child. It does not matter that the number itself ends in a teen. Legally, he is an adult at 18. He can drink 15 (with adult supervision), and even the youth detention facilities are meant for youth younger than 15.
No one bats an eye that 13 year old CHILDREN were exchanging porn of themselves over the internet. That they are familiar with the application of terms like incel, with pimps like Andrew Tate. That their immediate thought when wanting to intimidate a girl is not to loudly laugh at her hair the following Monday in class but to get a knife and scare her into submission. No one cares that these children are behaving like 15-18 year olds on Euphoria; everyone acts like any of this is normal for a child, let alone an entire group of children raised by different families in different homes.
Who cares that this child is a victim of negligence and a societal disinterest in maintaining the innocence of his youth? Accept that he and his peers are all under the legal drinking age, driving age, even the legal age of consent, and demonize him as you would a 18 year old in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of society. He is the problem, this sprout of a human being is the poison in the soil. We do not believe him capable of most acts befitting an adult but murder? Just another Friday for Jamie.
The last we hear of him, he submits to the processes churning around him and his family submit right along side him, as if moved by the hands of fate. From the moment he was apprehended it was decreed: Jamie will be punished. No matter the reasons, no matter the cause, no matter the actual factual evidence. It does not matter what the evidence is, it does not matter what circumstances led to this: this 13 year old boy was seemingly groomed into murderous intent over the course of who knows how many years, despite the loving family, the comfortable home, the picture perfect frame to his unbecoming monstruous portrait, and that is normal.
Let the hand of punishment fall where it must. Let the law do as it deems fit. Ignore the people behind the curtain and everything else going wrong. Look at this 13 year old boy and see how evil he is. Doesn't that scare you? You wouldn't want this hand hovering over your son, would you? Maybe if you cut of access to the internet. A little bit here and there, just to keep your child safer. Who knows what they're learning when you're not watching? Certainly not you. Let the hand of punishment guide you. When has acting solely out of paranoia ever steered you wrong?
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
You know I am late to this post, but this kind of shit has been going on for ages.
""Teen"" drama and comedy has held losing your virginity as early as possible as not only a good thing but a requirement to be a good person for decades.
We have even had family guy episodes outright encouraging teen sex with "JUST HECKIN USE A CONDOM" shit. We wonder why so many young people (younger every year mind you) are hyper-obsessed with sex, or end up watching porn at an early age, when they are bombarded with demands to be sexually active. It doesn't help that the societal demand for sexual activity has also replaced the demand for marriage and raising children.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2024
From shows I remember as a kid, the most "raunchy" thing was just being in a relationship and holding hands, there was barely any kissing in teen shows. Even something like Daria, they had a whole season to decide if she was ready for sex and at the end, her resolution was that she accepts she's not ready, they didn't treat sex as the ultimate goal of teen relationship.
Meanwhile just a few years later, you got stuff like Skins where every character does drugs, some hardcore drugs, every teen is riddled with mental issues, they're sexpests, they get into both petty and organized crime and none of it is treated as vicious, it's just fun teen adventures. In a lot of western shows, vice is never shown as bad, just "experimenting."
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2017
The majority of therapists, psychologists, and teachers today are women and they think they are, unfortunately.