"The Internet Isn't Real and You Are Mentally Ill"

[anthony]

Internet fulfills 85% of my need to socialize. Talking to people in text is fulfilling and has its own qualities and dynamics. With girls, it removes muh dick from the equation. Some guys in /ourthing/ tend to behave and talk in a way that no one does irl (in real life) and this is where it becomes clear that the internet is real life, because you can't stand it. The purpose of these kinds of sites is to fulfill a need to have intellectual conversations and camaraderie, but in extremist circles you get a relatively high percentage of appalling, antisocial people who are always antagonistic and completely unreasonable, or just too deep in their character acting and 'content.' I don't do content, I'm not here to entertain anybody, I'm more simulating real life.

I don't need to be friends with everyone, but this kind of antisocial attitude is a very serious problem. There's a certain kind of person who naturally is hard to get along with who through the internet can actually get formed thoughts across that they couldn't irl. That's a good thing. There are also people who could be civil and stable who are just led into extremely disagreeable patterns of behaviour. Being pointed and difficult can incidentally come with being a strong character. Then we get weak characters observing and deciding that's what it means to be cool.

[Manjiro Sano]

The "internet isnt real life" statement is of course technically true but the sentiment behind it is completely false.

I think the internet is best thought of as an alternate dimension we navigate and deliberately connect to our real lives to varying degrees. The majority of people, and supermajority of influential people, have massively connected their real lives with the internet, and as such whatever happens on the internet deeply affects their physical lives. At this point almost all cultural and intellectual life occurs on the internet, even people who do not interact with such spaces are consumers of the people who do, it's all downstream of here, to say it doesn't matter is moronic.

The sentiment behind "the internet isn't real life" is partially some millennials who think some other mythical group of normal-one-havers, who go to work and watch TV and avoid the internet, are more "real" than they are, though I don't think this group actually exists to any significant size anymore. I think the other half of this sentiment is the experience of the innumerable number of small anon accounts and lurkers, totally separated from their personal lives its effectively a time sink which has no consequence at all to their personal lives in comparison to similar in-person activities.

[Hamamelis]

I haven't read OP, but the internet is very much real life: You are staring at a glorified lamp, in real life, exchanging text and pictures with other guys who stare at lamps. If you get agitated at the flickering of the lamp, that's on you.

Internet fulfills 85% of my need to socialize. ...

I like that I can learn stuff on the internet and exchange thoughts with likeminded guys. It gives me a feeling of belonging in a weird way, and lessens both my ideological isolation and my intellectual understimulation. However, I have maybe one interaction a fortnight on average with each of my "internet friends", and when I do, it's an exchange of a few sentences over the course of a couple of hours. That does not feel like socialisation at all, and I don't see how it could. I feel much more socially connected to the very few friends I have that I can actually meet, even if I can not reveal my power level and can barely talk about anything I find interesting with them. I wish it were different, but I don't see how sitting in front of your computer can satisfy your need for company.

[Datacop]

The internet is real life because the way you act online is how you are irl. The whole "on the World Wide Web I can be anybody I want" shit is trannycore, most people can ONLY be themselves even if they tried. If you're an effete pushover you'll come off as a faggot on the internet even if you're larping as Achilles of Phthia on the bird app (not referencing anyone in particular). The lack of real-world material interference means spiritual weakness is all the more profound.
And an aside: if you feel the need to "hide your power level" around your irl friends you either a) don't have any real friends, or b) aren't actually that politically motivated

[JohnnyRomero]

Internet fulfills 85% of my need to socialize. Talking to people in text is fulfilling and has its own qualities and dynamics. With girls, it removes muh dick from the equation. Some guys in /ourthing/ tend to behave and talk in a way that no one does irl (in real life) and this is where it becomes clear that the internet is real life, because you can't stand it. The purpose of these kinds of sites is to fulfill a need to have intellectual conversations and camaraderie, but in extremist circles you get a relatively high percentage of appalling, antisocial people who are always antagonistic and completely unreasonable, or just too deep in their character acting and 'content.' I don't do content, I'm not here to entertain anybody, I'm more simulating real life.

I like the intellectual aspect of forums like these, and I enjoy the ability for the Internet to help me keep in touch with friends, but I find that people are quite universally much more tolerable and enjoyable to be around in person than through the Internet. I think that communicating only through text and removing live speech and body language from the equation disrupts things and makes the flow a bit janky and distorted.

[PIGSAW]

The Internet is Real and I am Mentally Ill

The title of this thread is an old post by Niccolo Salo, founder of "Salo Forum", which many of you are acquainted with. I intend to dissect this notion, so common among Millennials, but also younger people from what I've seen, that "the internet is not real life" and therefore its significance is incommensurable.

Probably the worst thing Gen X - Millennials have done, but faillennials especially since they were (discounting Xennials, who tend to do it more often due to generational insecurity) born online. I consider this to be a form of race traitorism, trying to limp back into normalfaggotry (something that if you are in this position, has long since been denied to you) and "beg for forgiveness" from the great (imagined) Normal One Havers (fake & gay).

The second point still holds weight for me, I can't think of a disagreement, but I think it betrays a barbaric perspective. The first point is something I am less confident about after prolonged internet usage. It is fairly easy for a moderately skilled individual to get extensive personal information about you, especially if you are a normal social media user. I suspect this is more true in the present day than ever before.

This is actually not true. Back in tha days of GeoCities n' Angelfire Boomers (as well as many younger people, because they'd set the tone) would post their name, home address with phone number, sometimes photos of themselves... I've never seen more reckless posting (Boomers generally are king of this, even now), but the zenith of doxing was probably around Web 2.0 (mid to late '00s), mainly because Google had not yet become "woke" (completely FUBAR). In Web 2.0 it was easier to dox people because of unprecedented accuracy in search results combined with emerging social media sites with many people adopting consistent usernames or other trackable information. Technically, you're probably right that there is far more personal information online now, but my point is that after Google got ZOG'd it destroyed search result accuracy (I know there are other search engines, there have been forever, but I believe Google was actually able to damage search results for everyone due to their dominion of the web), meaning all that personal information exists online the way it does 'in reality'— as completely decentralized information, unlike in the past, where simply spelling someone's username properly in Google would get you an itemized rollout of nearly their entire internet history.

This is also why ZOG (? Big Troon??) is trying to take out Kiwi Farms (a website that I hate, and I hope the troons destroy) because it is essentially the last pillar of Web 2.0 user information repositories, like Encyclopedia Dramatica before it.

There are a few things that happen online which, when described in real life, tend to provoke a response equivalent to Niccolo's assertion. People say vitriolic things to you out of nowhere, insult you in a way they would never act in real life, make totally baseless accusations and get away with it. There are lots of awful webcomics summarizing this. Anonymity Makes People Assholes. This simply isn't that accurate. People also do this in real life and get away with it, especially if the target is generally disliked by a community.

[Sauce]

Penny-Arcade stays losing, they were wrong then and they're wrong now.

There is the phenomenon of "ghosting". You are friends with so and so for a time, seem to be getting along with them, think you treat them well, and then you are "ghosted" by them. They just avoid you altogether, cut you off, and later you learn they have been mocking you to strangers. This happened to me in High School, a male friend group did this to me in entire, and when I tried to confront one of them we got into a fistfight. I was never given an explanation.

That's awesome, I hope you won.

The most significant difference for me is stalking, or voyeurism if you want. It is possible to stalk someone online with ease and to a degree that is impossible in real life. It would require the skill of a private eye, a federal official. Any old schmuck can do it, and in fact several of them may be doing it to the same person at once without being aware of the others, as if they were all living in the same house across the street from their object of interest and looking through the same windows with binoculars every day.

Voyeurism is something I've noticed myself. It seems to me the internet does transfer things from real life, as you say, though without modifcation to the wider culture their negative effects become even worse. Stalking and disgusting levels of privacy violation, both of public and private or random individuals, is going to continue to reach new depths, the latest being the technology now to fake the likeness of any person who has uploaded excessive data related to themselves to the internet. 

Gang-stalking really is the high art of the internet (soon to become better through deepfakes as pointed out), CatWorld running perfectly. Gold eyes in darkness observing and outnumbering the terrified normalfag from the shadows. Bliss.

The refrain that the internet isn't real is one of those things that's true but destroyed by misuse and association. The internet is very much a potent unreality device in the hands of most people outside of our tiny circles,

I agree with the sentiment but you have the details backwards— the internet is meant to be an unreality device, and the cats are meant to run it. It's a tool for controlling the masses; taste making. The reason ZOG wants (needs) to bust it up is because no one else was supposed to have a tool like this.

I think the internet is best thought of as an alternate dimension we navigate and deliberately connect to our real lives to varying degrees.

I will never concede to the point that "the Internet is not real" simply because if it "isn't" therefore shouldn't exist I would probably be not even half as based as I am now. The internet has saved millions of lives from the clutches of conformity and mediocrity. I have learnt so much from the internet. Thank you internet.

Thank you internet.

I don't need to be friends with everyone, but this kind of antisocial attitude is a very serious problem. There's a certain kind of person who naturally is hard to get along with who through the internet can actually get formed thoughts across that they couldn't irl. That's a good thing. There are also people who could be civil and stable who are just led into extremely disagreeable patterns of behaviour. Being pointed and difficult can incidentally come with being a strong character. Then we get weak characters observing and deciding that's what it means to be cool.

This is an excellent point, one I'm very familiar with. The internet is CatWorld for a reason, it is a "safe space" for cats— you will find people in the Wired you simply cannot otherwise, because they are too obscure for one reason or many. This is one of the internet's greatest features— to be able to interact with the fragile, retarded, difficult, lost, insane.. who in meatspace cannot be spoken to "in their language".

Why should they change for the world which hates them? This is their world, one of smoke & mirrors.

The sentiment behind "the internet isn't real life" is partially some millennials who think some other mythical group of normal-one-havers, who go to work and watch TV and avoid the internet, are more "real" than they are, though I don't think this group actually exists to any significant size anymore. I think the other half of this sentiment is the experience of the innumerable number of small anon accounts and lurkers, totally separated from their personal lives its effectively a time sink which has no consequence at all to their personal lives in comparison to similar in-person activities.

The Failed Normalfag, or worse— the Repentant Netizen, is the bane of CatWorld.

However, I have maybe one interaction a fortnight on average with each of my "internet friends", and when I do, it's an exchange of a few sentences over the course of a couple of hours. That does not feel like socialisation at all, and I don't see how it could. I feel much more socially connected to the very few friends I have that I can actually meet, even if I can not reveal my power level and can barely talk about anything I find interesting with them. I wish it were different, but I don't see how sitting in front of your computer can satisfy your need for company.

I like the intellectual aspect of forums like these, and I enjoy the ability for the Internet to help me keep in touch with friends, but I find that people are quite universally much more tolerable and enjoyable to be around in person than through the Internet. I think that communicating only through text and removing live speech and body language from the equation disrupts things and makes the flow a bit janky and distorted.

Both of these points are bizarre, further proof Zoomers are older than Millennials (somehow). These are descriptions of using the internet the way someone 45-60 uses it (like your parents or mine, Gen X - Boomer). "Communicating only through text"? I've used voice systems since I was 12 or 13, also, have you never had a cellphone? I talked to my friends in high school on a (white) LG Chocolate all the time (due to people often not living that close to each other) it was no different to move from that to Xbox Live, Ventrilo, or in-game voice when available (Valve/Steam). I don't disagree that interacting with people as intangible (and incomplete) clouds of information is different, but I would argue it's purer:

The internet is real life because the way you act online is how you are irl. The whole "on the World Wide Web I can be anybody I want" shit is trannycore, most people can ONLY be themselves even if they tried. If you're an effete pushover you'll come off as a faggot on the internet even if you're larping as Achilles of Phthia on the bird app (not referencing anyone in particular). The lack of real-world material interference means spiritual weakness is all the more profound.
And an aside: if you feel the need to "hide your power level" around your irl friends you either a) don't have any real friends, or b) aren't actually that politically motivated

Anyway, Datacop is right. There is no separation— account, avatar, and posting physiognomy have been present for the entire history of the internet, and only become more acute as these things became more detailed.

[Bransle]

Niccolo Salo is remembered because he got a bit of online fame by creating and moderating an online forum, as well as a relatively popular online twitter account. He used this online notoriety to launch an online bussiness: a lucrative online publication on an online platform (substack) in which he interviews different online personalities known for numerous online projects, such as online podcasts or online journalism, and talks about different topics he read online as well as the lattest trends in online discourse, and a great appreciation for online dumb humor and online memes. You can follow him on twitter, where his pinned tweet was: "daily reminder that the internet is not real and you're all mentally ill".

If you spend time on something, it's real life.

[Eckart]

"The internet is not real" is just as retarded of a take as "The internet is the revolution"

The internet has the potential to be the most sophisticated tool for thought control every envisioned. Everything you do on it is visible in general.
It is also more centralized than ever before. As soon as an organic, dangerous movement grows beyond a certain threshold, it can be censored with relatively little effort. This has been shown again and again, yet the new generation of renegade "intellectuals" don't even bother to host their work on their own servers anymore but instead write on their faggy substack blogs. Not that it would make a huge difference, since the DNS system is completely centralized anyway, but it just shows how little they think about the medium they use for exchange.

Roosh once noticed something during the time he wanted to organize PUA meetups which stuck with me. To paraphrase:
"As long as I stayed on the internet, they didn't care that much. But as soon as I announced to want to meet offline (where they can't see), they came after me from all angles." And that was for rather harmless PUA bullshit.

Every thinking individual who lived through the COVID ordeal and is not frightened at the thought of an ever increasing importance of the internet for public consciouness is extremely naiv. With the advent of the more sophisticated language models, it will be more easy than ever to engineer consent. Most people will not be able to spot the difference between bot comments/posts and a real person.

To rely solely on the internet for social connections and communication in general is extremely dangerous.

[Guest]

Everything you do on it is visible in general.

Tor/i2p solve this on a per-client basis, even on clearnet sites (although you need an exit bridge with i2p)

It is also more centralized than ever before. As soon as an organic, dangerous movement grows beyond a certain threshold, it can be censored with relatively little effort.

This has been shown again and again, yet the new generation of renegade "intellectuals" don't even bother to host their work on their own servers anymore but instead write on their faggy substack blogs. [...] but it just shows how little they think about the medium they use for exchange.

I could understand this sort of "ooh, free platform" mindset when I was a kid with no money... when you have the money it makes no fucking sense to rely on free shit that you can't trust. Ultimately we can't change lazy/uninformed fags as things stand so we ought to try and solve this as much as we can with more tech. (e.g. popularize federated platforms, integrate support for warrant canaries into software normies use, create platforms that can guarantee some security properties even including themselves as attackers in the threat model)

Not that it would make a huge difference, since the DNS system is completely centralized anyway,

Tor/i2p fix this too.

Roosh once noticed [...]

quality anecdote, I wonder if other lifestyle stuff is monitored more actively for being peripherally subversive. The government has linux, privacy tech and open-source watchlists.

With the advent of the more sophisticated language models, it will be more easy than ever to engineer consent.
To rely solely on the internet for social connections and communication in general is extremely dangerous.

And here is the issue that Tor/i2p/etc won't solve, even make worse. As things stand, once we can't even use IP addresses or captchas to filter spam you can only rely on the obscurity of a forum to do that. The solution requires some way of tying humans to identifiers- hopefully with cryptography in the natural self-sovereign style so that we can use them to generate private anonymous identifiers to use across all sorts of forums. Optimally with no centralized entity (or infinite blockchain bloat) to make it all fragile and zog-able. I think the key is (like you say) basing communication on existing social connections- while keeping the network structure private but useful for establishing that someone appears to be a real person by way of the shared component of their context and yours.

[rockfish]

I haven't read OP, but the internet is very much real life: You are staring at a glorified lamp, in real life, exchanging text and pictures with other guys who stare at lamps. If you get agitated at the flickering of the lamp, that's on you.

Internet fulfills 85% of my need to socialize. ...

I like that I can learn stuff on the internet and exchange thoughts with likeminded guys. It gives me a feeling of belonging in a weird way, and lessens both my ideological isolation and my intellectual understimulation. However, I have maybe one interaction a fortnight on average with each of my "internet friends", and when I do, it's an exchange of a few sentences over the course of a couple of hours. That does not feel like socialisation at all, and I don't see how it could. I feel much more socially connected to the very few friends I have that I can actually meet, even if I can not reveal my power level and can barely talk about anything I find interesting with them. I wish it were different, but I don't see how sitting in front of your computer can satisfy your need for company.

I feel this is true as well. The intricate dances of body language present in IRL socialization is something that can't be replicated in an online setting without descending into extreme faggotry (VRChat, other avatar games). Even if done well, it's only a poor facsimile of it. Not to denigrate the quality of online discussions, it just feels like it's missing a vital part of human interaction, which is why I believe people tend to categorize it as "not real life, dude."

[anthony]

I don't get it when people laud the especial value of face-to-face communication. Every extended conversation I've had with other humans in meatspace would be better had it taken place in the medium of text.

Normal people using strength of numbers to brute force their preferred thing into "proper and true" status.

[GraphWalkWithMe]

A lot of Internet communication is just an instantaneous exchange of letters, with the added benefit of images, links to websites... Owing to tech, general skill limitations, telegram writing was somewhat similarly crude in a different direction with the stunted language they used, the necessary "STOP", etc.

To my knowledge there weren't widespread claims in the 19th century that "letters and books aren't real life". If the Pony Express allowed for the instant sending and receiving of letters, they would have developed something similar to Internet memes.

"IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!

- Sent from my Lightspeed Horse"

[Guest]

I wonder if there is something "metaphysical" about low latency communications. People gravitate to livestreams as if it makes any "real" difference that they see the person flip out or the tts say nigger in public a bit sooner than anyone else. Is it a desire to see something as it is set in stone? When you think about it the desire to be a direct observer however distant is something like the desire to live in the real world not a VR "matrix" simulation.

For there to actually be something metaphysical about streams that plausibly leaks into the physical reality through brains there would need to be some set of people who can blindly differentiate the latency of streams by some intangible quality of their perceptions. (not the buffering etc, but the latency itself)

[calico]

Salo and men like him classic refrain of the internet isn't real always struck me as a little naive and now looking back strikes as just plain denial at winds shifting. The internet at minimum is the greatest communication revolution since the printing press and like any such revolution has upended social political and economic relations totally.

You are all misinterpreting what Niccolo meant.

Salo Forum was created for Nic to hang out with likeminded friends and talk about the news. As a general rule these were individuals with right wing opinions who despised the internet right, specifically what was referred to as the "Circle of Crust" at the time - basically wignat and racist libertarian message boards. With the rise of Twitter this shifted to the various right wing grifters of the time, many of whom are popular to this day.

Basically: either delusional or deeply cynical actors sell disillusioned young men the idea of community. At best they're parted with their money buying dubiously sourced liver capsules or, far worse, are convinced to ruin their lives by doing something extremely retarded like marching around with Tiki torches with their faces showing so some loser can live out his Hitler LARP fantasy for a day.

This type of thing has been going on for a long time. What's changed is that rather than attracting only the dregs of society a la David Duke or various Neo-Nazi movements; the internet can conceal what enormous fucking losers people are. Your instincts are honed to in-person interaction. It's difficult to pick up on these things when someone is presenting a choreographed persona.

Niccolo was having fun on the internet. He now makes a respectable amount of money from his longtime hobby. He doesn't think the internet isn't a world-changing invention. He just thinks you shouldn't let an algorithmically-determined group of strangers convince you that your wife is going to be okay with you ranting about niggers everytime you see a black guy in a movie.

However you feel about him personally: he's right.

[NuclearAbsolutist]

Niccolo was having fun on the internet. He now makes a respectable amount of money from his longtime hobby. He doesn't think the internet isn't a world-changing invention. He just thinks you shouldn't let an algorithmically-determined group of strangers convince you that your wife is going to be okay with you ranting about niggers everytime you see a black guy in a movie.

"The Alex Linder's of the world are bad"
What a striking insight. Which I feel is undercut by the fact our guy Nick built a online presence after he was tired hosting actual discussion by hosting insightful "Post left" guys like the Ethiopian-Swede NEET who gets to right for certain loser Con Inc mags for some reason or Glenn "Gay" Greenwald. That kind of intellectual space I feel is at best a few steps removed from the most lol worthy skinhead's of yesteryear, in terms of delusion or stupidity (This is apparent the moment Nick opens his mouth on any subject that's not going hmm stuff to make you think at mainstream publications for his substack). Nick smugly weighing against going too online when his entire online audience(Ranging from skinheads of yesteryear but now fans of a retarded pepe, to certain Red Scare listeners) hobby that pays for itself and his very reputation can only be owed to the democratization of fringes brought by the internet well strikes to me of false principles. Or maybe I'm just being too harsh to think your insights over "alt right" streaming losers or their past incarnations get voided or at least should have a big * next to them if you yourself are the kind of person to repost the posts of some Aussie woman socialist turned Apu the frog obsessive.

[calico]

I'm jealous Niccolo thought of it first.

[NuclearAbsolutist]

I'm jealous Niccolo thought of it first.

He didn't. Off the top of my head Sam Francis penned a article about the kind of person who calls for national divorce now(And how it was retarded) back when it was calling yourself a Neo Confederate. As long as that kind of dullard has been around there have been critiques of it from all sides, which is why making Nick some standard bearer for seriousness who said it like it is when nobody did is silly. It is even more silly when Nick himself and his current crowd is a near peer of such people. Which brings me to my awkward flip towards a line of thought back to the threads topic, that being the rise of critics of the extremely online mainly in the way Nick framed it only instead you have transsexual wannabe SPLC interns and journalists saying the internet isn't real loser, everyone actually likes US. Obvious products of the Pandora's box of the internet among other phenomenon shredding social norms like a meat grinder but the craving for conformity with now norms remains. It's a development that has gone unremarked(At least in a worthy manner to me) people who make the clowns of yesteryear look like the founding fathers not only proliferating massively but doing to such a extent they have broken into the mainstream. Creatures of facebook meme pages and creatures of tumblr pages now taking a sizeable amount of attention money and even influence both screeching however about the need to normalize xyz within social frames that at best are quite compromised and increasingly fragmented. If Nick discussed this instead of being a unaware part of that very phenomenon I just described then I might feel some envy actually, at someone of the intellect to go beyond the pedestrian.

[ꦈꦒꦲꦸꦫꦲꦺꦴꦗ꦳ꦲ]

🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅽🅴🆃 🅸🆂 🅰 🅿🅾🆆🅴🆁🅵🆄🅻 🆃🅷🅸🅽🅶.
🆈🅾🆄 🅲🅰🅽 🅷🅰🆅🅴 🆂🅾 🅼🆄🅲🅷 🆆🅸🆃🅷 🅸🆃 🅵🅾🆁 🅵🆁🅴🅴.
🆆🅷🅴🅽 🅿🅴🅾🅿🅻🅴 🆆🅾🆄🅻🅳 🅾🆆🅽 🅻🅸🅱🆁🅰🆁🅸🅴🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🆅🅰🆄🅻🆃🆂 🅵🆄🅻🅻 🅾🅵 🅷🅸🆂🆃🅾🆁🅸🅲🅰🅻 🅻🅸🆃🅴🆁🅰🆃🆄🆁🅴, 🅰🆁🆃, 🅰🅽🅳 🅼🅴🅳🅸🅰 🅵🅾🆁 🆃🅷🅾🆄🆂🅰🅽🅳🆂 🅾🅵 🅳🅾🅻🅻🅰🆁🆂.
🆈🅾🆄 🅲🅰🅽 🅷🅰🆅🅴 🅸🆃 🅰🆃 🆈🅾🆄🆁 🅵🅸🅽🅶🅴🆁🆃🅸🅿🆂.

🆃🅷🅴 🅿🆁🅾🅱🅻🅴🅼 🅸🆂 🅿🅴🅾🅿🅻🅴 🅳🅾🅽'🆃 🆄🆂🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅽🅴🆃 🅸🅽 🆂🆄🅲🅷 🅰 🅼🅴🅰🅽🅸🅽🅶🅵🆄🅻 🆆🅰🆈.
🅸🅽🆂🆃🅴🅰🅳 🅾🅵 🆂🅴🅴🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅿🅾🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅾🅵 🅸🆃, 🆃🅷🅴🆈 🆂🅴🅴🅺 🆂🅷🅰🅻🅻🅾🆆 🅴🅽🆃🅴🆁🆃🅰🅸🅽🅼🅴🅽🆃 🅾🆁 🅼🅰🆈🅱🅴 🅰🆁🅴 🅰🅵🆁🅰🅸🅳 🅾🅵 🅸🆃.
🅴🅰🆁🅻🆈 🅰🅳🅾🅿🆃🅴🆁🆂 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅽🅴🆃 🅷🅰🆅🅴 🆄🆂🅴🅳 🅸🆃 🅽🅾🆃 🅼🆄🅲🅷 🅼🅾🆁🅴 🅳🅸🅵🅵🅴🆁🅴🅽🆃 🆃🅷🅰🅽 🆆🅷🅰🆃 🆈🅾🆄 🅶🆄🆈🆂 🅰🆁🅴 🅳🅾🅸🅽🅶 🅽🅾🆆.

🅸🅽 🅼🆈 🅾🅿🅸🅽🅸🅾🅽, 🅼🅰🅽🆈 🅷🅰🆅🅴 🅼🅸🆂🆂🅴🅳 🅾🆄🆃 🅴🆇🅿🅴🆁🅸🅴🅽🅲🅴🆂 🆃🅷🅰🆃 🅼🅰🆈 🅽🅴🆅🅴🆁 🅷🅰🅿🅿🅴🅽 🅰🅶🅰🅸🅽.