₦airaland Forum

hahn:
In this Tinubu economy?

Ah! Even you. 🥹

hahn:
No be him o

OG. We never see your delicacies since. 🤧

Respect, boss. Respect 🙌🏽😎

As evidenced by more than half of the responses here, Nairalanders are too daft to understand the import of Tunde's message. You can force a horse to the stream, but you can't force it to drink water.

I'm just going to spell it out for the sake of posterity:

1. Some people don't even know what tribalism is. Tribalism is basically when you make unfounded generalizations, or accusations without proof, or hurl insensitive insults towards a particular ethnic group and a its members collectively, to shame or denigrate them.

2. As a corollary to number 1, if you single out a single ethnic group and judge them to be tribalists, it only proves that you lack self awareness, and can't see that you are accusing people of EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE.

3. Assuming the ethnicity of the people attacking Tunde Onakoya without proof is logically absurd, and proves that you are a tribalist yourself.

Anyone who is smart enough to put 2 and 2 together will be able to see how the comments on this thread exposes the dirty tribalistic mindset Nigerians have.

Ibime:
It is not a crime to seduce a woman whether married or not.

Legally, true.

Ethically and/or philosophically, I think a solid argument could be made for why it is socially unacceptable.

ToyBoyAaron:
I'll have more time to save for my ps5

Lucky you then, I guess. 🙂

emkz:
It might have happened, it might not have happened. But what has been established?

Let us look at it sequentially:

1. Natasha's seat was moved due to defections of lawmakers.

2. She refused to change the seat, and was told she could not be recognized from where she sat. She started yelling and said she could not be silenced. She accused the senate leadership of silencing her. At this time, she did not make any allegations of sexual harassment by Akpabio.

3. She told Brekete radio that she was moved to a part of the senate where the camera would not catch her or catch the eye of the senate president to make contributions.

4. One senator, I think the majority leader, said she had been advised to stand like other senators when the senate leadership procession passed. She refused.

5. In an interview with Arise News, she said she was being victimized for refusing the sexual advances of Akpabio. Her definition of victimization was that her motions were not considered, and a visit to Akpabio's office was that if she took care of him, he'd take care of her. She also said he squeezed her hand suggestively, apparently in the presence of her husband, saying she could come to his house for quality time. At no time was any of these incidents reported to anyone. Their relationship flourished as she still eulogized Akpabio as the best thing to happen since egusi soup on his birthday. She still joined Akpabio and others on foreign trips despite her husband's instruction after the finger squeezing saga.

6. After her interview with Arise News, she submitted a petition to the senate for sexual harassment against Akpabio. The petition was rejected as it was wrongly filed.

7. She also obtained a court order to prevent a probe into her flouting the rules of the senate by quarelling on the floor of the senate. She never offered a defence against her misconduct because there was incontrovertible evidence caught on camera.

8. The senate ethics committee recommended her suspension. The senate unanimously voted to confirm her suspension. She then said the final words: "this injustice will not be sustained". Akpabio had presided over the suspension vote.

9. She then appeared in Interparliamentary Union against protocol, seized Nigeria's slot and submitted an accusation that she was suspended because she made an accusation against the senate president and claimed it was a problem of women. The interparliamentary union presiding officer said they must hear from the other side. The leader of the Nigerian delegation called a press conference to read a letter from the senate leader which stated that she was suspended for shouting on the floor of the senate.

10. Dissatisfied, Natasha appeared in an interview with BBC where she claimed the senate operated like a cult and that anyone who spoke against the leadership would have privileges cut, like removal from juicy committees and denial of foreign trips. She also appeared on Sky News and DW TV and anytime the issue of the actual reason for her suspension was raised, she always wanted to rail on the interviewers as though she wanted to hide the actual reason for her suspension and focus on her sexual accusations matter.

11. During the senate ethics committee hearing into her sexual allegations matter, the main news was that Oby Ezekwesili and Onyekachi Nwaebonyi engaged in a spat that effectively brought the hearing to an end.

12. A judge ordered that both parties refrained from further discussing the matter, and someone released what she said was a satirical letter of apology to Akpabio. In the letter, she glorified herself as a stubborn woman, as though it was a thing of pride.

13. Then the Sandra Duru expose has not been defended by Natasha. Instead, she has attacked Sandra's character to avoid addressing the main issues.

What has now been established?

1. That Natasha flouted senate rules by refusing to take her new seat and speaking from a position where she was not recognized, and refused to stand for the senate leadership procession; indications that she was unaware of the rules governing the senate.

2. That the allegations of sexual harassment in a media house, whether true or not, was an after-thought, an attempt to dodge scrutiny into the misconduct caught on camera. One wonders why the sexual innuendos were not reported until it became convenient to do so.

3. That Natasha violated diplomatic protocols by seizing Nigeria's slot to speak at the Interparliamentary Union to peddle her case. She had claimed to have registered as an independent. One would have expected her to speak as an independent, but she still seized Nigeria's slot. I think she must not go unpunished for that diplomatic slap against Nigeria.

4. She only adopted her petition to the senate by proxy and has not supplied evidence till today.

5. She obviously doesn't want a searchlight to be beamed into her allegations when the demand for evidence is rife. Natasha gets offended when asked for evidence.

6. She added more juice to the story in her media tour, but dodges supplying evidence.

What I think.

Natasha is probably more interested in manipulating the public by steering the narrative into seeing her as the victim and want us to hear and sympathize with her cries without scrutinizing her submission. She was probably used to getting whatever she wants just by snapping her fingers. That is unfair to us. She has made grievous allegations. We ask her to back things up with evidence. We cannot follow her blindly. She probably had a good case against Akpabio, but she mismanaged it due to her predilection for gaslighting, deception and wanton manipulation.

PS: Some people have argued that Sandra Duru is a serial blackmailer and liar. Did Natasha not falsely accuse Reno of doing something that Reno effectively debunked? Why did Natasha delete the evidence when she was caught in a lie? Assuming Sandra Duru is a blackmailer for hire, why exactly did Natasha approach her if not to use her skillset for her purpose?

This is a perfect summation of this entire drama. Natasha is not doing sisterhood any favors with her sketchy, infantile, attention seeking movements. You either present the evidence or kill this drama and let's focus on more important things.

For those who don't know yet, GTA 6 has been delayed. Game now coming out on May 26, 2026. 🤧

The way some people here decorate their posts with links without getting banned. I'm jealous. Lol.

Una go explain tire. You never see anything. 😂

Lol. I don't understand why this topic appears to be ban bait. Plenty people don chop ban on top this topic.

If anyone is commenting, please try not to use vulgar words or words that might seem too offensive or sexual. Maybe na wetin dey set the bot off.

To the people who got banned because of my topic abeg no vex. Make we just dey manage the bot like that. 🤧

Kobojunkie:
Sure!

There was a time in history when different cultures taught it was cool to watch public beheadings and executions. That quickly went out of fashion when those watching realized that there was nothing much keeping their heads from being next on the chopping block. Suffice to say, we no longer find those entertaining now, do we?. 😑😑😑😑

I have never read or heard of a serial killer or murderer ecstatic at the fact of his becoming a target of another murderer or serial killer; even those whose lives are ruled by depravity do not love becoming victims of their depravity.

That's a great example with the guillotines and public executions. But these patterns haven't fully extended to our virtual violence, have they?

I believe we've managed to maintain some psychological distance with murder when it comes to games like GTA, partly because death remains abstract until imminent. Or because we've managed to convince ourselves that it is unlikely to happen to us.

I guess the question now is if our moral outrage is selectively calibrated to protect us from confronting what feels personally threatening to us, instead of those things that can actually cause real harm to us?

Because if that's the case, we might really have to re-examine the authenticity of our ethical frameworks.

digits69:
You are not compelled to post …you know right ?

Haba bro, not everyone here can be a master chef.

As long as the picture is not offensive, and you can recognize it as food, problem no dey.

Well, to each his own sha.

Kobojunkie:
You don't pay attention well, do you? And my response to your ask is ... . I don't get where you get this "all moral boundaries are just manifestations of self-serving hypocrisy" idea of yours from. 🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨

I see. I got carried away thinking you were teetering towards moral relativism. My bad then.

So you're basically saying that these boundaries in entertainment are NOT based on careful ethical consideration but cultural habit, convenience, psychological distance, and a myriad of other possible reasons.

Does this represent what you're saying better?

Kobojunkie:
Are you certain you are able to clearly comprehend responses at all? My response is to the question you posed. How does that relate to the trauma experienced by rape victims including the families of murde victims? 😩😩😩😩

I think you have a problem following logical implications. I'm only addressing your response by questioning if moral relativism serves either group of victims properly in establishing ethical boundaries.

Let me lay it out for you point by point.

1. My question was centered on why society treats virtual representations of rape and murder differently in entertainment.

2. You said that humans justify depravity when it is convenient, but "cry bloody murder when they become victims".

3. Based on your answer in number 2, if all moral boundaries are just manifestations of self-serving hypocrisy, then it means that the distinct trauma being experienced by survivors of rape versus the trauma experienced by families of murder victims becomes irrelevant to how we should treat these acts in virtual spaces like in TV, video games etc.

Kobojunkie:
It all means absolutely nothing given humans have always had to condone that depraved aspects of their being that does its most to attempt providing justification for some of the most absurd whenever it suits them; the very same cry bloody murder when they become victims.

If it all means absolutely nothing, then the trauma experiences you've been emphasizing lose all their ethical weight as well. That would be a stunning volte face, don't you think?

Kobojunkie:
1. That description did not come from my person but from interviews of rape victims. I simply borrowed a phrase used by some of them to describe what living with that burden is like for them.

Death will happen to us all but rape won't. Acknowledging their pain and trauma is how you gain understanding of their pain and maybe the knowledge to compare it to anything else.

Not bad. Although this is actually a very solid argument for why murder is such a profound and sinister violation. If death is a final destination in a journey, and rape is a derailment, murder can be described as an outright termination of that journey.

And I'm particularly interested to hear your thoughts on the meta ethics of it all. For instance, in the way both rape and murder are portrayed in the media.

What do you think it reveals about our society that some violations are normalized in entertainment (murder) while others remain taboo (rape)? Is there really any framework of ethics that can justify why a traumatized life may have more value than "no life", or vice versa?

Kobojunkie:
Your question does not follow from any of what I said in previous comment though. The claim that they never really recover does not come from me but from admissions made by so many of them who have come out to speak of the mental torment of life after the experience. Rape victims walk around like the living dead among us. Who am I or you to pronounce judgment of any kind on them particularly when we cannot boast of walking a mile or two moons in their shoes or moccasins? 🤔

What's funny about your response is that you wish to respect survivors' experiences, and yet somehow you've gone ahead and reduced them to the "living dead among us", thereby denying them the dignity of their respective journeys. We can acknowledge both the devastation of sexual trauma and the human capacity to reclaim meaning afterwards. Two things can be true at the same time. The real judgement being made here is you seemingly consigning survivors to a philosophical grave.

The point of my question, since you missed it so carelessly, was to scrutinize the logical endpoint of your statement that rape victims NEVER recover. If we accept your absolutist framing of trauma as creating irrecoverable damage, then we'll be creating a hierarchy where death might seem more preferable than living with this trauma.

That is the exact point I wanted to challenge: the subtle implication in your argument that a traumatized life has less value categorically, than a life that simply ends.

On the issue of rape vs murder, everyone has their own answers. If you think one is worse than the other, I'm interested to hear your reasons why. But ultimately, what I'm trying to figure out here is why society treats these violations differently, as I've shown with the example in my other thread comparing the GTA franchise with that weird "No Mercy" game.

If you say we cannot speak about experiences we haven't personally had, then we really don't have the right to speak on most subjects of ethical discourse. I'm assuming by your worldview, murder should never be discussed, since none of us have ever been murdered.

Kobojunkie:
Who are you to make any judgement on them though?

Who said anything about making judgements ON them?

I just asked a simple question that follows from your very own words. Since according to you, rape victims never really recover, does this make murder a better option than rape? If no, why? If yes, then what gives you the right to make that decision on behalf of the victim?

It's a simple question.

Kobojunkie:
According to research, most rape victims never really recover from the experience as they are haunted for the rest of their lives by the experience. With that in mind, does simply having the ability to embark on this supposed "journey of healing" really amount to much when compared to that lost as a result of the trauma?

2. A murder victim has no more journeys to embark on and no more cares. He is dead because his life was unjustly taken from him, sought of like the traumatic experience rape victims are subjected to at the point of their rape.

Since many rape victims "never really recover" from rape, and are "haunted for life", could an argument be made that some rape survivors would have been better off murdered than rape?

If the answer is yes, how do we possibly justify making that heavy judgment on anyone's behalf, apart from their own?

airmark:
Lemme quote you so that Oasisx will see it.

😂

triplechoice:
At the beginning,I phrased my words accordingly with the word, most, in answering to the op. I said, most people in the past, the ancients, as compared to people of today , operated from low level of consciousness based on what they did, said and believed.


The only mistake was using ,most, instead of more for people of today. More people, unlike in the past, are operating from a higher level of consciousness, but most aren't.

Do you agree to that?

I can agree with you that more people today have the capacity to access more information and perspectives compared to the older days. As for whether this fact is indicative of a "higher consciousness" as opposed to people just having different kinds of understanding, I'm not sure I can make any confident statement there unless you can define what you mean by "consciousness".

triplechoice:
I mistakenly created a misunderstanding by using the wrong word, " most" instead of more.

I used the qualifier, most, in responding to the op and continued with that when I had to respond to your question about people of today having the ability to think independently or operating from a more higher state of consciousness

If you accept there's no much difference between the use of both qualifiers, most and more, I will provide the evidence for my claim.

That's, do you agree that more people are now able to think independently as compared to most people of the ancient past?

There's a very big difference actually. The word "most" makes your claim sound more absolute. If you're trying to convey a proportional shift in collective thoughts across history, "more" sounds like the better operative word.

I'm fine with the rest of your arguments. Like I told you earlier, I don't have an issue with your core argument. It's just how you were phrasing your words.

Edited for clarity.

triplechoice:
Please can you show me where I used the word, accurately ,or even suggested anything close to what you accusing me of?
oh my God. Your misrepresenting me.

I made a comparison and said today is different unlike in the past. A lot of people these days are able to think independently no matter what group they belong.

I never said people of today are completely immune from external influences in their environment.

You trying to make me accept what you're wrongly making from my responses to you.


Please try not forget the key word, "most" in your next reply.

You continue to ignore it hence the reason you asked the above begining with,"we"

I was specific about what I explained.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase my question then.

What is the evidence to suggest that "most people" today think more independently today than "most people" did in the past?

triplechoice:
. 1. If it's not correct that people's behaviour are influenced by their thinking or their predominant thoughts, then tell me, what's influencing it?. Action springing from thoughts has been confirmed to be correct by modern cognitive science . It's the reason we now understand how neural pathways in the brain ,which encodes concentrated thought patterns , control our behaviour unconsciously.,

Have you not observed that certain group of people behave in a particular way without being consciously aware of how they're behaving almost exactly the same?


2. A little Google search will inform you of the prevailing thoughts currently influencing the behaviour of most people today. However, it's not easy to determine that easily because these days ,unlike in the past, most people are now free to think independently.

In the past, before the coming of modern science, the prevailing thoughts were those of superstition. Most people had superstitious thoughts of different kinds which influenced what they did and said.


What "our future generations" will know about the human being and the world we live in which will currently don't know is what help them to easily identify our"blind spots"

Despite our unprecedented access to information, we still don't know it all.

Our behavior is as a result of our thought patterns, I know that already. I'm not dragging that with you. What I'm highly skeptical about is the idea that the "consciousness level" of an entire historical population can be accurately assessed or measured. That's what I was more interested in.

You obviously know how to string up a solid argument, but you don't seem to be aware of the blind spots in them, like the hidden assumption in this statement you made:

unlike in the past, most people are now free to think independently

You are implying that our present generation is somehow less influenced by collective thought patterns than our ancestors, and I'm not sure what to make of that because according to modern research in fields like psychology and sociology, we are still very much susceptible to unconscious biases. A very perfect example is the internet and social media as a whole. YouTube algorithms are literally designed to create a bubble around users wherein they only interact with ideas molded around their biases.

We're still susceptible to bias in the workplace, in churches, schools, etc. whether we realize it or not.

Is there really any evidence that shows that we are more free to think independently than our ancestors? Isn't it safer or more plausible to assume that we're operating under different forms of social or cognitive influence?

From cabal to higher cabal.

HigherEd:
The problem with Nigeria is that too many people are doing what they shouldn't be doing. That's why we are not moving forward.
The people that should be the next Soyinka or Chinua Achebe are wasting away in a medical school somewhere.

Our society is too streamlined by defining brilliance by academics. Personally, I don't believe anybody is brilliant. I only believe people are brilliant at what they were intended to do. So I know that when you fail at something you have no interest at, it could mean that you were doing something you weren't made to do...

Einstein is a brilliant scientist but he can never be as brilliant as Messi on the field of football. To each its own, the bird flies, the fish swims. Each does what they are meant to do with dexterity.

I repeat there is no dull person anywhere. If you are failing it is either you are doing it wrongly, not diligent enough or was never meant to do it in the first place. Just find your craft and master it and you won't have to have unexpected ejacs

You've perfectly summed up why our educational system leaves much to be desired. 👍🏽

frugal:

Na hahn be this? 👀

tokaiki:
JAMB is correct.

Oga you quoted the wrong phrase. 🤦🏽

The phrase Henshaw was referencing is "while verification and other clearance processes BEGINS."

It is well with this country. Lol.

ExAngel007:
https://alexis.lindaikejisblog.com/photos/shares/20250428_210308_1745870621.jpg

Kate Henshaw has corrected the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) over a grammatical error on X.


The examination board made the mistake while responding to politician Peter Obi's claim that young admissions seeker were made to leave home in the dark to write the university entrance exams as early as 6:00am.


Responding via its official X account, JAMB wrote partly : "@PeterObi, Your Excellency,
I must assert that our examination is scheduled to commence at 8:00am, not 6:00 am. While verification and other clearance processes begins at 6:30am , it is imperative that candidates are afforded adequate time to settle in before the exam begins."

https://alexis.lindaikejisblog.com/photos/shares/Screenshot_20250428_204336_X_1745870455.jpg

Kate Henshaw then corrected JAMB, writing: By the way @JAMBHQ


It's not 'while verification and other clearance processes BEGINS'


It is 'while verification and other clearance processes BEGIN!!' I had all my education in this country. It was never this bad.."

https://alexis.lindaikejisblog.com/photos/shares/Screenshot_20250428_204346_X_1745870494.jpg

https://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2025/4/kate-henshaw-corrects-jamb-after-the-examination-board-made-a-grammatical-error.html

Choi!! 😭😭😭

Education in this country is at rock bottom. 🤦🏽

semid4lyfe:
Unblocked.

🙌🏽

semid4lyfe:
He's doing too much to prove loyalty to the president after the Obasa impeachment issue

Senior man abeg look into my hidden post. Thanks.