₦airaland Forum

charlesemeka85:
confirmed by Fabrizio


🚨🚫 BREAKING: Victor Osimhen has rejected Al Hilal proposal.

Despite agreement club to club with Napoli for €75m fee, Osimhen says no to the Saudi Pro League club. ❌

Galatasaray will insist to sign him with race now open again. 👀

Thank goodness.

I don't get why people here are crying about the fact that Osimhen's move to Saudi is being judged. I can respect Osimhen's free will as a human being, but it doesn't mean I have to respect his decisions. Objectively speaking, from a legacy standpoint, going to Saudi during his prime years is a terrible move. I don't have to be a fanboy or a hater to figure out this much. But at the end of the day, it's his life.

TheSuperNerd:
Komekn.... "ETeBo IS oNe of My bESt MFs"

I live for Nairaland receipts. 🤌🏽🤣🤣🤣

Honestly, I'm impressed so far.

I just came across this poignant submission on Reddit that I thought to share here because I 100% agree with him. Credit to the poster u/Background_Ad4001 for this fantastic (albeit brief) piece:

Nigeria's problem isn't colonial trauma it's elite comfort

Indonesia was a Dutch colony, had a genocide, military coups, and tsunamis now they make your Honda and Samsung parts.
Rwanda bled for 100 days, lost nearly a million now has universal healthcare and fiber optic cables.
Bangladesh floods every year, literally sinks still exports more textiles than Africa combined.

Nigeria? Got oil, ports, peace, and 70 years of excuses.

No carpet-bombing. No genocide. No cyclones.
Just sixty years of men from every region taking turns to disappoint us.
Lagos elite steal from Kano projects. Abuja politicians ignore Niger Delta spills. Northern governors build mosques while Southern ones build churches both with public funds, both while children drink dirty water.

Roads half-done everywhere. Rail still a rumor in every state. Power that dies faster than campaign promises.
All while elites build estates beside schools with no chalk.

We were handed a country on a silver platter.
Our leaders used the platter to serve themselves.

**And now?**

Fraud is normalized. Insecurity is Tuesday.
Why wouldn't it be? When the real criminals sit in parliament, dress well, and own property on three continents.

Some even "serve" Nigeria from their London flats.

Meanwhile, we all watch and make excuses. Yorubas blame Hausas. Igbos blame everyone. Northerners blame colonialism. Southerners blame cattle. Middle Belt blames both ends.

Everyone has a PhD in explaining why it's not their fault while the ship sinks with all tribes aboard.

---

### So tell me how is this not treason?

How did we inherit peace, oil, and 200 million people and still end up with development stats worse than countries that haven't known a peaceful year in decades?

But here's the uncomfortable truth: **reforms won't save us.**

We've had electoral reforms rigging got more sophisticated.
We've had anti-corruption agencies they got corrupted.
We've had restructuring debates for decades politicians just use them for campaigns.

The system isn't broken. It's working perfectly for those who designed it to extract, not build.

In 50 years, when the oil runs dry and climate change floods the coast:
- Youth bulge becomes youth explosion (60% under 25, no jobs)
- Water wars between farmers and herders go fully ethnic
- States collapse when federal allocations stop
- Neighbors start building walls, not bridges

This isn't pessimism. It's mathematics.

What exactly are we waiting for?
- Another speech?
- Another rigged election?
- Another imported messiah?

---

**This isn't a failed state.**

It's a perfectly designed extraction machine—abandoned by those who could fix it, stripped by those who run it, excused by those who benefit from the chaos.

We're not heading for reform.
We're heading for collapse.

And the worst part? We'll still be arguing about who to blame when the lights go out permanently.

---

Prove me wrong. I'm waiting.

.

What Konji cannot do does not exist.

Ibime:
They give it to Marketing graduates to prosecute, not bloody MassComites.

The most successful marketing campaign of recent times is even Temu with some wack AI voices

Temu, Temu, shop like a billionaire

So how do you then explain the fact that top roles in communications and marketing at Fortune 500 companies, major tech firms, global brands and the likes are usually occupied and filled by professionals with degrees in journalism, public relations and so on?

Why not strictly marketing?

Ibime:
All those Peller, content creators and OAPs, how many of them get MassCom?

There are 720 radio stations in Nigeria who employ mostly people who didn't study MassCom, but there are half a million Directors that need PAs. I know you don't need Secretarial degree to do Secretary work but last last there are still more jobs for them. Even at that, you can't be a PA to a high flying Corporate Director without a degree. PAs for corporates these days are expected to have strategic knowledge to step in and communicate on behalf of their boss to the point that even lawyers are serving as PAs in some of the most blue chip companies today.

Nobody was doing MassCom like that 20 years ago, na useless indomie generation start this MassCom trend

How I knew MassCom was a useless course was even 10 years ago. My first cousin born to my uncle wey no hold was adopted by one of my aunty wey get pepper. She trained this girl in one private school in AkwaIbom paying N300k per term which was $2k dollars then. I heard the girl was doing well such that when I visited PH in 2014, I insisted I take a road trip to Uyo to visit her in her boarding house. The next year which was her SS3 year na him matter cast, I heard she's started playing and becoming unserious. My Aunty who is a PHD holder, alumni and board member at Abu Zaria had set it up for her to go study law at Zaria. On top of that, that my aunty is well connected to the point of being friends with Sultan of Sokoto and sitting on the board of ABU Zaria and could have paved way for her professionally with connections and jobs if she just followed the path my aunty set for her. She said no, that she wants to do Masscomm at Uniport. She finally flopped her final exams scoring 180 and my aunty disowned her. That's when she said she wants to use that 180 to go to Polytechnic, I said last last you must sit at home for one year and write JAMB again. She finally passed the JAMB to get to Uniport but to study journalism which is not far from Masscomm. At this point I've almost washed my hands off her but still giving her small benefit of the doubt. Her first year of uni, she called me one day. Before even greeting and talking as adults, she started fake crying "Uncle, I need money". That's when I shouted at her that is that how you talk to adults with childish voice? From then I washed hands off her, she can't squeeze N1k out of my hand today. She is the one that educated me on the unambitious nature and general uselessness of MASSCOMM people.

So at the end of the day, your beef with mass communication is based on your own personal experience. Noted.

Since your overall argument is that masscomm has low value, then what would you say is the main reason why billions are invested by major corporations, top business firms, influential organizations across the world, and even governments across the world in strategic communications, PR services, media relations and media operations??

I'm just curious to know your answer.

Ojagun:
Make I no lie...

I just watched the trailer 2 & I can comfortably say the game is going to be ass especially story wise

Why?

😂😂😂😂😂

Guy you just took me way way back. 😂😂

Technically, I'm Gen-Z but this was the type of content I grew up with cause my parents were avid watchers of NTA. Lol. Good times.

CrystalTiger:
Now now, them dn turn am..

Which one is "yoruba government" and "yoruba bank" again? Lmao.

Tribalism will be the death of this country. 🤦🏽

KingTom:

Make dem wait make I withdraw my funds first. 🤧

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.