Emojis

If there’s one thing that really tires me, it’s the constant interference from governments and the EU when it comes to the so-called safety of children and people. What I find strange is that there’s always a group – which, of course, gets media coverage – that thinks it’s all brilliant.

For example, in England, anyone born in 2008 or later is now banned from smoking. Imagine not being allowed to smoke your whole life just because you were born a little later. I wonder how that will be enforced, as it seems impossible to me, or are we heading towards a society where you are betrayed by your own family members, neighbours, colleagues and any random stranger who makes an anonymous tip-off? It all sounds very American. Of course, there are always people who agree, because the family must be protected. And as the father of a 7-year-old child remarked, his child had to breathe healthy air. What if he hadn’t had a child? Who says that the air without smokers is actually healthy?

Incidentally, nobody worried about breathing healthy air when I was a child. The whole world seemed to smoke and that was perfectly normal. It was also perfectly normal that people who couldn’t stand smoke simply didn’t go out and, of course, had to keep their mouths shut and not complain. Waving a cigarette butt in someone’s face, blowing smoke in someone’s face or burning holes in someone else’s clothes in a nightclub, because smoking and dancing was also the norm. Just like smoking in a restaurant, forcing other diners to sit in the smoke, this was also considered perfectly normal by smokers and still is in some countries.

Breathing in that ‘clean’ air is, of course, a complete joke, as if a few fewer cigarettes suddenly make the air a lot cleaner. It is the very same air that warplanes, bombs and grenades pollute, not to mention private jets. And then there are the factories that pollute, including rivers, ditches and lakes.
Humans pollute a fair bit, but everyone keeps quiet about it. The solution is: less war, fewer military exercises, less flying back and forth in private jets, buying less, and less consumption by the rich and governments!

I’m not a smoker and never have been, and yes, I find it disgusting. I also don’t think it’s necessary to be sitting in someone else’s smoke. Anyone who wants to smoke should just do so at home. Smokers also waste far more time and are less effective in the workplace than non-smokers, simply because they take more frequent breaks. It’s all been researched, and yet I don’t trust those who ban people from smoking (the government is missing out on a lot of tax revenue; how are they going to make up that shortfall?). I don’t believe for a moment that this law is being introduced to foster a healthier youth, whilst bombs are flying all around us at the same time. Perhaps those healthier people are needed to send them into the army and fight other people’s wars? Don’t you have to be a non-smoker to be able to die on the battlefield far from home?

The latest news is the ban on the use of certain emojis – well, certain ones for now; soon, of course, you won’t be allowed to use any emojis at all. Why this ban? Because there are secret messages hidden behind them. 🥴

It’s getting crazier and crazier. There are definitely secret messages, or ambiguous thoughts, hidden behind an emoji, regardless of the fact that I don’t even understand most of them, and that’s been the case ever since the day they were first used. Whenever I hear a discussion about the use of emojis, all I can think is: is there nothing more important in the world to discuss or organise than this sort of ridiculous patronising? Should taxpayers’ money really be spent on this, on pointless chatter?

Or are they all just pretexts for the upcoming lockdown? Another such nonsensical thing. It seems to me to be something that happens automatically when you run out of fuel for your car, whether it’s petrol, diesel, gas or electricity. So you get on your bike – and I mean an old-fashioned bike, not an electric one – or you walk. That also limits the distance you can travel, unless you take your bike on the train, because the train is electric and therefore environmentally friendly, isn’t it?

I find much of the talk out there patronising and utter nonsense. People who believe the government should protect their families are overlooking one crucial fact. Raising children, being there for them yourself rather than thinking that a thousand and one rules and millions of cameras should be keeping an eye on you and your family, is your responsibility and not the government’s. Anyone who shifts the responsibility for literally everything onto the government’s plate needs to ask themselves whether they should really have a partner, children and pets, live independently, and are capable of leading a life as a responsible adult. If this is not the case, you certainly won’t qualify for bank loans. Perhaps that’s a good rule: no credit card, no more borrowing from the bank for anyone who cannot demonstrate that they can save substantially and take responsibility under all circumstances. Just the old-fashioned way: save first, then buy.

Why doesn’t the government ban this? It would have prevented a great deal of misery in the world.

_{Prompt: see title
26-1-2026}