This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We apparently have one more update on the Braveheart Incident. Previous discussions:
The latest update is a short article from the BBC:
This is throwing me for a loop. The good news is that unlike the local news articles I cited previously, the BBC actually names the accused, the bad news is originally the adult involved in the incident was identified as "Fatos Ali Dumana", and now I have no idea whether we're talking about the same guy, and it was just a nickname, or it was a completely different person. A quick google search only turned up some indie (somewhat tinfoily) blog post, where it is indeed claimed that "Fatos Ali Dumana" is just an alias, and that the perps real name is Ilia Belov. What speaks in it's favor is that the post is dated September 12, 2025, so way before this current BBC article (and here's an archive.org snapshot to corroborate), so it's not someone trying to use the latest info to portray the original story as true. Other than that I only found some dude on Reddit urging people to look up a Facebook reel:
I don't have Facebook, so I can't confirm.
Either way, the accusations put forward by the prosecutors seem largely consistent with "Braveheart" story - girls got sexually harassed, assaulted, and one of them went for makeshift weapons in order to defend her sister / friends.
I am sure that everyone who wagged their fingers saying how "nothing will convince us otherwise", how "they knew something was off", how it's a "noble effort, but hopeless" because us chuds are too biased and stubborn, will now wag their fingers at themselves with the same amount of enthusiasm.
The internet was a mistake.
This is me:
Might have been a low bar, but I dare say I feel reasonably suspicious. If anyone can personally vouch for a Scottish charity that ticks the Scottish, youth (8-16), and/or underprivileged boxes I will likely take your suggestion. Otherwise it will be robot's choice after some vetting.
That is outrageous. The presence of a woman reportedly behind the camera colored my judgment. It's not as if female accomplices are unable to help abduct girls, tolerate douchebag boyfriends, or assist in beating up pre-teens. It's just a less common combo.
I can't imagine any charity in Scotland that isn't utterly full of quangocrat shite, but Scottish Sports Futures at least does nice things for kids her age sometimes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The ID (which identifies his Bulgarian citizenship) says BELOV Mr. Ilia Kostadinov. This straightforwardly means he's Ilia Belov and his father's given name was Kostadin. There seems to be a lot of these guys. Like, here is the youtube of a Bulgarian guy named like this, but it's ancient.
How he can also be Fatos Ali Dumana, is beyond my Slavic knowledge, I guess that's just his nickname on FB. «Fatos is an Albanian masculine given name, which means "daring", "brave" or "valiant"». (Bulgaria and Albania are separated by North Macedonia). The caption on the video means something like "hey ladies, congratulations". He's listening to this crap from a duo of rappers, Turkish and German (I guess also Turkish). The ladies, surprisingly enough, do congratulate him, they seem to be family (at least one is clearly some auntie). The account is low-activity and consists of typical slop you might expect of a young low-IQ Southern Slav with Global Black characteristics trying to show off clothes and shit, or perhaps really just a Gypsy, though neither of his names is Gypsy-coded.
Looking up "Ali Dumana" floods the search with this Ilia. It's a very unusual string of tokens. If I restrict the search to a period before this scandal, I only get nonsense like this (an independent sexual allegation in Dundee, no Dumanas), somehow.
Now theCourier publishes propaganda about our "Dumana":
"Fetka" is Slavic, "Fatosh" is some dimunitive in Arabic/Turkic I guess?
I particularly like this detail:
So we get the name of the irrelevant right-winger, but the Mr Dumana remains an enigma. Brits are quite provincial, this is not exactly Soviet but pretty crude. Did they do any actual investigation?
Anyway, he's a Bulgarian citizen named Ilia Belov, he's got this weird Islamic pseudonym, he looks quite brown (without throwing any shade – that entire region is brown, I can't pin him to a specific country, between Bulgaria/Albania/etc), so I guess the girls could have panicked/reacted racistly even if he is a peaceful "Bulgarian dad" (feels weird to identify someone aged 22 as primarily "dad") and has never hurt a fly.
Very low information situation.
In the 80s, Bulgaria forced name changes on Muslims/Turks among other things.
More options
Context Copy link
Could be convert to Islam. Unthinkable in trad Bulgarian culture, not(yet) common but rather thinkable in British gutter trash street culture.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it racist of me (well of course it is) that that's also what I thought when I read "Eastern European, different names in different ethnic groups"? Also, just for your information, 'Gypsy' is now regarded as a slur 😁
If they're Bulgarian, yeah there could well be some Turkish/Muslim in the mix.
Be instructed by our friend DeepNeuralNetwork who is arguing that fifteen year old girls are plenty old enough to be having sexual relationships (loving caring ones, of course!) with adult men, and that young men want to be fathers (maybe husbands, funnily enough that hasn't been mentioned yet in all the talk of how getting the fifteen year olds knocked up isn't harmful to their health) with those girls. That's all that is going on there!
Confusingly, it's a slur in America but a reclaimed community term in the UK.
Roma and Irish Travelers in the UK are different ethnic groups with similar lifestyles who would prefer not being lumped together, so there isn't a community-preferred term that covers both groups.
Irish Travelers avoid "Gypsy" - the Traveler families featured on British "My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" (which featured zero Roma) all referred to themselves as "Travelers" when speaking English on camera. Roma prefer "Roma" but seem perfectly fine with "Gypsy". Thinking "gypsy" is a slur in the UK is pathognomic for Woke Mind Virus.
"Gypsy" is also confusing in the British context because it isn't clear if you are referring to just Roma or Roma plus Irish Travelers - this is a point about accuracy and not political correctness. Given the advantage of short words for things that people want to talk about, having "Gypsy" as a generally acceptable word for Roma+Travelers (and thus a different meaning from "Roma") would be useful, but it isn't standard usage.
More options
Context Copy link
It is? Most Americans do not know that it is an ethnic group and think it refers to brightly dressed people who travel with circuses to pretend to be fortune tellers.
More options
Context Copy link
No reasonable, normal person in America would consider it a slur, in my experience. Only Karens who spend far too much time online.
Unfortunately, Karens who spend far too much time online possess a sort of heckler's veto, in that it's wise to stay abreast of what summons them so you can avoid doing it needlessly or at least be prepared for them when they show up.
Taleb calls it "dictatorship of the most intolerant" (never say he doesn't learn from his own ideas).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A relative of mine lives in the UK, and when he was last over he said that he always appreciates when media outlets point out that "Tommy Robinson" isn't his legal name. I replied "so you think it's okay to deadname him?"
What's the deal with this? Is "Stephen Yaxley-Lennon" supposed to sound dweebish and "Tommy Robinson" is supposed to be a Britonic "Chad Thundercock" equivalent? To my ears they both sound the same. Or is it just that he goes by a different name? Michael Caine also wasn't born Michael Caine.
The OG Tommy Robinson was the leader of the Luton MIGs, who were the football (soccer for Yanks) hooligan firm in Yaxley-Lennon's hometown of Luton. Organised football hooliganism was not explicitly political, but there was (and still is - there have now been two cases where an anti-terrorist have-a-go heroes in London turned out to have learned to fight with the Millwall Bushwhackers, and the traditionally rival Millwall and Charlton firms joined forces to defend businesses on Eltham High Street in the 2011 London riots) a sufficiently large overlap between organised hooliganism and willingness to engage in political violence in defence of your traditional community that both the far right (I'm talking about the BNP and Combat 18 for those who care about details, not UKIP) and the establishment left saw organised football hooliganism as far-right adjacent.
So using "Tommy Robinson" as a nom de guerre is Yaxley-Lemon's attempt to place himself and the EDL in the native British tradition of organised football hooliganism and Combat 18.
The irony in all this is that Luton is now Islamized (37% "Asian", which in practice means South Asian Muslim, and only 33% British) and the MIGs did not in fact fight this, or even try to. The MIGs main rivals were the Hell's Angels and the Millwall Bushwhackers, both of which are also all-white groups of hardmen. If white nationalist political violence was a Thing in the UK (it wasn't and isn't) then those groups would all be allies.
More options
Context Copy link
He changed his name so he could launch a 'political' career without people realising he had a conviction for assaulting a police officer. It worked for years.
More options
Context Copy link
Hyphenated surname is posh, upper class coded, not the best for someone who stands up as champion of common man against corrupt elite.
More options
Context Copy link
I've no idea why he goes by that name, but according to Wikipedia he's been convicted for several crimes, so maybe it has something to do with that. Apparently he also doesn't want people to know he's half-Irish (which would undermine his anti-immigration rhetoric), and I was under the impression that "Lennon" was an Irish surname, but apparently that's the surname of his English stepfather, so I dunno.
More options
Context Copy link
To USAian ears, definitely. (Lintorn-Orman, Lloyd[-]George, Erskine-Brown…) I don't know what British people think about such names, though.
Sounds a bit like a caricature British name such as "General Sir Humphrey George Smith-Smythe-Smith, OBE, VC"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they are gypsies - this all makes sense. And yes ... by the time they are 22 for the poorer and unintegrated part of them - which is the one that tends to flock to the west - it is normal to be on their Xth kid - although thankfully in the last years their birth rates collapse, and they participate more in the society.
More options
Context Copy link
My sense is that Bulgarian Gypsies comprise a very strange genetic and cultural soup, and having multiple fake names with some of them being Turkic is not at all out of the ordinary. Consult Wikipedia for the language, and maybe one of the two sources of Skibidi Toilet for vibes.
Wikipedia does not mention Albanian, but in reality they have a quite significant presence there too (some estimates say up to 5%?), so it would not be surprising to see some vocabulary backwash. In a way, there is some curious convergence between their ways and those of another famous class of rootless cosmopolitans, though of course they wind up on different ends of the social hierarchy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm happy to concede if the prosecution ends in a conviction. I still think it's more likely than not that they're acquitted (if I had to put a number on it, 70%).
I'm also happy to acknowledge that acquittal doesn't necessarily mean a lack of guilt, but I don't think the British judicial system is so corrupt that it represents null evidence.
So you will go 2:1 on this?
I have 100 British Pounds to your 200 that, contingent on a trial occurring, a guilty verdict is returned. (ie. bet is off if there's a plea bargain; you can have "not proven" or whatever jury shenanigans might be possible in Scotland though)
I'm not sure I trust you enough to hold up your end of the bargain. If, for the sake of example, it was @ArjinFerman offering, I'd take it, though I'd prefer smaller sums like £50:25 since I don't care that much. If you're willing to go through the hassle of finding someone to use as an escrow, while using crypto (which is hassle on my part), sure.
If not, I care about my reputation and epistemics to happily accept being proven wrong, if and when I'm proven wrong.
I'm pretty high trust myself, and can certainly find a way to get you 25 sterling without resorting to crypto -- but if you need someone to hold the dough that's fine with me. Pick somebody and we can both send them some cash -- I don't expect the mills of Scottish justice to grind excessively fast on this one.
I can nominate @ArjinFerman or @Corvos, if they're willing to accept. I'd be happy to not bother with an escrow if you're fine with it, given the lower sums involved.
My proposed terms are clear concessions on an acquittal or conviction, and if this somehow doesn't resolve in 2 years, a general throwing up of hands and acceptance that we're never getting to the bottom of this.
I'm grateful for your confidence in me! FWIW I thought about it like Arjin, but I've given my ID to a few mottizens now and I don't really want to get into a habit of it. If it's important I certainly can, but it seems like it's not necessary in this case.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm fine with the honour system if you are -- thanks anyways @ArginFerman!
So AIUI -- no resolution if neither of these two is tried on these charges (ie. some plea bargain to a lesser offense would be no bet; a guilty plea on what's described above is probably a win for me though?), or if nothing happens within two years.
In the event of a trial, I need a guilty verdict; "not proven", hung jury, not guilty etc. all resolve in your favour.
If you have any other scenarios we should cover, let me know?
I don't think we have juries here, but that's a nitpick. Those rules sound fine, though I'll note that I'd want the money myself instead of a donation to a charity, though I'd donate if necessary. And if that's the case, it has to be a charity that is legal to donate to in the UK, our free speech norms are a tad limited.
"no donations to the Stormfront server fund," got it.
I'd also prefer the cash -- details on that can be TBD; it depends how private you need to be I suppose, but we can figure it out. (and I'm gonna say ~50/50 we won't have to given the "no bet" possibilities)
More options
Context Copy link
Unless Scotland has a different judicial system than England, you do. Though you might soon be right either way, because Starmer wants to get rid of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's very flattering, but every time I looked into privacy-preserving ways of transferring money, it turned out to be a massive hassle, possibly bordering on impossibility. Personally, for my bets I prefer agreeing to donate to a charity of each person's choice, and taking the counterparty at their word (+ maybe a screenshot, though they're so easy to fake, it's effectively the same thing).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Personally, I'd say that if the police and prosecutors pressed charges against Dumana / Belov in the current political climate, the evidence against him must be pretty strong, and that would warrant a 70% bet in the other direction (keep in mind your original argument rested on nothing more than statements from the police, not official charges, or an actual convction).
But that's beside the point. I don't really have a problem with you falling on the other side of this and sticking to your guns, my issue was with your top level post on the topic, and how you portrayed anyone unconvinced by your arguments as unreasonable.
Hmm? I don't think that's the case. I also heavily stressed what can only be described as "local sentiment", perhaps priors, in addition to the official story. The locals (debatably including me) thought it's more likely than not.
For example:
That is not true. I think I made a strong argument, but I also acknowledge:
In other words, as a Bayesian, my opinion is that you should at the very least be slightly swayed by the argument. That is not the same as thinking that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable. There are actual people (living breathing humans) who are immune to any argument, probably including divine intervention. My scorn is largely reserved for them.
Similarly, the article you shared has meaningfully moved my posteriors. Back then, I expect that if anyone asked, I'd say I'm 80-90% confident of a lack of guilt, and now I've moved down to 70%. That is precisely the kind of update in the face of new evidence that I endorse and respect. Hence why I do it myself.
I expect that if a conviction is secured, I'd jump to maybe a 90% certainty that I was wrong, and if they're acquitted, then back up to 90% confidence of being correct. Feel free to tag me if something happens, since I don't really read the BBC that often.
Well, maybe I took it all a bit too personally, but even with your explanation it kinda feels like you're saying that not moving your priors based on the things you mentioned is unreasonable. I happened to find the arguments you brought up unpersuasive, so their effect on my priors was mostly zilch (maybe witch the exception of the police originally charging the girl), and I think that's perfectly justifiable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think one thing you didn't address in your original post, that heavily informed my opinion on this story is that:
Young men are animals. Cross border, cross race, cross culture, etc. As they say, testosterone is a hell of a drug. Ages 15-25 I don't trust the sexual judgement of 90% of young men. Most of those men find a productive or semi-productive outlet for their sexual desire. I think porn has helped blunt the edge of young horny men in modern society, but the blade is still there lying at the throat of society and young women. Some number of men slip through the productive cracks, and they target younger women. Even a 22 year olds loser with no job smoking weed all day can look cool to a 16 year old dumb girl.
Much of the time its the responsibility of fathers and older brothers to protect young women from these predations. The threat of getting your ass kicked is usually enough to deter the worst dirtbags. But in the absence of these protections there are occasionally going to be cases where the young women themselves take defense into their own hands.
The base story here of young 20's man hits on young teenage girls is absolutely not surprising to me. I'd guess there are stories like this in every location in the world with more than a few thousand people. A case where there are no men around to protect the young girls is not that strange, especially in a low class area where fathers might be absentee. A case where the girls take their defense into their own hands seems inevitable, humans have a basic need for security and protection. All of that would have been a total non-story.
Its just that the young 20's man is an immigrant, and the young teenage girls are native. Which sparks the culture war aspect of this all. But those additional considerations seem inevitable in any situation where there are immigrants. Similar situations sparked off black race riots in the south (young black men hitting on young teenage white girls).
But.. but.. but.. DeepNeuralNetwork is assuring me that 25 year old men are only wanting to fall in love with and have babies with 15 year old girls, that's all!
I mean, I agree with you, but the argument I'm currently enmeshed in seems to be falling out along the lines: girls that age are plenty old enough, men are horny for young girls because biology, girls that age can and should be having babies, parents are only trying to control their children, older women are only jealous and want to restrict men to ancient, raddled, crone pussy instead of fresh, nubile, teen pussy.
DeepNeuralNetwork is a different person who gets very little agreement from the rest of the forum.
More options
Context Copy link
Young men generally prefer partners about 3-5 years younger than themselves. Look at the data from any country and any age, and this bears out. DeepNeuralNetwork is mistaken or just trolling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you are using judicial verdicts to update your world view as if they were unbiased (in the statistical sense) estimators of guilt, you are doing it wrong.
Suppose a parent shows up at a hospital with a non-verbal, injured child, displaying injuries of a type which is generally thought to be caused by violence in 85-95% of the cases and accidents in 5-15% of the cases, as estimated by different domain experts. Suppose that there is no further evidence to be found either way -- the parent denies using violence, and there is no video of how the kid got injured.
The way I have constructed the example, there is only one possible outcome in a fair criminal trial: acquittal due to reasonable doubt, as the courts would rather let ten guilty go free than sentence one innocent.
A guilty verdict is very strong evidence of guilt. A verdict of 'not proven' is very weak evidence of factual innocence (as opposed to legal innocence).
I imagine this can lead to cases where two people who had a gunfight can both get away with claiming self defense. If we try A and find we have to acquit him because it is plausible that they acted in self defense, we obviously can not base a trial on B around the finding that A was innocent as far as the law could tell.
For the Braveheart thing, I do not really have a horse in the race. On priors, I would find it more likely that young men harass some underage girls than that some underage girls get out of their way to threaten some young immigrant men, but stranger things than the latter have happened.
I don't see how this disagrees with anything I've said?
The hypothetical example you've presented is probably more cut-and-dry than anything we've seen here. I suspect that it would actually be more likely to end in a conviction than you think, judges do not regularly do Bayesian calcs in court.
I agree, in fact I alluded to the same. If a video came out showing an assault by the accused and without a conviction (as unlikely as that is), then I'd be willing to accept that in lieu of a favorable legal verdict.
More options
Context Copy link
The bayes calc on it would just be a total win for the "he touched the girls" take.
Reminds me of the Australian SAS warcrime case. Footage was released of what was inarguably an extra judicial killing of a captured and unarmed man. Like, I'm ex Australian army and not even I could deny that these guys were guilty of murder. But there were still hundreds of people saying "they haven't been convicted yet" and "the investigation hasn't been concluded."
https://old.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/1lccwjc/australian_sasr_during_their_deployment_to/
But we could see it with our own eyes. You can see in real time the murder happening, zero grounds for self defence. In war you get away with shooting the odd POW, sure. That guy could have been making IEDs or have personally killed Australians, sure. But if you get caught on camera you go to jail. That's how the world works. Why do people insist on the outcome of the investigation or the court ruling when they can see with their own eyes the crime occurring.
It's a weird deferral of responsibility, even though we know the courts are wrong all the time.
It immediately brings to mind consummate bureaucrat Buck Turgidson:
More options
Context Copy link
I tend to agree with this. Also, from what I understand about the UK system for criminal prosecution, it seems unlikely that these charges would have been filed against these defendants in the absence of strong evidence of guilt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems like your explanation covers only half the story. And the alternative explanation covers the other half. In the original video the girls are screaming "don't fuckin' touch us over and over." They're still obviously carrying weapons. Why isn't the middle of the road opinion that some Scottish "neds" were walking around with knives (your take) and were felt up by the guy at some point (braveheart take) explaining why they were yelling and brandishing weapons while backing away?
I agree that's a possibility, and if that's proven, I'd be more sympathetic. I personally disagree quite a bit with the UK's approach towards banning pretty much every form of self-defense.
More options
Context Copy link
Surely it seems rather unlikely that even the kind of man who feels up young girls in the street would feel up young girls already carrying knives. There's poor impulse control, and there's Darwin Award-bait.
And you believe that this is an argument in favor of your preferred position?
People win Darwin awards all the time.
More options
Context Copy link
There's a lot of 'worst of both worlds' possibilities here, not the least of which is they were flirting consensually until he tried to feel her up in ways she didn't like and it turned into an argument. It's not that weird for gutter trash young men to go after teens, and it's not that weird for the teens to like it up until they don't.
More options
Context Copy link
It's more common than you think. Some people go into primal aggression mode and will attack if the victim looks afraid, even if they are armed.
There were videos during the 2020 blm protests of people charging men with guns and getting shot when they could have just walked away.
It's been studied in neuroscience, there's a bunch of info about heart rate, cortisol, and the cerebral cortex shutting down leaving people operating with just their limbic system. But there are many people here far more qualified to dive into the details of that. My undercaffinated brain won't give you a decent summary.
More options
Context Copy link
I presume the kind of scottish teenagers who carry hatchets to the park are the kind who know not to brandish them as they walk down the street.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do we know why he has that alias? I feel like the Occam's Razor solution, in the absence of an official explanation, is that he's from the Soviet Muslim tradition of having an Islamic name and an assimilated one for records. Could also be a convert, though, or some form of con artist.
His social media handle was something along the lines of "gypsy gangster". I'd assume there's something in Bulgarian yob culture (I suppose I could ask Bulgarian friends, but that feels rather embarrassing) where Muslims/Gypsies are seen as harder.
My balkaner friends have told me that gypsies/albanians/muslims are seen as, not necessarily harder(and these guys would be middle class legal first or second gen immigrants, not gutter trash) but as a whole lot more dangerous than your average street tough. It wouldn't surprise me if gutter trash saw such a reputation in a much more positive light.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know if "Smoke Check" has the same meaning or connotations in Turkey, Bulgaria, Chechnya, or wherever these guys hail from, but "Ali Smoke Check" just sounds like an alias that an edgy 22 year-old would come up with to me.
What is a "smoke check" and what does it have to do with "Fatos Ali Dumana"?
In engineering it means to test something to the point of failure (IE till it smokes or catches fire), but it is also used in the US as slang for killing somebody.
I've only heard "smoke test" for the first sense. But I still don't see the relation to this guy.
While I would Romanize it a bit differently, when spoken aloud the alias sounds a lot like "verified to the smoke" in Turkish.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don't know the relevance, but "smoke check" is US military slang for shooting someone. Dust flies off clothing/skin when a bullet impacts, can leave a little cloud behind briefly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link