Channel
@IhaveNoFuckingClue
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
1,987subscribers
+12 since we began measuring on 25 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001933048148 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @IhaveNoFuckingClue |
| Created | Between 1 April 2023 and 31 October 2023 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 25 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 18 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 9 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 18 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/IhaveNoFuckingClue |
Politics & activism — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 16 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 99% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 18 Sept 2026, 16:01 | 1,987 | +1 |
| 14 Sept 2026, 06:15 | 1,986 | -5 |
| 10 Sept 2026, 13:38 | 1,991 | -13 |
| 5 Sept 2026, 07:16 | 2,004 | +6 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 11:03 | 1,998 | +6 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 04:34 | 1,992 | +16 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 20:33 | 1,976 | +1 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 17:45 | 1,975 | no change |
| 25 Aug 2026, 17:30 | 1,975 | first reading |
16 posts held, back to 24 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 page of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 16 posts for this entry, the most recent from 25 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
244 reactions across 16 posts, in 1 kind.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 244 | 100.0% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 16 of the 16 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 244 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 16 most recent posts we hold, published 24 August 2026 to 25 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
I’m not interested in debating this with you because, frankly, this isn’t even a particularly difficult subject to understand. The basic facts are well established, and the concepts really aren’t that complicated. The problem is that you seem far more interested in arguing from your feelings and preconceived biases than actually looking at the evidence. You don’t need to be an expert to understand this. You just need…
❤10
شما حتی یک کانسپت ساده مثل equality و equity رو متوجه نمیشید.
❤12
اگر وقتی حرف از برابری میزنیم اولین واکنشتون اینه که «پس ما میتونیم زنهارو بزنیم دیگه؟ چون برابریم.» واقعاً شما هیچی از برابری سرتون نمیشه، انسان احمقی هستید و بحث کردن با شما هیج فایدهای نداره.
❤14
دفاع با حمله فکر داره. این مرد به این دو زن حمله کرد. از زنش دفاع نکرد. واقعاً از همه ناامید شدم.
❤13
این پستی که دوستم برام فرستاد و اسکرینشات داد بهم از کامنتها که یک مرد توی دعوای زنش با دوتا زن دخالت میکنه و شروع میکنه به زدن زنها باعث شد اصلاً از همه ناامید بشم. از زنش دفاع کنه با زدن دو تا زن؟ وقتی اینقدر زور داره، نمیتونست زنش رو از کمر بلند کنه ببره؟ چرا اولین واکنشش زدن دوتا زن بود؟ الان شما فکر کردید وقتی یک مرد اینقدر راحت دست روی زن بلند میکنه و اولین ریکشنش اینه که یک زن رو کتک بزنه، توی رابطهی…
❤19
هر وقت سعی کردید برای یک مرد بهونه بیارید که «نه، نمیدونه آخه بلد نیست» و… یک لحظه پاز کنید و از خودتون بپرسید، چرا نباید بدونه؟ مگه یک انسان بالغ نیست؟ چرا نباید بدونه؟
❤23
بزن بهادر دوست دارید به عنوان پارتنر؟ پس وقتی سر توهم ساید بزن بهادرش زد بالا تعجب نکن.
❤16
شما اگر نیاز باشه پارتنرتون رو کنترل کنید تا بهتون خیانت نکنه، بهتره اصلاً همون موقع کات کنید. اتفاقاً باید آزادش بذاری. اگر هم خیانت کرد، خیلی راحت میتونی کات کنی؟ متوجه نمیشم.
❤18
من اتفاقاً از پارتنرم انتظار دارم با زنها درست و محترمانه برخورد کنه و هرجایی زنی نیاز به کمک داشت، بهش کمک کنه. برام مهم نیست طرف مقابل فکر کنه داره لاس میزنه چون توی ذهنش احترام و کمک رو مساوی با لاس زدن میدونه. اگر هم برداشت اشتباهی پیش اومد، میتونه خیلی راحت برطرفش کنه؟
❤16
بله، من از پارتنرم انتظار دارم که منطقی و فکر شده عمل کنه و بتونه احساساتش رو کنترل کنه. چرا نتونه؟
❤18
اونبار با یکی سر همین بحثم شد که تو نمیتونی اینجوری اینقدر از پارتنر انتظار داشته باشی چون بالاخره مردها فلان. گفتم به خودت برنمیخوره درمورد خودت داری اینجوری صحبت میکنی؟ یعنی هیچ کنترلی روی خودت نداری؟ چطور بهت برنمیخوره؟
❤17
از یک طرفی برای یک مرد بهونه میارید که «نمیتونه خودش رو کنترل کنه»، «بالاخره مرده و مرد اینجوری واکنش نشون میده دیگه.» و… راستش درک نمیکنم چطور این به مردها بیشتر برنمیخوره و چطور خودشون هم این رو درمورد خودشون میگن. چطور واقعاً؟ عملاً دارید میگید هیچگونه کنترلی سر خودتون ندارید و نمیتونید خودتون رو کنترل کنید؟
❤16
Showing the 12 most recent of 16 posts we hold for @IhaveNoFuckingClue. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 18 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“دُری گمشده” (@IhaveNoFuckingClue), 1,987 subscribers as measured 18 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/IhaveNoFuckingClue.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.