People including Chris ray gun and cuck on head indirectly admit Vaush radicalized them into some regressive leftist ideology, though there were other factors in those two cases such as chris dating laci green, and shoe getting mocked for allowing armored septic to cuck her.
I suspect the other retards had similar factors that made them vulnerable.
Vaush is a pedophile because his comments point to this, and I suspect he supports the regressive left because he wants to use it as a trojan horse to weaken sex crime laws regarding pedophilia.
It's a shame the biden administration is less likely to investigate him for CP possesion due to their corruption.
Neither Chris nor June were actually... anything. They just say shit to get attention. I'm mostly familiar with June, but she isn't smart. She isn't knowledgeable about things. She was always UWU Pwincess.
The moment these people get more attention somewhere else, they go there.
Then again, Cuties is not hard to shit on. It's pretty much impossible to defend if you are not completely fucked.
A very small minority in today's world.
Bruh...
Haha I usually don't point out minor typos but that was next level so I couldn't resist!
They represent the regular, non-radicalized left-leaning demographic; the average joe. They could see the insanity around them but they'd never bother prying away the flimsy drywall to reveal the infestation that lies underneath.
It's really not surprising that they'd be easily persuaded into one side of the fence or the other but they do give an important perspective on the mentality of people that thinks just like them.
Shoe is a boxy clone.
Her whole thing was saying or doing edgy shit while playing up the "cute scene girl next door" persona. She piggybacked on the atheism/skepticism YouTube scene to build a brand and hopped on the armored cock to push it further. Then when he turned her into a cuckquean she jumped ship and ran in the other direction. Unlike normal girls that cut their hair after a bad breakup, she cut her political ties.
Raegan was a glorified content aggregate. He was somehow an even more milquetoast Tim Pool, if that's even possible. He fit the role of the attractive but cute nerdy guy who was still a normie and marketed himself to women. Then he shacked up with Lacy Green and just repeated whatever she told him because 1) pussy and 2) bigger audience.
Neither of them were ever "right-wing" in any way, it just seemed like it because back then the internet wasn't so absurdly split by politics and nobody gave a shit about Twitter.
You mean "like normal girls."
Chris did explain about his interview with Vaush, he did not go regressive but he did want to step away a bit from politics. He also did not want Trump to win, so there is that. Not because he hated Trump but because he wanted the 24 hour Trump news cycle to end.
She looks good naked, though.
Stop doing this. Stop giving people on the left compliments. If the most beautiful woman in the world was anti-woke, the left would call her ugly and they would succeed at convincing others. The right (or whatever the fuck people here are) on the other hand, are pathetic and worship people on the left like this.
Always rushing to say they’re hot, like with the red haired press lady. Or the donkey with big tits. Just stop complimenting and giving these people the satisfaction they will never give you.
I feel like I spend half my posts on this board explaining shit like this to people.
I get the distinct feeling that a depressing amount of people are just to feel like they're part of something rather than to actually fight and win. If they actually wanted to win, they would have surely learned by now that they need to be as ruthless as leftists are. Instead, all we get is people trying to be fucking nice to a group that will happily roll them into a mass grave if they get the fucking chance.
Bingo.
You're a natural born leader telling everyone they need to be ruthless behind a keyboard. Throw the first stone if you have any conviction, pussy.
June's a stupid cunt.
So 2+2=5 but it’s ok when we do it? I have no interest in debating if x web personality is hot or not. But I don’t think we should call someone ugly even if they are not (or an individual thinks they are not) just because we think their political views are stupid. I also think bringing up their looks in general is dumb. But saying we should all agree to say someone is ugly because they have bad ideas is stupid, and the left doing it is a good example of what not to do.
...
???
So did you intentionally leave out this part
“If the most beautiful woman in the world was anti-woke, the left would call her ugly and they would succeed at convincing others.”
Also I’m sure some rando here saying they think a leftist is cute is really boosting up their ego. I’m sure they are just scouring the .wins for people who disagree but might give them a compliment. I mean if the statement was don’t give to their patreon, superchat, or buy their merch sure. But complementing their appearance should not be derided because they are giving a leftist a complement, but because it’s not relevant to the conversation.
... yes, I did intentionally leave that out because the user explained what the left does but never advocated for copying them.
It’s implied. Why else bring up well the left does this
Imagine redefining your sensibilities and humour in accordance to people with no standards.
Do me a favour bud and go fuck yourself, yeah?
Comment Reported for: Rule 3 - Harassment
It's a bit harsh.
Harshness is sometimes required when some invalid decides he's going to try and be your daddy.
As do many others. In fact, there are websites dedicated to the showcasing of people who look good naked, that have millions of users. They have so many people who look good naked, that they need to have elaborate categorization methods to make clear how one that looks good naked differentiates from others that looks good naked. I know one website where you could say "I want someone who looks good naked, but who has green eyes, brown hair of approximately shoulder length, looking AWAY from the camera, while eating, with her feet visible but not a focal point of the image."
THAT is how common people who look good naked are. It's not worth noting in any reasonable discussion.
As do many others. In fact, there are websites dedicated to the showcasing of people who look good naked, that have millions of users. They have so many people who look good naked, that they need to have elaborate categorization methods to make clear how one that looks good naked differentiates from others that looks good naked. I know one website where you could say "I want someone who looks good naked, but who has green eyes, brown hair of approximately shoulder length, looking AWAY from the camera, while eating, with her feet visible but not a focal point of the image."
THAT is how common people who look good naked are. It's not worth noting in any reasonable discussion.
How do you know?
She had a bunch of nudes leak not too long ago. They're on kiwifarms somewhere, but IIRC you need to be logged in to see them and I can't be bothered to go look for them.
Oh. I thought you were just guessing.
I don't want to see them, so you don't need to bother. I never liked her, even before I grew my distrust of most women.
Maybe they are worried they'll be put against the wall if they don't fall in line... Vaush has called for such, so who knows.
That's just Roko's basilisk for communism, isn't it?
"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is what Vaush referred to, which my guess predates Roko's basilisk. The difference would be anyone who disagrees with the current regime would be deleted, as opposed to just those who didn't help establish it.
It does. I was drawing a distinction between Marxist thought, which considers the proletariat revolution inevitable, and Roko's basilisk which does not.
Interesting... I was basing my response on a quick look at Roko's basilisk. I'll have to read more about it. (Hadn't heard of it before, tbh)
It's a thought experiment that claims that the best argument an AI can make for its own existence is by offering people Pascal's wager. If it is rational for people in the present day to work to create an AI that will inflict infinite suffering upon them if they refuse, it is also rational for the AI to inflict infinite suffering upon people who didn't work to create it so that it was rational for people to work to create it.
So the solution is obvious. If there is an ideology who punishes anyone and everyone who doesn't tirelessly work to bring it to fruition, then it is moral to do what is necessary to prevent such an ideology from being implemented.
I only know shoe in this convo. And only barely enough to know she was a lefty khazar who jewtubed that the far left was getting crazy.
khazar implies "for the clicks", btw.