How does the action taken — demonetizing current videos — protect anyone from the "off-platform behavior" — which took place, if it took place, long ago? The current videos don't have anything to do with the conduct he's accused of. It seems to me that the demonetization is at most punishment in retribution for what he is accused of having done. The only conceivable "protection" it offers is from the current speech, which is about culture and politics. YouTube isn't admitting to this kind of viewpoint-based censorship, but the NYT alludes to it:
While Mr. Brand’s earlier stand-up routines had a broadly left-wing focus, skewering the British establishment and focusing on subjects like social inequality, he has recently reinvented himself to focus on conservative talking points, often seeming to target an American audience.
NOTE: This post was edited a bit to make it easier to read.
Posts
110 comments:
"Forget it, dude. It's all Chinatown now." -Woody Allen
Punishment first. Trial later. You have a problem with that?
Russell Brand put his content on Rumble some time ago. Just go there and weaken Google.
Rumble and Odysee have become the homes for a lot of anti-establishment Youtube content. This includes Dr. John Campbell, Steven Crowder, Tim Pool, many of the Canadian Truckers, Arielle Scarcella (a "TERF" bio-lesbian), Tulsi Gabbard, PSR, Shadiversity, and others who stepped on the toes of State Media.
These are not uniformly conservatives...just anti-establishment...there are perhaps plots brewing to take them and the platforms down...
When Brand was 'dating' a 16-year-old girl (he was 31), he used to send his BBC car to pick her up from school. Nice guy.
I suppose he'll soon be following Tucker and making his podcasts on Twitter (X).
While Mr. Brand’s earlier stand-up routines had a broadly left-wing focus...
...he has recently reinvented himself to focus on conservative talking points...
Always.
Mainstream outlets like NYT always use qualifiers to describe a person/group as "left-wing." In this case, "broadly." And for years there were no liberal justices," just "conservative" and "liberal-leaning."
They know the power of labels.
Yes, that is the way of it.
Another leftwing hit job.
So, if there is a lefty I want to get demonetized on Youtube, all I have to do is round up a few accusers to accuse the person of sexual misconduct?
I kid, I kid- I know it doesn't work that way. Brand isn't a conservative- I have seen many of his routines over the years on Youtube itself- he is a true lefty, but he left the reservation over the COVID idiocy- idiocy, I will point out, that was promulgated in the UK by the so-called "conservative" party in power the entire time and, at the federal level in the US, also by a Republican Administration, at least at the very beginning. He also leaned against the Democrats' use of the justice system to persecute their political enemies, but this should be viewed as a true liberal stance, not conservative. The Left basically eats anyone who dares voice any contrarian position, even if that person agrees with 100% of everything else the Left supports.
This doesn't seem right. Shouldn't someone freeze his bank accounts, too?
So I guess Brand will follow Tucker to X. What if Elon proves free speech is profitable?
How long before legal systems, in so called western societies, start to do the same. Presume people guilty until they can regain their government's approval?
These type of user agreements are now the norm thanks to ESG. It is why I discontinued use of PayPal and will avoid getting my money trapped with what I consider unethical “ethics” policy.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Who could have seen this coming?
I saw his brief last(?) 'cast last night; so long Russell, we hardly knew ye.
This is bad, YouTube.
I do think more negative attention should be drawn by YouTube de-monitizing, Go Fund Me canceling fundraisers, Pay Pal blocking payments, etc. That's a very dangerous trend in our culture.
Guess he can flee to (Planet) X like his buddies Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate.
Seems like the kind of celebrity Elon favors.
Just to confirm...
The content is still available
Youtube is making money off of that content
They've demonetized the content's original owner and, in some ways, defamed him by insinuating guilt
At some point, YouTube likes to do evil.
These predictable fake sexual assault accusations against anyone speaking against the approved narrative are like the Salem Witch Trials.
Young girls made false accusations of witchcraft against members of their communities. There fake claims led to 19 executions. The names of the these little bitches were Ann Putnam Jr., Elizabeth Booth, Elizabeth Hubbard, Mary Warren, and Mercy Lewis.
Today we have women like E. Jean Carroll, Christine Blasey Ford, and now the Russel Brand accusers doing much the same thing. Oh, their going after Tim Ballard, the "Sound of Freedom" real life hero. He's being accused of sexual assaults in and anonymous letter.
Of course college educated white women believe all this shit, just like the Salem Witch Trial judges.
Remember when Althouse posted that interview of Russel Brand on Morning Joe, and Morning Mika was acting like a flirty school girl? She was obviously attracted to Mr. Brand, while he was making complete idiots out of her the the Morning propaganda crew.
At the height of his movie and comedy fame, Russel Brand had women throwing themselves at him. This is all bullshit.
Now that he speaks out against the poison vaccine, big pharma, censorship, and the war in Ukraine... you can always find some lying women to come forward and claim "sexual assault" from a long time ago.
Rinse and Repeat.
This is all about silencing Brand who has been reaching a significant number of people against the MSM, and the elites.
So, your question is, "Should we take YouTube's claims about their motivations at face value?"
Huh. No, let's not.
So Brand's activity "harms our users, employees or ecosystem" but the videos remain available for viewing, they just won't pay him? Do they remove all ads from the videos or do they continue to sell ads but keep the cash for themselves? How does leaving the videos up protect the "community" unless the videos are not actually harmful to the community?
What do I know, but the latest on Brand reminded me of the case of Bill Cosby, and I believe two things are possible:
- He may have done the worst he is accused of. That he has lately infuriated the left does not mean these accusations are false;
- The worst he is accused of might never have made the news and threatened his career, had he not infuriated the left. Not that his accusers wouldn't have made the accusations, but few would have listened.
"If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community"
If this is applied retroactively, it becomes a general tool to exclude anyone at any time at our overlords' whim, since anyone could be said to have "harmed" someone else at some point in the past in some way. Which we kinda knew anyway but the Brand debranding makes more explicit.
Just an opportunity for YouTube to impede a divergent voice, particularly an apostate from the lefty narrative.
Maybe he's guilty. Maybe not. Ancient sex cases seem to pop up against wrong thinkers. Right (lefty) thinkers like Clinton, Obama and QuidProJoe - no problemo.
ah - now we see the point of the allegations. To shut him up.
He questions big pharma. You shall not question big pharma.
How do they cancel someone based on allegations? What utter horseshit, Google!
The story from one of his victims is quite credible. She made a police report at the time and has a text apology from Russell for his behavior. He was a good looking celebrity with drug and bipolar issues in an industry that celebrated sex, drugs, and rock n roll. It's not surprising that he would have problems reading the fine lines between reluctance and consent.....That said, it's interesting to note that these accusations come forth not at the apogee of his fame or that of the "me too" movement, but rather at a time when he's talking up some points that are at variance with the leftist narrative....There's a lot about this affair that stinks, and the stench doesn't come solely off Brand. I've got a suspicion that there are many celebrities who were every bit as self indulgent as Russell Brand in their first flush of youth and celebrity. This serves as a warning shot across the bows. You won't be seeing Warren Beatty or Bruce Springsteen taking up any causes unpopular on the left....Brand's crimes were in the past tense, and the past tense of demonize is demonetize.
At some point, YouTube likes to do evil.
Yes it has been some time since Google had to drop their original slogan because already they had become worse than Microsoft, which in the beginning was their definition of an evil corporation. "Don't be evil" indeed!
Just goes to show how they will shut you up when you start saying the truth about what is happening out loud.....
"Guess he can flee to (Planet) X like his buddies Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate.
Seems like the kind of celebrity Elon favors."
Yes, these men have all been denounced. Like it was in the USSR, being denounced is enough. Guilt is assumed based on being denounced by the regime. They wouldn't accuse these guys if they weren't guilty, after all.
The first one to cry witch! and level her quivering finger at Brand claims her sexual involvement with him started when she was sixteen, the age of majority in Great Britain. (I've forgotten her name if I ever heard or read it.) Part of her complaint was the absence of guidance she should have gotten. If only she had been eighteen, her ill-founded choice might have been given second thoughts and rejected.
That struck me as predictably mad. Having her cake and eating it too is an oft-used aphorism because it succinctly addresses a tragic character flaw that undoes so many. In their penchant for jargon over brevity, psychologists might call this cognitive dissonance. But what it really is is the assertion of autonomy when autonomy promotes our search for pleasure in the short term and the pitiable plea for dependence when the butcher's bill inevitably comes around. In other words, my responsibility when it suits me, your responsibility when it doesn't. My architectural brilliance when the absurd edifice stands, your shoddy workmanship when it crashes to the ground. How could you let me drink so much that I collapsed in Leicester Square with my panties around my ankles?
One problem with the Brand affair other than the obviousness of the reason for his persecution, is the inattention to the loose and self-serving morals of the women involved. Brand could have played the stainless paladin and refused what was offered, but there is the "woman scorned" aspect that could have set tongues to wagging. Nevertheless, several ostensibly "strong and independent" women did what they did with him with eyes open. Wouldn't a morally defensible feminism insist they take their licks and learn a lesson about autonomy rather than allow themselves to be manipulated by the foes of real independence and real strength?
Someone doesn't know the difference between "First Amendment" and a "Terms of Service" contract.
How many times do the courts have to say "social media companies aren't bound by the First Amendment" before people stop acting like this isn't a profoundly silly question to ask?
If I had a nickel for every time some @sshole said something entirely legal was “unconstitutional,” I could buy an island, start my own country, write a constitution for it, and make being this dumb a felony.
Canceled for past acts of social liberalism and defamed for present transition.
Google had to drop their original slogan because already they had become worse than Microsoft
Apple, too. At least Alphabet finances carbon credits and spreads the Green blight. Microsoft is a hotbed of diversity, inequity, exclusion.
Can anyone find clarity in YouTube’s “creator responsibility policy”?
It seems to fall short of any discernable policy.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7650329?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311392#zippy=%2Ccreator-responsibility%2Ccreator-integrity
I note that a seemingly official Bill Cosby YouTube page still appears to be earning money through YouTube advertisements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtTdqnBXrfg
Good to see the Red Queen running YouTube is still following the rule of execution first, trial after!
Mark writes, "Guess he can flee to (Planet) X like his buddies Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate."
True to form Mark avoids X because he can no longer promulgate lies and obfuscations without a better-educated person taking him to the rhetorical woodshed. Promulgated, mind you, no original mendacity from our Mark, just the canned canards from the tailgate of the George Soros sham-mobile.
What about the apparent firing of Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker? One incident of apparent phone sex is enough to be fired for? What about Susanna Gibson in VA. Does she still have her nurse job?
MSU claims it is on solid legal grounds to terminate him and not have to pay the remainder of this contract.
"When Brand was 'dating' a 16-year-old girl (he was 31), he used to send his BBC car to pick her up from school. Nice guy."
And the BBC, YouTube, you, and the NYT had no problem or issue with him then. What changed, I wonder?
Google is reacting to the first stone thrown by the London Times.
These hit jobs don't need to be premeditated. Somebody in the club just has to throw the first stone and all the other stone throwers start falling like dominoes.
It's more like looting than colluding.
“Someone doesn't know the difference between "First Amendment" and a "Terms of Service" contract.”
Indeed. It’s as if they think they can dictate to YouTube, a private entity.
I was only vaguely aware of Mr. Brand until he did his recent "wet market" bit. Now he's gone.
So this is pretty cool (if you’re YouTube):
(1) Get (or claim you got) news of a report of allegations by “several women” of “sexual assault” by a very lucrative user of your platform
(2) Do not wait to get verification by an authorized finder of fact that any of the allegations are true or that the complainants even exist
(3) Do not give the user notice or an opportunity to be heard on the claims before passing judgment
(4) Do not give the user a definition of “harm to…our ecosystem” or a pathway to define or perform any actions that would cure or mitigate the alleged harm
(5) Do not escrow the funds (pending resolution of the claims) that are being earned by the targeted user during this period of suspension or banishment; pocket them
(6) Do not attempt to avoid negative publicity to the user as a result of your actions; pile on and pander to the user’s enemies
Where do I sign up for that?
Matt Orfalea: YouTube says you’re not allowed to earn a living if you’re *anonymously* *accused*.
Authoritarian before totalitarian approaches.
It seems pretty obvious all of this stuff is known and only put out there for retaliation. It's gross. Because of all the women who are not interviewed.
As John Brennan, former head of the CIA, said, "people are innocent until alleged to be involved in some type of criminal activity."
By the way, when do the prosecutions and incarceration of Epstein's buddies and clients start?
If I had a nickel for every time some @sshole said...yaddah, yaddah, yaddah
And if I had a penny for every time some "diversity" myrmidon got the vapors when someone with a dissenting opinion isn't canceled, expunged, or expurgated by one of those platforms I'd be holding the mortgage on Rich's island paradise.
Rich comments like a sock puppet for the Musk-haters whose complaint against the reformed Twitter boils down to the fresh air that he admitted into the leftwing echo chamber it had become. So Rich and his think-alikes have fled to the dark crevices like so many cockroaches when the lights come on. Nothing else could be expected.
Is it lucrative, Rich? If so, I'd say the bagmen aren't getting their money's worth.
Nobody said Brand was a nice guy, but 16 was of age in the UK. So, not a criminal. Her message was not that Brand broke the law, but that the law was wrong to make what she consented to, and I agree that I think that 16 is too young, but I didn't write the laws, the laws that made what she "consented to," legal.
Funny how these same people aren't coming down on Hunter, given the videos on his laptop of him with clearly underage girls. One provided by the ChiComs, when he flew there on Air Force Two, acting as "chaperone" for his niece, Joe's granddaughter, who also appears on the laptop with Hunter.
But that's not where the outrage machine is pointed today, it's pointed at the guy with 6.6 million viewers who is criticizing Joe Biden.
This wording by the Times...
While Mr. Brand’s earlier stand-up routines had a broadly left-wing focus, skewering the British establishment and focusing on subjects like social inequality, he has recently reinvented himself to focus on conservative talking points, often seeming to target an American audience.
...is of course accurate.
The notion among the TrumpWing maniacs (Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones have both spoken publicly to this) is that Russell Brand is now being prosecuted because of his weird populist/anti-establishment social and political stances.
There is no evidence of that. If there is any evidence of that later, it will surely come out in court. I expect that the criminal evidence will be narrowly probative of the alleged offenses.
In no way shape or form do I see the Times agreeing that Russell Brand is being prosecuted criminally for his recent social or political commentary.
As for YouTube, I expect that their basic, simplified position would be easily stated and easily understood as, "We are not the public square. We are a private company. We have a brand, and an image, and we do not wish to associate our brand and image with certain people and certain video creations that might damage our brand and image. We aren't the government, and while we like and respect 'free speech', ours is a business model. Not a free speech experiment."
You leftists are what you lie about.
You're all a pack of KGB Putins.
Yawn, so what?
The Bedrock of US and English law used to be "Innocent until proven guilty" Everyone laughed 175 years ago when the Red Queen told Alice "First the punishment then the trial"
But standards, in the US at least, have changed. Now one is "Innocent until alleged to be engaged in some kind of criminal activity."
At least according to our former CIA head, John Clapper
https://youtu.be/__FXeIpQGWE?si=rGIhFfb7jTEWEFwU&t=84
Yawn, so what?
The Bedrock of US and English law used to be "Innocent until proven guilty" Everyone laughed 175 years ago when the Red Queen told Alice "First the punishment then the trial"
But standards, in the US at least, have changed. Now one is "Innocent until alleged to be engaged in some kind of criminal activity."
At least according to our former CIA head, John Clapper
https://youtu.be/__FXeIpQGWE?si=rGIhFfb7jTEWEFwU&t=84
John Henry
"If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community"
Now, that's some interesting, present-tense stuff. What off-platform behavior is Brand currently engaging in, and who or what is it harming? Or are we slyly grouping in accusations from ancient history to apply to Brand's present-day circumstances?
This is similar to the sweeping sense of faceless, autocratic impunity that Twitter users were oppressed by for years, a set of safely-anonymous lever pullers - and then Elon scooped it up and suddenly we had faces and names. Note how these people have melted back into the shrubbery now that their activities have been exposed in great detail.
So perhaps, Google being a publicly traded company, this is a case for shareholder activism? Some insider-whistleblowers coming forward to name and shame? Protests at the annual meetings? Conservative activist shareholders?
Brand is in big trouble for-the same reasons Trump got stoned. They both are extremely good communicators using their talents to tell truth about the Dem Narratives. And both when younger used their talents to seduce the ladies. They had the JFK disease. But none used that talent like Hillary’s spouse who wasn’t even rich.
“Someone doesn't know the difference between "First Amendment" and a "Terms of Service" contract.”
Indeed. It’s as if they think they can dictate to YouTube, a private entity.
Okay you two snarky geniuses, you tell us what exactly in the Google TOS has been violated by Brand to the exclusion of all the other people who have been credibly accused but do not lose their monetization streams. Use clear sentences. Citations would be appreciated.
Then consider we are not "telling Google what to do" with their company, we are asking how they can violate their own terms willy nilly and not pay a price by being regulated into compliance. They appear to need regulation in the most stringent of ways, since they routinely demonetize only based on political speech, which is protected by the Constitution and was being influenced at Google by their close relationship to government, which has since been enjoined by a Federal Court to stop telling Google who to censor. Seems to be a "hidden hand" of government at work here that just so happens to affect exactly the same people affected by the illegal speech codes cases. But only exactly. I eagerly await your elucidation of the "policy" Google is following here, since you're self-proclaimed smarts are in question.
Another day. Another Cosbying of a dissenter. How'd that turn out? Let's see...
"Comedian Bill Cosby has been released from prison after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday vacated the indecent assault conviction against him.
The court's decision upends the long-running legal battle against the once-beloved actor, whose conviction marked a major milestone in the #MeToo movement after he was accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women stretching back decades.
In an 79-page opinion by the court, the justices found that Cosby's due process rights were violated when he was charged for a 2004 assault after prosecutors previously told the comedian they wouldn't bring criminal charges against him.
The Pennsylvania high court's opinion centered around former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor's assurance to Cosby in 2005 that he would not be charged for drugging and sexually assaulting Constand.
Any agreement between Castor and Cosby was never put into writing, the justices said.
The opinion said that Castor thought a criminal prosecution could be difficult, partly because Constand did not immediately file a complaint against Cosby. The opinion said he was also concerned about a lack of forensic evidence, and declined to prosecute the comedian.
Castor said at the time that Constand's best chance at justice for her assault was a civil lawsuit, and if Cosby knew he would not face criminal charges, then he couldn't invoke his Fifth Amendment right in the civil action.
Cosby provided four depositions in which he made "several incriminating statements," according to the opinion.
"The end result was exactly what D.A. Castor intended: Cosby gave up his rights, and Constand received significant financial relief," the court wrote. "Cosby was compelled to give inculpatory evidence that led ultimately to a multimillion dollar settlement."
Years later, when succeeding prosecutors reopened the criminal case and filed criminal charges against Cosby, the depositions under oath were used against him at his trial."
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/30/1011799764/bill-cosbys-conviction-for-sexual-assault-is-overturned-by-a-pennsylvania-court
"Mark said...
Guess he can flee to (Planet) X like his buddies Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate.
Seems like the kind of celebrity Elon favors"
Opening a platform to anyone and everyone is not favoritism. In fact, it's the polar opposite.
Why do you hate free speech?
“creator responsibility policy.' 'If a creator’s off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community”
You Tube, the epitome of an arrogant holier than everyone prick. Which is too bad, because they provide a useful service. But pricks the same. Who could recite that statement of policy with a straight face? A nose in the air neopuritan self deluded hypocritical asshole. But that asshole serves the needs of its master.
Blogger Dave Begley said...
What about the apparent firing of Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker?
I cannot think of anything stupider than having a phone sex relationship with the rape activist you've hired to teach against sexual harassment.
"If I had a nickel for every time some @sshole said something entirely legal was “unconstitutional,” I could buy an island, start my own country, write a constitution for it, and make being this dumb a felony."
You conveniently left out the part about the camps.
"Seems to be a "hidden hand" of government at work here"
Seems to be a "black hand" of government at work here
FIFY
Following up on what boatbuilder wrote above re Brand's BBC car being dispatched to collect his young girlfriend: I don't recall the BBC or any other media organization turning themselves inside out with indignation when the Jimmy Savile scandal finally came to light. The facts in that case were much more disturbing and they circulated for ages while Savile was alive.
This whole thing reeks of retribution for stepping out of line and pointing fingers at those whom no one is allowed to criticize. Not to mention the piling on from his has-been bubblegum pop-star ex-wife Katy Perry. Nothing like gleefully kicking a man when he's down.
Inga writes, "Indeed. It’s as if they think they can dictate to YouTube, a private entity."
I used to rag on Inga using the "Abby someone" riff borrowed from "Young Frankenstein". I don't anymore because I came to believe it was grossly unfair to pickled brains in jars.
Poor Inga, with newly-arrived Rich beating her to the low-hanging banalities she's reduced to quoting him with a recapitulation and thumbs-up.
I have a suggestion -- a stepladder. The juicier prosaisms are a little higher up. One's reach ought to exceed one's grasp, or what's a Heaven for?
Youtube has been doing a lot of demonetization lately accusing their creators of "invalid traffic". Suspicion is that Youtube cheated their advertisers and are falsely blaming the creators to cover up their "crimes".
"The BBC said Tuesday that it has removed programming featuring Russell Brand from its streaming services iPlayer and BBC Sounds, saying it has “assessed that it now falls below public expectations.”
I wonder if YouTube will follow suit and remove his content as well.
If a blogger, podcaster, performer, or commentator has a decently large enough audience they should follow the lead of people like Rush Limbaugh, Joe Rogan, Andrew Torba, and just build out their own business infrastructure that's owned and controlled by them so as to become to where they can't be cancelled. This is an especially good path to follow if there is anything at all in their past that the wokesters could pounce on. My 2¢ worth of opinion. Like some of wokesters say "become ungovernable", or in this case be uncancellable.
Make accusation he can’t refute. Then de-platform him under the guise of “believe all women.”
This is the fruit of a multi year strategy to destroy anyone who speaks out.
Nixon had a strategy in the late sixties to prosecute petty drug crimes. His reasoning is that busting MJ allowed any black personal and all hippies to be arrested at anytime for any reason.
That strategy is alive and well today - except it’s used against anyone speaks out against our leftist authoritarian government.
Ah, those conservative talking points...
Famous Conservative Russell Brand joins other famous Conservatives Naomi Wolf, Joe Rogan, Matt Taibbi.
Gusty Winds said...
"Of course college educated white women believe all this shit, just like the Salem Witch Trial judges."
-----------
BINGO for Gusty Winds for blaming everything, for the 50th time, on "college educated white women." As I have suggested before, we should have a drinking game here on Althouse Blog where every time Gusty Winds blames "college educated white women" for whatever is bothering him, that we all have to take another shot. The problem is that some would become alcoholics.
Ray “Little Rascal” Epps has been informationed.
Brand was a hard core lefty superstar in the UK. His whole shtick was being the "bad boy"shagging any female that stood still.
He dropped more knickers than Tom Jones.Any groupie that claims she didn't know what she was getting into deserves to be laughed at.
Even though I have witnessed it over and over again, I am still astonished at the speed at which the Lefties can turn on a dime and become full-throated defenders of the "capitalist" system, when it is turned to service of their political ends. Freedom for the corporate overlords to do whatever the fuck they want. Just fine with that.As long as those evil corporations don't promote anything they don't like. Then it is time for the regulators to step in. Look at Inga, Rich and Chuck. Pathetic hypocrites.
I hear X welcomes Hitlers...
Musk says X will charge everyone to use the platform
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/19/musk-x-twitter-charge-all-users-monthly-subscription-fees
Basically Musk is saying, “If I had to pay too much for Twitter you do too” …..
"I cannot think of anything stupider than having a phone sex relationship with the rape activist you've hired to teach against sexual harassment."
I suspect that I am missing something here. Why didn't she just hang up?
Blogger lonejustice said...
BINGO for Gusty Winds for blaming everything, for the 50th time, on "college educated white women." As I have suggested before, we should have a drinking game here on Althouse Blog where every time Gusty Winds blames "college educated white women" for whatever is bothering him, that we all have to take another shot. The problem is that some would become alcoholics.
I'M IN. I love drinking games. And I like to lose them. I'm a true blooded Wisconsinite. Not like the college educated white women from Madison wrecking our state and country. You should hear the way men talk about American women over 45. We're all looking for foreign women. Keep the border open. Or hurry up with the sex robots.
College educated white women 1) pushed COVID bullshit and the 'vaccine' on children. 2) buy into the climate change bullshit so they can virtue signal like they care, while running two air conditioners to cool their McMansion, 3) could care less about the dead Ukrainians 'protecting democracy', 4) and they hate men so much, they want to cut the penises off their sons.
"Thanks for posting!" "Love that!" Oh, and they over use exclamation points.
Rich asks: "How many times do the courts have to say "social media companies aren't bound by the First Amendment"?
No one said they are. The only question is are they bound by common decency? Apparently, that doesn't concern Rich.
WRT Mel Tucker;
Tucker says she called him. What happened afterwards was not clear.
In her position, you'd hate to run out of material.
Free Manure While You Wait! said...
""Mark said...
Guess he can flee to (Planet) X like his buddies Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate.
Seems like the kind of celebrity Elon favors"
Opening a platform to anyone and everyone is not favoritism. In fact, it's the polar opposite.
Why do you hate free speech?"
Becausre it shows him up for the vacuous clod he is.
I do hope we can be given the names and other details of his accusers. Goose, gander, minimal assembly required.
Also: how much they have been paid, and by whom. Fair is fair!
I do hope we can be given the names and other details of his accusers. Goose, gander, minimal assembly required.
The alleged misconduct occurred between ten and 17 years ago. With consenting adults. Today, when the complainants are in their mid-20's or early 30's, there is nothing to be ashamed of or too shocking to be revealed.
So let's hear all about it. Also: how much they have been paid, and by whom. Fair is fair!
next to be cancelled: Neil Oliver: even his archology lectures now have a trigger warning on them.
And they already have warned Dr. John Campbell for changing from pro vax to noting the coverup of vaccine side effects. He now no longer gives his opinion but just quotes others.
"The only question is are they bound by common decency?"
You mean like the auto reply poop emoji X responds to all queries with?
Or Lauren Bobert at a musical common decency?
“I'm a true blooded Wisconsinite.”
Me too! A Waukesha County resident for over 40 years.
“Not like the college educated white women from Madison wrecking our state and country.”
Oh sorry, I’m one of those college educated white women Gusty rails against.
Nancy Reyes @ 8:09: "...[John Campbell] now no longer gives his opinion but just quotes others."
I like Campbell a lot and I admire his skill at playing super-gullible: "Oh, I don't know, I'm just reading this here data out loud. Hmmm. I wonder what that might mean?" Long may he flourish.
"it's interesting to note that these accusations come forth not at the apogee of his fame or that of the "me too" movement, but rather at a time when he's talking up some points that are at variance with the leftist narrative"
That doesn't line up. He started bad-mouthing the COVID establishment two years ago. Why wait this long to burn him?
“Or Lauren Bobert at a musical common decency?”
And after giving her date a good rubbing, she dumps him!
See.
"Basically Musk is saying..."
Basically, Rich is saying, "Gimme, gimme, gimme!"
"The only question is are they bound by common decency?"
Dumb Lefty Mark: "You mean like the auto reply poop emoji X responds to all queries with?
Or Lauren Bobert at a musical common decency?"
LOL
Dumb Lefty Mark takes time out from defending explicit pornograpic sexual content in kindergartners libraries and drag queens stripping and simulating sex acts in front of children and groomers in schools talking about sexual matters to students without parental knowledge to complain about Lauren Boebert.
Discuss.
As with really bad sex, this whole trope has become tiresome and repetitive. We see what is going on, we see the point, it's just so predictable and ugly.
Here's the short version - the worst people are genuinely in control, get what they want most in life, and for every one else it ends in tears and disbelief. That's where we're headed. The denouement will be unprecedented and unbelievable, and the lucky will get to die in it.
Enjoy fighting over the scraps and talking about the "good old days" after it happens. We live in a world of abundance and promise - enjoy it while it lasts.
Hurry up about it though, time's running out...
Now YouTube thinks it's a campus rape tribunal.
I'm a college educated white woman, Gusty Emissions. So screw you, your lazy identity politics, and your confused collectivist twattle.
You lack the integrity to even use your real name while condemning people you don't know for the color of their skin. That's definitionally pathetic.
Maybe Al Sharpton is looking for flunkies. You'll fit right in at NAN, likely just as a whipping boy, but Karma's just Hindu for Karen, don't you think?
Funny you bring up drag shows, Drago. Did you know the guy Boebert was fondling in public runs a club that hosts drag shows?
And unlike your pointless personal attack, there are actual facts supporting what I speak of.
Glenn Greenwald on Russel Brand
"Look how manipulatively corporate media weaponizes trite, primitive political labels:
NYT, today: "Mr. Brand built a significant following where he interviews prominent conservative figures..."
Brand's recent interviews: Cornel West, Noam Chomsky, Marianne Williamson."
Jeezum, Mark, nobody is seriously offended by drag shows, per se, as *adult* entertainment. But why are you so fixated on what happened in a darkened theatre between consenting, once again, adults, just because it was caught on infrared cameras?
Were you there in the linch mob after Pee Wee Herman?
The question in my mind is: Is Mark really stupidly incapable of understanding what Drago writes and writing honest rebuttals, or is it that Mark is pushing an agenda using dishonest tactics? I have my suspicions.
Dumb Lefty Mark: "Funny you bring up drag shows, Drago. Did you know the guy Boebert was fondling in public runs a club that hosts drag shows?"
LOL
What does a bar owner hosting adult drag shows have to do with you supporting half naked adults hosting drag shows with simulated sexual activity in front of young children, supporting explicit sexual materials being available in schools for small children and groomers speaking with young children about sex without parents being informed?
We already know the answer to that, dont we?
Blogger Tina Trent said...
I'm a college educated white woman, Gusty Emissions. So screw you, your lazy identity politics, and your confused collectivist twattle.
You lack the integrity to even use your real name while condemning people you don't know for the color of their skin. That's definitionally pathetic.
"Color of their skin" "collectivist"...give me a break. This is the output of a college education? Hey Drago! I'm a collectivist...go figure...
We all know what defines the Affluent White Female Liberals (AWFLs) in America's suburbs and cities. We all know where they flock as a voting block. They are a complete pain in the ass on a macro and micro level.
tim in vermont: "The question in my mind is: Is Mark really stupidly incapable of understanding what Drago writes and writing honest rebuttals, or is it that Mark is pushing an agenda using dishonest tactics? I have my suspicions."
Dumb Lefty Mark, not unlike LLR-democratical Chuck or LLR lonejustice or LLR Rich or mutaman et al, are just doing what leftists do.
Russia Collusion Truther and Hillary/FBI Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga: "And after giving her date a good rubbing, she dumps him!"
Joe Biden showered with and sexualized his own adolescent daughter.
Inga supports Joe Biden.
Discuss.
Blogger Inga said...
“I'm a true blooded Wisconsinite.”...Me too! A Waukesha County resident for over 40 years.
“Not like the college educated white women from Madison wrecking our state and country.”...Oh sorry, I’m one of those college educated white women Gusty rails against.
I'm not sure I believe you Inga, (you argue disingenuously) but if you do actually live in Waukesha County, WI it fits with your hypocrisy. Waukesha County is a safe, affluent place to live because it is the most conservative county in WI. Crime is low. Taxes are low. Schools open, on-site during COVID while Madison and Milwaukee made kids fall behind and sit at home. Everyone wears clothes at parades. Even the drunk drivers to the speed limit. The list goes on.
All I can really say, is despite your crazy AWFL politics...you're welcome. But feel free to put your political and personal principles to work and move to the Metcalf Park Neighborhood in Milwaukee. They need people like you.
tim, Drago claims I say things I have not.
Having done this 50 times before to me, I just ignore his insane rants as what he asks me to defend are not claims I have made.
You knew that already, though.
boatbuilder said...
"I cannot think of anything stupider than having a phone sex relationship with the rape activist you've hired to teach against sexual harassment."
I suspect that I am missing something here. Why didn't she just hang up?
I think she's a fraud and possibly a blackmailer.
But that doesn't erase his stupidity.
boatbuilder said...
"I cannot think of anything stupider than having a phone sex relationship with the rape activist you've hired to teach against sexual harassment."
I suspect that I am missing something here. Why didn't she just hang up?
I think she's a fraud and possibly a blackmailer.
But that doesn't erase his stupidity.
Dumb Lefty Mark: "tim, Drago claims I say things I have not.
Having done this 50 times before to me, I just ignore his insane rants as what he asks me to defend are not claims I have made."
LOL
If I had supported the things you have supported I might try the Denial Route as well.
Good luck with that.
Lefties need to own their support of "Pedo Pete" and his daughter's diary noting shower scenes.
Then..we talk.
Re nurse Inga, has she run out of rape kits for her dutiful house hosting of Joementias's surge of migrants?
I’m just going to note none of the lefty scolds lecturing us on YouTube terms of service can or did provide any examples of Brand’s alleged violations and certainly can’t and won’t be able to distinguish his online behavior from those who continue to use YouTube in clear violation of the TOS. Good job lefties! Brave Sir Robin rides again!
Post a Comment