Message from @Rabbi Shekels
Discord ID: 508095175059308547
That's styx Take on the Video @H. George Wells posted
Thank you sir
no Problemo
“ The Alt-Right’s favorite social network Gab’s to use blockchain to make itself indestructible “ by Micheal del Castillo on Forbes”
The fear the corporate media has of Gab is clearly expressed in this article about the website looking into utilizing blockchain technology. They say “ no better example of the power, and the terror, inspired by blockchain than Gab..” and “ Gab epitomizes the darker consequences...” . They told us to build our own. Now that we are, they are afraid.
http://archive.today/KJ9Yi
Wall Street Journal just blocked $26,000+ from getting to children of St. Jude due to differing politics.
Not much to go on. The headline appears to overplay things a bit, but the kind of think I think Tim likes to talk about from time to time.
^^ Yeah, that is so dumb
As a girl who is into chicks, she isn't bad. I have no trouble saying it. Hell, she's pretty darned cute. 😃
If anything, he should be fired for his weak praise.
"Meghan Markle is a stunningly beautiful woman, you oaf."
we don't need less sexy almost naked women on things. we need more sexy almost naked men on things. That is how you get equality
Damn right!
(both of you)
4 poor pipl lik me
There's no way this is the real article. This is the most poorly written slapdash piece of shit I've seen out of any publication in a long time
Have you ever heard tim bash/flame Mainstream outlet for grammar/wording, @Beemann ? 😉
Nothing is stopping the individuals from donating directly. If they don't turn around and donate directly to St Jude then that is their decision. The "terrible" person is the donator who is unwilling to give except through a controversial site.
And there's no onus on the link in the chain that decided to break?
yes im sure donators are the terrible people, that makes a hell of a lot of sense, why didint i think of it.
All the WSJ did was report. It would be St Jude's who would have decided they didn;t want to be associated with killStream
and insentivized donating is a pretty common occurence
That is their right
@Stefan Payne it honestly looks like a botched copy-paste job
Just as it is the right of each individual to decide whether they will follow up by donating via an alternate mechanism
were not talking about rights
were talking about ideology getting between children and charity
Sure, they have the right, but what is right isn't always laudable or socially acceptable.
I'm seeing blame on the WSJ, maybe Google, St Jude's, and nebulous "other players" but no mention that the people who are seeing their money returned can then do whatever they decide to do with it
```@Stefan Payne it honestly looks like a botched copy-paste job```
So like a standard Low Effort Mainstream Media Article 😉
No one is "stealing" anything
You can run around the streets yelling at everyone and calling them faggots, but that's not really okay.
who the fuck said there was stealing here?