Will european's fight for their land and rights when the time comes?

Eventually, but most likely under rising authoritarian nationalistic regimes. (Likely ethno-national)

https://youtu.be/2PUIryWfUNE

At 3:20 Jim starts talking about the tweets if you don't want to watch the whole video.

@Beemann

Where the tweets at

It's just people talking shit

How many hours of Ethan Ralph's shitty voice and Jim's lowest quality content do I have to listen to before someone links actual evidence and doesn't just allude to it?

It was a retweet

>he tweeted WSJ
>it was a retweet
Pick one

I don't document this stuff

Sargon also retweeted Tariq Nasheed lol

K?

"Sargon had tweets towards the WSJ talking about warski."
This didn't happen, is my point. He retweeted another account that was going on about the stream, WSJ jumped on it. I consider Sargon's 100 follower shitposting account retweet no more responsible for that than it is for Tariq Nasheed's output.
No more responsible than Jim is for Ralph's dumb bullshit, which is to say, not at all given current "evidence"

?

I was just trying to say not all the jokes towards Sargon&Friends were unwarranted by pointing out this incident. I wasn't trying to go deeper into it.

@hiblast you haven't written a peer reviewed article about it???

Lol

You made a claim that has no evidence and then walked it back to something entirely different, and your "proof" was just a waste of time

Tweet/retweet isn't that huge of a different, the intent/"joke" still stands, and again, I just merely mentioned it.

And it wasn't meant to be proof, more so his reasoning for retweeting it.

@Deleted User any proper tweet, logs, etc would work. It shouldn't be hard. Jim, Ralph et al procure those all the time. If you're going to make a claim and not back it up, you're just doing dumb ops shit

>the intent/"joke" still stands
This is sjw reasoning
>I know your intent. You weren't *really* joking

Well, it does, because I'm not giving it any different meaning other than what it was. Him retweeting someone's *pro-deplatform andy* isn't all that different if he tweeted it himself.

Even his reasoning was "Because it's funny"

>nobody retweets anything they're not 100% for

Me referencing the retweet was to simply show Sargon does some "trolling" yet can't handle it when thrown back.

Goalposts are shifting again

No they're not, look at my original comment

I never cared about the fact Sargon retweeted some pro-deplatform shit, but if he's going to call that trolling then all the dead kid jokes are trolling.

Your original comment where you implied jokes you don't like aren't jokes and falsely claimed that Sargon tweeted WSJ?

or the one where you say retweeting something you think is stupid/funny is the equivalent of sincerely sending out that tweet?

Or the one where you hilariously claim Sargon is morally grandstanding

You don't think that if the WSJ never made that article then Ralph would still be on YouTube?

You think the WSJ made that article because a 100 account shitlord twitter retweeted it?

Also I thought this was about trolling, not assigning blame

And he has moral grandstanded on doxxing yet doesn't care when it's people that have made fun of him.

Where did he say he didn't care about doxxing? Are we talking about Jim's fake dox?

Dude, Ralph has hit the top 10 trending streams for a month straight, they've had to have noticed, and if they really didn't like it, they would've taken it down a long time ago.

>actually implying that WSJ only had an issue with TRR because of a 100 follower retweet

It's was absolutely because someone mentioned to the WSJ, they wanted a new hit peice for clicks, and boom, Ralph is of YouTube.