Message from @hiblast
Discord ID: 512321958130745344
Ryan Reynolds voicing Pikachu..... not what I imagined the first live action movie to be like, but OK
Ya someone already posted it :)
Wow, that's weird. I wasn't expecting them to go that direction with it
I'm kinda interested now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it1xTbblhvw
Styx making me take my user name a bit more serious...
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)
At 3:20 Jim starts talking about the tweets if you don't want to watch the whole video.
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?