This is the one that sold me on Pattinson. A lot of emotion and insecurity to really come through in his mannerisms and dialogue. Caused me to go out of my way to see Good Time, because I knew the people fawning over it were probably right.

had 1-2 mods directly tied to white nationalist groups.

Not only this, if you post this sort of comment in r/canada they will use mod tools to hide your comment (not delete it, just hide it).

The "official" Canada subreddit hasn't changed, they're just more careful about their bigotry. The mods didn't learn to get rid of the mods who were horrid people, they just learned to get rid of the mods who would call them out for it. The amount of vitriolic anti-immigration, or anti-trans stuff on that subreddit is honestly sickening. Finally had enough when a video was posted of a trans person being grabbed and defending themself by throwing down their assailant, only for the comments to be loaded with people trying to find the identity of and advocating for violence against the trans person. Sending mod mail asking why that kind of post is front-page got a "Why do you think it's our job to police that kind of stuff?".

Yes, Dan was open enough to post it here. He asked if anyone knew who they were because they spend all day disparaging Edmonton through misinformation and bigotry, and they do it seemingly from a position of anonymity. He's allowed to ask.

You not liking it, does not mean it was a witch-hunt. It was a "hey, is this public-facing person/group actually anonymous?".

The real irony here is that this very post is the result of off-site brigading from the yegwave discord. If you want to talk about witch-hunts, we're commenting in the middle of one.

Asking who they are is an issue. It would be no different than if I made a post asking for your real identity.

Ask for it all you like. It's not a crime, nor is it against the rules. If someone (other than me) decides to provide that information it would be, but only if, and only the person who provided the information would be breaking the rules.

Besides, as you point out about Dan, as a journalist, he has made his face and general identity public. For all he knows another journalist has done the same. Dude was just curious. The response of "yegwave is anonymous and would prefer to remain so" is sufficient in this case, but screaming about witch-hunts or doxxing is some real hysteria level nonsense.

As much as I don’t like Yegwave that’s both witch-hunting and a doxxing request which go against Reddit rules.

Cite the rule... It's entirely within the rules to simply ask who a journalist (label used loosely) is... It's not witch hunting, nor is it doxxing... It would be doxxing if someone responded by providing intimate personal data.

Are you guilty of doxxing Dan with Oilers Nation? You identified him by name... How dare you! Or are you fine, because he's a journalist?

She was brought on The Breakfast Club (a popular black radio show) to be interviewed post-DW. She was outed pretty quickly for being fundamentally out of touch with black culture.

She's a millennial version of Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell. White conservatives and fascists like to hold them up as some kind of "gotcha" against the much broader leftist black community, but their black followings don't tend to be particularly large. She doesn't even do well with the established far-right circles within the black community like the Black Israelites or Nation of Islam, because her religious preaching doesn't align with them at all. Even when looking at her presentation and practice of Christianity itself, it's notably "white", lacking much of the black tradition she'd need to fit in and be taken seriously there.

She is a token. People know she's a token. That doesn't stop her from having an effect on people, but she's not some kind of cultural touchstone.

Hey now, this isn't accurate, Trump was almost certainly a terrible person between the ages of 0-18 as well.

Tell that to all the tren addicts with hardcore gyno. Most of the guys attempting to look like Hoarah Loux are going to look more like the top image after a few cycles.

No one "smeared" Kennedy other than RFK Jr. himself... Everytime he opens his mouth the headlines write themselves.

Even if you're willing to ignore the fact that he's missing part of his brain, that he's entirely anti-medicine, and anti-education, or that he's an active defender of known child rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Dude's position on Israel is abysmal... He's critical of Biden for not being hawkish enough in terms of funding the Israeli's obliteration of Palestinian civilians.

No one is being directly physically or financially pressured into voting for someone. An employer committing sexual assault on the other hand.... These two things are not the same thing. Keep trying...

An Asmongold viewer with a month old account, go figure.

What a terrible comparison.... We're not talking about someone making an open decision for themselves, choosing between two or more relatively subjective options with little to no emotional connection. We're talking about a person who was manipulated into performing sexual activity by an EMPLOYER who is 3 times their age.

If you can't see the ways in which power plays into one situation but not the other then you're completely unequipped to have this conversation.

Depending on the jurisdiction, related legal definitions, and the degree of coercion, yes.

5 years into legal adulthood? People's brains don't stop developing until they're around 25. She's 2 years younger than that. So yea, she's barely a fucking adult....

Always fascinating to see how outraged people get at the mere accusation of sexual impropriety on behalf of the rich and famous.

being kinda gross

There is a clear and obvious power difference between an employee who is barely an adult, and her extremely famous employer, a man who's nearly 40 years her senior.

It's not just "kinda gross", it's fundamentally exploitative.

Bit of titlegore... Makes it sound like Greenpeace is making these plastic bottles.

Qualified Immunity. It basically means that unless they do something that a police officer has previously been charged with, you can't hold them legally accountable.

Designed to protect individual officers from legal consequences for mistakes made while performing a job which can require damaging property or in extreme cases causing injury, abused to such an extreme degree that it prevents consequences for very deliberate violence, up to and including murder.

Police unions have also worked to insulate departments from financial consequences. In a significant number of jurisdictions the police departments never even foot the bill for said property damage or injury, the municipality does.

This means that cops literally do not give a shit, because they almost never have to worry about financial or legal consequences for their bad actions..

implying 

Yes, you're being selectively outraged. You're inferring something not said into my words. Arabs are not a homogeneous "race" either, so no, I didn't imply anything. Hell, race itself is such a nebulous and ridiculous concept, to get worked up over it here feels pretty silly.

The point of my statement was to outline the marginalization of people who aren't generally accepted within a social majority. Whether racial ("black, brown, asian") or cultural ("hispanic, arab"), certain people are kept at arms length from majority social status. Hispanic people fit that breakdown regardless of whether or not you want to get hung up on a word.

Hispanic people as a broader cultural group are a racialized group within the USA. They are broadly seen as "others" relative to the majority.

There are light skinned/featured Arabs as well, but it's cute seeing you be selectively outraged. People of hispanic origin are not granted the same social privileges that a standard US wasp would be, regardless of hair and eye color... That's the point.

It’s not like the struggles of Americans of East Asian, Indian, Native American, and African descent share identical problems in many cases.

No, you're right, but they DO share in that they are not granted the same social privileges as white people in white majority countries. That's the point of the term "PoC". Instead of calling them what they aren't: "non-white", it's calling them what they are, slightly more positive.

You can still indicate black, brown, asian, hispanic, arabic, w/e, but PoC is a blanket term to recognize the social inequality inherent with not being part of the white majority.

Someone else said it probably makes more sense to use the term "racialized" and I agree, as it recognizes more nuance between peoples without trying to hard to associate "color". It also has the opportunity to recognized groups who are otherwise white skinned who aren't really part of the power structure.

TIL this was a genuine bit of theirs... Got free tickets to a Rush concert in like 2003, I was like 15 and entirely unfamiliar with their music. My brother and I are just sitting there wondering why the hell their pyro was just dryers seemingly filled with glowsticks or something.

In Israeli highschool curriculum they teach the book of Joshua (a section of the Hebrew bible) which details God instructing the early Jews to finally stop their prolonged migration (started during Exodus, under Moses) and settle in "Canaan" (modern day Palestine, Lebanon, and Western Syria). They teach it as if it were history.

The idea is that during the Iron Age there was a Jewish kingdom called Israel, founded on the graves of those who existed before. Land promised by God and taken by early/ancient Jews. Modern Zionists throw out the "god" concept, and just argue that it's proof that Jews controlled the land regardless of the reason or function, that in taking Palestine they are simply "returning".

Real archeological digs have found nothing to corroborate the details of these events. Nothing. In fact, they have found mountains of evidence to refute biblical details. Most notably is that the lands of Palestine were controlled by the Egyptian empire for the entire duration in which the Joshua is purported to have taken place. They "fled" Egypt, and travelled to Egypt apparently... Truthfully, archeological records don't even indicate a mass migration of people. The Iron Age "Kingdom of Israel" didn't really exist, and is simply hopeful propaganda primarily based on biblical interpretation pushed to maintain the Zionist project.

There was a significant Jewish population in the 1st century while under Roman control, but the idea of it ever really being a Jewish controlled nation is not supported by history. They were a tribe of people who believed in a God named Yahweh who called that region home under a variety of other Imperial majorities. They grew in size until Christian and later Islamic influences converted the ancient Jews to the more modern religions. The Muslim/Christian (and Jewish) Palestinians of today are the genetic and cultural descendants of the Syrian/Galilean/Phoenician/Judean Jews of yesterday.

Important note. Thank you.

The earliest Zionists were notoriously Atheists.... Nearly half of all Israelis today identify as secular. Just because they point to the book of Joshua as justification for their taking of land, does not mean they are religious in the slightest. In fact, many treat Joshua as a historical text, not a religious one. Before I move on, it's important to note that there is no archeological evidence to support the passages of Joshua; the bible is fiction.

Most Zionists don't believe that God exists but they do believe that he promised them Palestine. ~ Ilan Pappé

Similarly, Palestine was among the most secular of the Arabic regions prior to Zionist colonization. The entire anti-Zionist movement was almost entirely non-religious until the 1970s. Major religious groups were still rejected well into the 80s. Hamas didn't form until 1988. The religiosity that we see today is a direct result of people being pushed into a corner, repressed, and violated, now seeking some sense of salvation and support.

To boil this down to a religious conflict is insanely silly. European Jews didn't feel welcome in Europe (justifiably so), they wanted a piece of land for themselves, so they worked to take a piece of land with some historical legacy to their religion. European anti-Semites who wanted the Jews gone were more than happy to oblige. This process was done violently. The people who are native to that land have been fighting back (not instigating) for over 100 years now.

The right to free speech includes advertisers having the freedom to choose what they want their products/services placed next to.

The only content that Youtube literally censors (removes/bans) involves real world harm (child abuse material, snuff material, etc.), literal pornography (though there are loopholes and as such, plenty of nudity on the platform), major/blatant/repeated copyright infringement (though this is often abused by bad actors), and at times, established and well documented bits of misinformation (COVID was rampant with this).

Youtube does demonetize plenty of content, but that's not censorship, it's simply telling creators that they won't be able to profit from that content. You can still post nearly anything you want, you're just not guaranteed to be paid if all you're posting is videos of Spider-Man farting on a pregnant Elsa.

Imo finding advertisers for the company shouldn't be too hard anyway as Reddit has way worse content but still manages to run ads.

Clearly that's just your opinion. Reddit is notoriously unprofitable. Running ads, and actually making money on ads are two different things.

There are plenty of issues with YouTube, particularly that it holds a functional monopoly in the online video hosting space. There are competitors, but they're specks of dust in comparison to the behemoth that is YouTube. This allows YouTube to act in nearly any way it likes, and their employees (content creators) just have to take it.

Finally, I do agree with you that the average consumer should absolutely take steps to minimize YouTube's footprint, adblockers are an absolutely must imho. If you find creators you really like and want to support, seek out an alternative way to support them such as Patreon or Merch. I just fundamentally disagree with the framing of "censorship".

More than that:

1. He cheated on his wife at the 2017 twitchcon with someone who he had coordinated with through sexts. He admits in his crying "feel bad for me" stream that it was done with clear, premeditated intent and he regrets it.
2. He was ALSO sexting a minor about hooking up during the 2017 twitchcon, but argues there was "no intent" to actually hookup with that specific person....

Dude was trying to fuck a kid, but ended up sleeping with someone else.