For those curious about why I'm laughing about this situation, watch this video:
She has literally tried to cancel, censor, and otherwise destroy me, because I spread accurate information about the outlet she publicly says she wrote for.
More? She repeatedly tried to get that video taken down, citing "privacy violations", while claiming publicly that I was negatively affecting her professional life by the video showing up prominently in search results. That Streisand effect made it the most popular vid on my YT.
She also repeatedly accused me of "doxxing" - a thing I didn't do - and tried to get people censored for being on my side (@KilldozerSZN, @VoluntaryDom, and @AnarchoLibooty, for instance).
I made a vid about what doxxing actually is, and that died down.
All in all, I think it's hilarious "just desserts" that a woman who promotes and advocates censorship of opponents gets censored.
My account had 12 years of work and she helped bring it down. She'd censor everything I did if she could. So do I think it's funny? Yeah, I do...
She is now threatening to sue people for making jokes. She doesn't care about censorship when she thinks it's in her favor.
HAHAHA
HAHAHA
1) aPpLaUdInG cEnSoRsHiP should be hilarious to anyone reading this thread 2) zero people "Misrepresented™" you 3) this thing where you intentionally didn't use full characters might be considered spam 4) and a lot of the people you're attacking were censored before you
You are a queen of kicking people while they're down, and being a reason they're down in the first place.
This thing where you're beset on all sides? That's everyone you sent your 80K people after.
That's some people right now - who you're threatening to sue over jokes. LMAO.
Like after hours of getting hate from a variety of people for supporting the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, you literally called ME the "source of the hate", in order to DIRECTLY TARGET my account as a scapegoat for EVERYTHING, and get it taken down. Shut the fuck up, Jocelyn.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Mandating masks is not a "property rights" issue, a thread:
How many businesses are "privately owned" anymore? Esp with the lockdowns transferring power to megacorporations (imitations of the state, not the market - SEKIII), the existence of truly "private business" has downgraded to near zero.
Most of what are here are statist lapdogs on their dole and at their behest, spiraling toward a panopticon of fascism. Masks are a step in that direction.
The idea this is laughable to you is an amusing glimpse into your arrogance. He has his following for a reason, and is censored for a reason. He questions the status quo, and models that which make sense of it.
Your arrogance (including calling be a "baby", and essentializing conspiracy theorists as "wackjobs") is further typified by assuming you know everything I've read and been through, all while claiming I "don't know half" of the other way around.
No amount of "reading about relationship anarchy" will make me wrong about 1, 2, and 3, and you proved nothing in either your original tweet or this one.
You weren't censored, and blocking someone on Twitter is not censoring them. Stop promoting CSAM legalization, you cretin.
You adopt anarchist aesthetic, to paper over your desire to get away with unethical acts, while not seeing consequences for them. It's why you promoted Russia as an example of a sex-positive society; you don't actually have any interest in statelessness.
Nope. There's no "religious fundamentalism" in abstinence - the fact that people can do it for religious reasons is not evidence that all reasons are religious. Patriarchy doesn't exist, but calling me a conspiracy theorist while pushing that CT? Amusing.
1) No, yes, yes. *built 2) No they aren't, and only if you want to. 3) Completely untrue, and a direct result of the media lying to you about it - as evidenced by "muh Twitter" when it's on all platforms. 4) And? What do you suggest replacing it with?
5) He was way better than you, and you have very limited "interesting bits", if any. 6) No. 7) The state agrees with and loves this take. Anarchists shouldn't. 8) Yes. 9) No. We should all get fit enough to destroy what destroys us, and not be unhealthy.
10) No it isn't, and fortunately, few people care what you think. 11) Vague statements like this are worthless and require no thought or knowledge. 12) Ancoms are libertarians, and political libertarianism started w/ ancoms. You diss libertarian org tho.
"Muh NAP" is not the basis of libertarianism, nor is abiding by it.
Certain thoughts can render one not libertarian, at a foundational level, without action, or rights violations, and simply "not violating rights" isn't the foundation of liberty or libertarianism.
The belief in free will, and the meritocratic notions which spring from anti-determinism - THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF LIBERTARIANISM - are the foundation, not muh NAP.
Believing one's value is determinist, and not by their will, is anti-liberty. Can't be anti-liberty libertarian.
Like even NAP as a phrase even came so long after political libertarianism. This isn't a thing. Even in American right-libertarianism, muh NAP ain't the root, and it got on fine without it for many years.
Libertarianism didn't poof into being when the NAP was coined. Ridiculous.