lostsilver wrote:

Jun Maeda wrote:

sorry what is pride month?

"LGBT Pride Month, often shortened to Pride Month, is a month, typically June, dedicated to celebration and commemoration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride. Pride Month began after the Stonewall riots, a series of gay liberation protests in 1969." - google

oooooh i see now

Jun Maeda wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Jun Maeda wrote:

sorry what is pride month?

"LGBT Pride Month, often shortened to Pride Month, is a month, typically June, dedicated to celebration and commemoration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride. Pride Month began after the Stonewall riots, a series of gay liberation protests in 1969." - google

oooooh i see now

:3

Jun Maeda wrote:

sorry what is pride month?

lmao you really didn't knew about it?

it's basically lgbtq awareness month. that's it

Jun Maeda wrote:

sorry what is pride month?

it's a month where being straight is ILLEGAL

Patatitta wrote:

Jun Maeda wrote:

sorry what is pride month?

it's a month where being straight is ILLEGAL

kind of just seems normalized to make this joke

after a while i forget why theyre even joked about, always curious to notice that ot happens, reminds me im pretty out of touch lmao

being a joke in this culture of humor, its not really likely meaningful to wonder about when its normal

idly thinking from a more dis-inhibited dissociative state, maybe i will come back to it and question why i thought it worthwhile to fixate on this for maybe the five minutes it occupied my mind

edit: that is exactly what happened, but i don't mind it as much as i thought i would, moreso just puzzled

gays assemble

Embrace gayness

Lucia Nanami wrote:

gays assemble

it is time to show your true selves, lgbt's!! <33

-MilkyLoquat- wrote:

Embrace gayness

yesss

wäs mlp doing here?

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

\

Patatitta wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

yep! it's completely okay to love who you love!
as long as you're happy with your orientation and identity! <33

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

Then I guess these people in this video are just mega brainrotted, as I thought

Winnyace wrote:

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

Then I guess these people in this video are just mega brainrotted, as I thought

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real
that is absolute brainrot, bc i am literally a bi person

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

oh
dang it
well, at least nintendo is removing having to have a twitter/facebook acc to post on splatoon

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

it's never particularly useful to generalize a website by a singular average impression of its more exonymously-represented users, but it's not like i don't agree that at least a hell of a lot of these sites are complicated by the most-represented and most-discussed populations/demographics

i think there's actually an interesting argument for suggesting that there is in fact a fair lot of ideological diversity. people that associate and identify with the colloquially-termed "lgbtq+ community" are likely not doing so because it's some singular cohesive group, so much as someone might consider themselves represented in their personal concept of what "the lgbtq+ community" signifies and represents to each individual person

so referring to other videos and hypothesizing as to whether they're fully representative of... really anything at all, is probably imprecise, although it makes sense that it's sensationalized enough for spectators to point to and question various supposed contradictions as though everyone had collectively agreed on what beliefs were somehow necessarily implied. though people certainly do like to try and identify how to draw these lines, so that'd be understandable

lol shoeonhead
lmao

xch00F wrote:

lol shoeonhead
lmao

i like shoe because even when she says shit i disagree with i can still laugh at her videos. she usually has decent takes though

Achromalia wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

it's never particularly useful to generalize a website by a singular average impression of its more exonymously-represented users, but it's not like i don't agree that at least a hell of a lot of these sites are complicated by the most-represented and most-discussed populations/demographics

i think there's actually an interesting argument for suggesting that there is in fact a fair lot of ideological diversity. people that associate and identify with the colloquially-termed "lgbtq+ community" are likely not doing so because it's some singular cohesive group, so much as someone might consider themselves represented in their personal concept of what "the lgbtq+ community" signifies and represents to each individual person

so referring to other videos and hypothesizing as to whether they're fully representative of... really anything at all, is probably imprecise, although it makes sense that it's sensationalized enough for spectators to point to and question various supposed contradictions as though everyone had collectively agreed on what beliefs were somehow necessarily implied. though people certainly do like to try and identify how to draw these lines, so that'd be understandable

to chime in on this discourse, there are certainly divisions within the 2slgbtq+ community. There is a (albeit small but still prominent) group of "LGB drop the T" people who support sexual diversity but generally have fairly conservative views against gender diverse people.

Some transgender and even non-binary people I have met IRL have told me they don't like those of the community who identify as a 'rare' gender or use neo-pronouns. I guess you could say they are apart of the "LGBT drop the 2SQ+"?

There is also criticism against subcultures within the community, such as gay subcultures endorsing radical sexual fluidity/hookup culture/nsa relationships as the norm.

It's also important to understand that no group of people, even when sharing the exact same identity (race/gender/class/political identity/religion/etc...) are hegemonic and will often have different, and sometimes very different, views. Obviously there is benefits in unity but there needs to be space for nuance as well.

Ashton wrote:

xch00F wrote:

lol shoeonhead
lmao

i like shoe because even when she says shit i disagree with i can still laugh at her videos. she usually has decent takes though

i tend to struggle with people whose merits are primarily founded on the basis of them being "funny", and there are some more vague and immaterial conflicts i have with her behavior/content online, but i'm not actually substantively acquainted with her videos enough to really make a judgment beyond simply recognizing i have these impressions. i can't really suggest any of that is necessarily reflective of her or what her beliefs/videos propagate throughout the internet. i don't actually have a meaningful argument for or against her, but my impressions lead me to be pretty wary of her videos and the surrounding community.

not particularly someone i'm too curious about at the moment, but i guess we'll see.

Ashton wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

it's never particularly useful to generalize a website by a singular average impression of its more exonymously-represented users, but it's not like i don't agree that at least a hell of a lot of these sites are complicated by the most-represented and most-discussed populations/demographics

i think there's actually an interesting argument for suggesting that there is in fact a fair lot of ideological diversity. people that associate and identify with the colloquially-termed "lgbtq+ community" are likely not doing so because it's some singular cohesive group, so much as someone might consider themselves represented in their personal concept of what "the lgbtq+ community" signifies and represents to each individual person

so referring to other videos and hypothesizing as to whether they're fully representative of... really anything at all, is probably imprecise, although it makes sense that it's sensationalized enough for spectators to point to and question various supposed contradictions as though everyone had collectively agreed on what beliefs were somehow necessarily implied. though people certainly do like to try and identify how to draw these lines, so that'd be understandable

to chime in on this discourse, there are certainly divisions within the 2slgbtq+ community. There is a (albeit small but still prominent) group of "LGB drop the T" people who support sexual diversity but generally have fairly conservative views against gender diverse people.

Some transgender and even non-binary people I have met IRL have told me they don't like those of the community who identify as a 'rare' gender or use neo-pronouns. I guess you could say they are apart of the "LGBT drop the 2SQ+"?

There is also criticism against subcultures within the community, such as gay subcultures endorsing radical sexual fluidity/hookup culture/nsa relationships as the norm.

It's also important to understand that no group of people, even when sharing the exact same identity (race/gender/class/political identity/religion/etc...) are hegemonic and will often have different, and sometimes very different, views. Obviously there is benefits in unity but there needs to be space for nuance as well.

fair comment, that seems intuitive and plausible. i think i generally observe and accept that frame as well, that even in large subsections wanting to share spaces and support each other, they're going to need space to develop and discuss amongst themselves to clarify their experiences and negotiate what they actually mean and hope for. often times that necessarily includes conflict, but that conflict will probably need a healthier environment in order to be learned from.

xch00F wrote:

lol shoeonhead
lmao

Any issue?

Achromalia wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

it's never particularly useful to generalize a website by a singular average impression of its more exonymously-represented users, but it's not like i don't agree that at least a hell of a lot of these sites are complicated by the most-represented and most-discussed populations/demographics

i think there's actually an interesting argument for suggesting that there is in fact a fair lot of ideological diversity. people that associate and identify with the colloquially-termed "lgbtq+ community" are likely not doing so because it's some singular cohesive group, so much as someone might consider themselves represented in their personal concept of what "the lgbtq+ community" signifies and represents to each individual person

so referring to other videos and hypothesizing as to whether they're fully representative of... really anything at all, is probably imprecise, although it makes sense that it's sensationalized enough for spectators to point to and question various supposed contradictions as though everyone had collectively agreed on what beliefs were somehow necessarily implied. though people certainly do like to try and identify how to draw these lines, so that'd be understandable

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. I was just saying that individuals who use social media a lot likely behave more aggressively, thus making them quite toxic individuals. I noticed this in my own behavior. Of course, it depends on a lot of factors, but in general, it is quite well known by now that social media in general is pretty harmful to you if you aren't mentally sound.

Winnyace wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

it's never particularly useful to generalize a website by a singular average impression of its more exonymously-represented users, but it's not like i don't agree that at least a hell of a lot of these sites are complicated by the most-represented and most-discussed populations/demographics

i think there's actually an interesting argument for suggesting that there is in fact a fair lot of ideological diversity. people that associate and identify with the colloquially-termed "lgbtq+ community" are likely not doing so because it's some singular cohesive group, so much as someone might consider themselves represented in their personal concept of what "the lgbtq+ community" signifies and represents to each individual person

so referring to other videos and hypothesizing as to whether they're fully representative of... really anything at all, is probably imprecise, although it makes sense that it's sensationalized enough for spectators to point to and question various supposed contradictions as though everyone had collectively agreed on what beliefs were somehow necessarily implied. though people certainly do like to try and identify how to draw these lines, so that'd be understandable

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. I was just saying that individuals who use social media a lot likely behave more aggressively, thus making them quite toxic individuals. I noticed this in my own behavior. Of course, it depends on a lot of factors, but in general, it is quite well known by now that social media in general is pretty harmful to you if you aren't mentally sound.

the "i was just saying [...]" didn't seem particularly apparent, partly due to what i saw as a lack of specifiers, but

i did re-read, and i think i see where my confusion came from, maybe? i might be able to distinguish where some things were or weren't ambiguous, idk if this post will do that exactly, but just to point somewhere:

specifically, i'd gathered my impression of how "it's not particularly useful to generalize" + "spectators tend to look toward sensationalized examples of supposed contradictions in some group of people" from how it first started with twitter users, but what i neglected was the likelihood it was just out of referential convenience, because going on with "[specific demographics i personally observe with my specific perspective in these specific communities who perform these specific behaviors]" is very easily made out to just be "twitter users" when you want to get something across with people who don't feel like they need all that to understand what you mean. idk, it's unfortunate when things are vague enough to be able to be read into when it could be "not that deep", and i'm always prone to reading depth into something from my own projected concept of what people might see, and i'll miss the point entirely

either way, what you're clarifying with now, at face-value, i agree and observe the same thing. within these sites are several kinds of environments that cultivate toxicity and don't particularly lend any room for patience when, as one of my observations, a lot of the time people fixate on defending something or attacking something

edit: that being said, my focus on the "sensationalization" section of my comment had been more specifically about my curiosity for what perspective you might've had in order to have brought in a video from shoeonhead (despite my ignorance of not fully understanding the underlying substance enough to quell my suspicion/wariness), specifically because of thumbnails like these and titles like these which have a fairly plausibly-interpretable "sensationalism" to them. they frame the discussion kind of grossly, so it can make a person immediately put up their guard due to many videos/commentaries using very similar visual/textual rhetoric and then turning out to just be bad-faith mockery or willfully obtuse, or otherwise something performative about "understanding [a strange/opposing] side" or presenting the impression that "that side" is understood and accurately summarized by the commentator

Winnyace wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

it's never particularly useful to generalize a website by a singular average impression of its more exonymously-represented users, but it's not like i don't agree that at least a hell of a lot of these sites are complicated by the most-represented and most-discussed populations/demographics

i think there's actually an interesting argument for suggesting that there is in fact a fair lot of ideological diversity. people that associate and identify with the colloquially-termed "lgbtq+ community" are likely not doing so because it's some singular cohesive group, so much as someone might consider themselves represented in their personal concept of what "the lgbtq+ community" signifies and represents to each individual person

so referring to other videos and hypothesizing as to whether they're fully representative of... really anything at all, is probably imprecise, although it makes sense that it's sensationalized enough for spectators to point to and question various supposed contradictions as though everyone had collectively agreed on what beliefs were somehow necessarily implied. though people certainly do like to try and identify how to draw these lines, so that'd be understandable

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. I was just saying that individuals who use social media a lot likely behave more aggressively, thus making them quite toxic individuals. I noticed this in my own behavior. Of course, it depends on a lot of factors, but in general, it is quite well known by now that social media in general is pretty harmful to you if you aren't mentally sound.

A teenager who uses Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and may even ocassionally read posts from 4chan/kiwifarms daily but otherwise has a good group of relationships and access to education outside of the internet/social media and a 4 chan/kiwifarms user who can't critically think, is mentally disabled, and has no close relationships can both be described as "super avid social media users" but clearly each person will interpret and be affected by the information they see on social media differently. I think you are severely undermining the other "factors" that you aknowledge exist and focusing too much on a specific subset of people to make essentialist claims about "avid social media users".

My boomer parents use facebook on a daily basis, waaaaay more social media usage than I do, but I would argue it brings them more positivity than negativity. I would imagine using facebook every single day for hours at a time constitutes them as being "avid social media users" as well.

I understand your argument and agree that social media can very negatively impact the wrong type of people, but like Achro is saying I don't think you can use these types of people as being fully representative of the broader population of "avid social media users".

Ashton wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

lostsilver wrote:

who in god's name says bisexuality isn't real

Twitter users

good thing twitter's gonna die soon

Yeah, no. If it didn't die until now, it won't die now. Really, any super avid social media user is really, really shitty. From Twitter to 4chan.

it's never particularly useful to generalize a website by a singular average impression of its more exonymously-represented users, but it's not like i don't agree that at least a hell of a lot of these sites are complicated by the most-represented and most-discussed populations/demographics

i think there's actually an interesting argument for suggesting that there is in fact a fair lot of ideological diversity. people that associate and identify with the colloquially-termed "lgbtq+ community" are likely not doing so because it's some singular cohesive group, so much as someone might consider themselves represented in their personal concept of what "the lgbtq+ community" signifies and represents to each individual person

so referring to other videos and hypothesizing as to whether they're fully representative of... really anything at all, is probably imprecise, although it makes sense that it's sensationalized enough for spectators to point to and question various supposed contradictions as though everyone had collectively agreed on what beliefs were somehow necessarily implied. though people certainly do like to try and identify how to draw these lines, so that'd be understandable

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. I was just saying that individuals who use social media a lot likely behave more aggressively, thus making them quite toxic individuals. I noticed this in my own behavior. Of course, it depends on a lot of factors, but in general, it is quite well known by now that social media in general is pretty harmful to you if you aren't mentally sound.

A teenager who uses Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and may even ocassionally read posts from 4chan/kiwifarms daily but otherwise has a good group of relationships and access to education outside and a 4 chan/kiwifarms user who can't critically think, is mentally disabled, and has no close relationships can both be described as "super avid social media users" but clearly each person will interpret the information they see on social media differently. I think you are severely undermining the other "factors" that you aknowledge exist and focusing too much on a specific subset of people to make essentialist claims about "avid social media users".

My boomer parents use facebook on a daily basis, waaaaay more social media usage than I do, but I would argue it brings them more positivity than negativity. I would imagine using facebook every single day for hours at a time constitutes them as being "avid social media users" as well.

I understand your argument and agree that social media can very negatively impact the wrong type of people, but like Achro is saying I don't think you can use these types of people as being fully representative of the broader population of "avid social media users".

^ this, loosely speaking, is pretty congruent with what i mean (although i hold these conclusions in suspense, and i can't really jump to presume quite all of that until evident), but i imagine you might have been saying something like this anyway and just didn't have the thought to clarify-- which makes sense to do if it's seen as unnecessary (unless i'm inaccurate to assume that rationale), but in a world as generally rhetorically muddled as this, those clarifiers are always useful in my opinion

it effectively is about that essentialism-of-characterization that i think people (myself, at least) would've thought to question when replying. in all fairness, this might read like undue pressure for something other people might expected of you for some reason, meanwhile to us it seemed fair enough to look for clarity

+ framing is important! it can say a lot. not reliably, not accurately, but when patterns are impressed onto someone's mind, reading that from the way something's framed is pretty easy to do, so... explicit and explorative evaluation is pretty cool for that :>

Fair enough, lads. I get your points now. Thanks for the correction, I guess you can call it?

Winnyace wrote:

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

Then I guess these people in this video are just mega brainrotted, as I thought

don't get your takes from shoeonhead please

Patatitta wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

Then I guess these people in this video are just mega brainrotted, as I thought

don't get your takes from shoeonhead please

I'd rather they get their takes from her than from matt walsh or tim pool.

Except I don't take my takes from anyone.

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

Then I guess these people in this video are just mega brainrotted, as I thought

don't get your takes from shoeonhead please

I'd rather they get their takes from her than from matt walsh or tim pool.

yeah they're worse

Winnyace wrote:

Except I don't take my takes from anyone.

yeah all my opinions are home-grown, in fact, I live in a cave and avoid getting outside stimuli to preserve my purity

Out of the loop, can someone explain why does it last a month and not a day or (less frequently for holidays) several days? I have genuinely no idea nya.

kobold nya arc is something to behold

i welcome it wholeheartedly, respect

Kobold84 wrote:

Out of the loop, can someone explain why does it last a month and not a day or (less frequently for holidays) several days? I have genuinely no idea nya.

Sort of a similar reason people celebrate christmas on a whole month I guess.

Kobo
[quote="Kobold84 wrote:

Out of the loop, can someone explain why does it last a month and not a day or (less frequently for holidays) several days? I have genuinely no idea nya.

honestly not too sure myself either, but i think it was more of a cultural thing that developed naturally to be a month. at least where i live, there are certain days that are specific but it's not uncommon for there to be commemorative months (such as asian heritage month, black history month, veterans month, etc...)

Patatitta wrote:

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

Then I guess these people in this video are just mega brainrotted, as I thought

don't get your takes from shoeonhead please

I'd rather they get their takes from her than from matt walsh or tim pool.

yeah they're worse

TL;DR I think shoe deserves more respect than what other progressives currently give her. Certainly I think her politics are more optically appealing than some other leftists on youtube *cough* scam artist keffals *cough* horse lover vaush *cough* and I think she can appeal to even those who have fallen down the alt-right rabbit hole.

Winnyace wrote:

xch00F wrote:

lol shoeonhead
lmao

Any issue?

not willing to engage in significant political/social discourse on these forums, but I think the most agreeable way I could sum up my feelings on shoeonhead is that I sometimes agree with her takes and often dislike the way she presents them. this is basically always due to her aesthetic presentation and not the information itself. I just don't enjoy the act of watching a shoeonhead vid lmao. two examples of channels I do enjoy watching are shaun and beau of the fifth column

xch00F wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

xch00F wrote:

lol shoeonhead
lmao

Any issue?

not willing to engage in significant political/social discourse on these forums, but I think the most agreeable way I could sum up my feelings on shoeonhead is that I sometimes agree with her takes and often dislike the way she presents them. this is basically always due to her aesthetic presentation and not the information itself. I just don't enjoy the act of watching a shoeonhead vid lmao. two examples of channels I do enjoy watching are shaun and beau of the fifth column

Shaun's vids are great.

Ashton wrote:

Kobo
[quote="Kobold84 wrote:

Out of the loop, can someone explain why does it last a month and not a day or (less frequently for holidays) several days? I have genuinely no idea nya.

honestly not too sure myself either, but i think it was more of a cultural thing that developed naturally to be a month. at least where i live, there are certain days that are specific but it's not uncommon for there to be commemorative months (such as asian heritage month, black history month, veterans month, etc...)

Patatitta wrote:

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

Then I guess these people in this video are just mega brainrotted, as I thought

don't get your takes from shoeonhead please

I'd rather they get their takes from her than from matt walsh or tim pool.

yeah they're worse

uh oh ashton turned on his yapinator 200 and now he needs to put a box in his reply

Shoe is often associated with the alt right because she was a very prominent voice in the anti-sjw sphere of youtube (of the 2016) despite not being a conservative herself. she has since distanced herself politically from them and established herself as a pretty overt liberal (at least in the american, colloquial sense)

IIRC shoe had referred to her a couple of times as being a socialist (I could be misremembering as she associated with Vaush a few years back) but at the very least has expressed anti-capitalist, progressive sentiments in the past few years.

I think she is quite far politically from shitters like matt walsh or tim pool (who refers to himself as a centrist but clearly is not).

I think people still within the alt-right, anti-sjw (now probably more commonly referred to as 'anti-woke'), 2016 mindset have distanced themselves from her since she revealed while she has been critical of feminism (specifically sjw, 'cringe' feminism) she isn't a conservative, and arguably not even a centrist (despite many of her videos showing 'both sides' of any given issue and calling out radicals on either side, which is a common thing you see centrists do to make their own positions seem more rational) as she has endorsed leftist principles. Some leftists, however, still view her as a literal neo-nazi (maybe because her husband/boyfriend is a christian conservative) and do not consider her to be a true ally to progressive issues either because of her still persistent criticism of radicals or because they simply know her from the past.

TL;DR I think shoe deserves more respect than what other progressives currently give her. Certainly I think her politics are more optically appealing than some other leftists on youtube *cough* scam artist keffals *cough* horse lover vaush *cough* and I think she can appeal to even those who have fallen down the alt-right rabbit hole.

didn't know she changed, I only knew her from those anty sjw videos and that is not something I want to get myself involved with, anyways, I still don't think I will be watching her channel

Patatitta wrote:

Ashton wrote:

Kobo
[quote="Kobold84 wrote:

Out of the loop, can someone explain why does it last a month and not a day or (less frequently for holidays) several days? I have genuinely no idea nya.

honestly not too sure myself either, but i think it was more of a cultural thing that developed naturally to be a month. at least where i live, there are certain days that are specific but it's not uncommon for there to be commemorative months (such as asian heritage month, black history month, veterans month, etc...)

Patatitta wrote:

Karmine wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

Nuuskamuikkunen wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

Bisexuality is valid and that's why it's in the acronym. Especially since Biphobia and the mentality of "you should either like women or men, not both" is a thing.

lostsilver wrote:

Winnyace wrote:

question to people that are in the LGBQT community: bisexuals? good or bad?

being bi isnt a bad thing!

Then I guess these people in this video are just mega brainrotted, as I thought

don't get your takes from shoeonhead please

I'd rather they get their takes from her than from matt walsh or tim pool.

yeah they're worse

uh oh ashton turned on his yapinator 200 and now he needs to put a box in his reply

Shoe is often associated with the alt right because she was a very prominent voice in the anti-sjw sphere of youtube (of the 2016) despite not being a conservative herself. she has since distanced herself politically from them and established herself as a pretty overt liberal (at least in the american, colloquial sense)

IIRC shoe had referred to her a couple of times as being a socialist (I could be misremembering as she associated with Vaush a few years back) but at the very least has expressed anti-capitalist, progressive sentiments in the past few years.

I think she is quite far politically from shitters like matt walsh or tim pool (who refers to himself as a centrist but clearly is not).

I think people still within the alt-right, anti-sjw (now probably more commonly referred to as 'anti-woke'), 2016 mindset have distanced themselves from her since she revealed while she has been critical of feminism (specifically sjw, 'cringe' feminism) she isn't a conservative, and arguably not even a centrist (despite many of her videos showing 'both sides' of any given issue and calling out radicals on either side, which is a common thing you see centrists do to make their own positions seem more rational) as she has endorsed leftist principles. Some leftists, however, still view her as a literal neo-nazi (maybe because her husband/boyfriend is a christian conservative) and do not consider her to be a true ally to progressive issues either because of her still persistent criticism of radicals or because they simply know her from the past.

TL;DR I think shoe deserves more respect than what other progressives currently give her. Certainly I think her politics are more optically appealing than some other leftists on youtube *cough* scam artist keffals *cough* horse lover vaush *cough* and I think she can appeal to even those who have fallen down the alt-right rabbit hole.

didn't know she changed, I only knew her from those anty sjw videos and that is not something I want to get myself involved with, anyways, I still don't think I will be watching her channel

Some of her videos are funny because she talks about stupid shit but you're not missing anything.

Patatitta wrote:

didn't know she changed, I only knew her from those anty sjw videos and that is not something I want to get myself involved with, anyways, I still don't think I will be watching her channel

this is part of what I mean when I bring up aesthetics. her politics have certainly changed over the years but her videos have mostly retained the same kinds of presentation. I remember watching this and vaguely remember agreeing with it, but mostly remember being annoyed by it rofl. and then ofc you have to ask yourself, do you really wanna rewatch it?

edit: also the comparison of shoe to matt walsh or tim pool is a non sequitur to me. whatever idealistic overlap there is between shoe and those two on the venn diagram is going to be very small.

Kobold84 wrote:

Out of the loop, can someone explain why does it last a month and not a day or (less frequently for holidays) several days? I have genuinely no idea nya.

a month is a solid chunk of time if you wanna plan events around one general purpose, and imo that's for anything, really

gay hotdog

hont domg,,

Doom Mood wrote:

gay hotdog

das one hawt dog dawg

Achromalia wrote:

hont domg,,

same

btw if any of ya'll want mutual dm me