5439
Comments (222)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
7
BillDStrong 7 points ago +7 / -0

He was pointing out Crowder's analysis, which Tim Pool didn't do.

2
Red_Shifts_Matter 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pretty sure I covered that in the last paragraph.

1
BillDStrong 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, you didn't. Your whole post discredits Crowder's part.

1
Red_Shifts_Matter 1 point ago +1 / -0

Me addressing it: "I'm guessing that much like any of their rules, this will be applied selectively. They don't need to give big media loopholes because the rules never applied to them to begin with."

Crowder's take is meaningless because the rules never applied to the msm to begin with, therefore, he read Tim's information that came straight from the dishonest YouTube dullards.

You seem to be getting defensive. I watch and enjoy Crowder, however, what he said was absolutely meaningless in that instance.

1
BillDStrong 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am not the one defensive. I am politely pointing out, your posts don't give Croder credit for pointing out the effective outcome of Youtube's policy. That is what I am pointing out.

Crowder pointing out the rules effectively don't allow you to connect the dots, which is effectively a brainwashing technique is important to point out, and it wasn't a part of either Tim's analysis nor your posts. Pointing out how the sausage is made gives normies the low down, and the thing to look for. If you don't connect the dots once for those that need it, they can be left uninformed, because they don't want to think about it. You have to give them that reason.