2331
Comments (92)
sorted by:
132
ParkerTruman 132 points ago +135 / -3

Wow. That's unreal. They are so desperate. Trumps election has changed everything forever. The media can never go back to pre 2015-16. They have ruined all their cred

77
Hillarysudders 77 points ago +77 / -0

I think the media has been this way since forever. We just finally realized it 2015-16.

32
deleted 32 points ago +32 / -0
18
BoilingEnema 18 points ago +18 / -0

All of them

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
3
mugatucrazypills 3 points ago +3 / -0

"The Japanese attacked us for no reason."

7
SnakeEyeMitch 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yes.

7
publ1us 7 points ago +7 / -0

History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon

Napoleon

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
6
FergieJR 6 points ago +6 / -0

I feel for that one for my first vote in 2004.... then I feel for the one about the guy that was gonna change it all and make it better in 2008.... fuck

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
christianknight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Man its sad how many people wont question the official story.

2
DibbleDibbleDibble 2 points ago +2 / -0

And it goes back father than that, of course. It's a tale as old as time. Humanity is fallen, and there is always going to be an element of corruption within leadership. That is why you need an informed and vigilant populace - which is the opposite of what we have today, and why things have deteriorated to the point they have.

16
PurestEvil 16 points ago +16 / -0

They have been on the path towards this for ages, but the rapid escalation in regards to going full retard occurred 2016+. If Trump wouldn't have won, they wouldn't have escalated, and the level of ideological derangement of today would occur in ~2024 instead maybe.

But due to Trump they went too rapidly, so people who only see movement will have realized it. This factor alone (which is quite big) might be the reason why Trump will have a crushing landslide. Too many people were made too much aware of the Marxist encroachment in society.

8
slrpnls 8 points ago +8 / -0

For me the realization was Bush/Gore 2000 but they really took off the mask for Katrina.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
16
deleted 16 points ago +16 / -0
14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
93
Martel_West 93 points ago +93 / -0

Sorry, but no. Tim Pool uses a browser extension to automatically censor words in the articles he reads. He does this because, otherwise, YouTube would throttle his videos.

Article link: https://archive.is/5zwVo

25
Beat_to_Quarters [S] 25 points ago +27 / -2

Okay so Youtube will throttle/demonetize you for showing "sexual preference" then? That's still ridiculous. I don't see the need to censor that for any reason even if it doesn't appear in the original article that way. You have to censor sexual to play it safe on youtube? lol

26
KuhlooKuhlay 26 points ago +26 / -0

it's just the words like "sexual," as well as "nazi" and of course swear words too.

sometimes it's really whacky in tim's videos. i recall his browser once censored the word "grape" because it has the letters r-a-p-e in it. or something similar if not exactly that.

5
Beat_to_Quarters [S] 5 points ago +7 / -2

Nutty dem actually asked Barrett if she ever sexually assaulted anyone and his browser would be censoring that question.

12
FragrantDude 12 points ago +12 / -0

That's because Tim Pool plays it extra safe. There's a bunch of things he won't say or show because he's terrified of them demonetizing him even though that won't happen for half the stuff he self-censors on. Why he does that, I don't know, he can't make that much of his total revenue off of YouTube ads. But then, I have an adblocker so I don't know how many ads he usually has on his videos.

7
MAGAinVA 7 points ago +7 / -0

If nothing else it draws attention to the censorship problem in big tech.

3
ProfessorRomendev 3 points ago +3 / -0

Because he’s openly talked about how he’s worried his channel will get nuked in the near future (considering how many people he’s red pilled over the years, I’d be worried too). He plays it safe and follows all of youtube’s rules, that way they can’t just ban him at the drop of a hat.

I don’t think it’s about the ad revenue at all, he links to where you can support him in every video.

1
Creepy_Ginger 1 point ago +1 / -0

Meanwhile you can have a movie about twerking 11 year olds labeled MA.

Democrats, not even once.

7
bellcurvestrikesback 7 points ago +7 / -0

You da real MVP

4
BigIronBigIron 4 points ago +4 / -0

Does that mean it's possible to hack Tim Pool's browser extension and replace every word with... something else?

1
ProfessorRomendev 1 point ago +1 / -0

Possibly, but it wouldn’t show up in a video since he doesn’t do this live

3
PoorKidsJustAsBright 3 points ago +3 / -0

This. I saw this post and was scrolling through my feed later and saw another Tim post with the same thing. Looked up the actual article and it's not censored.

3
AdmrlNelson 3 points ago +3 / -0

Came to say this. Even the paryty of it they are offended by is preference, so why would they censor sexual? His browser extension just censors naughty words so he doesn't get in trouble with YouTube.

28
deleted 28 points ago +28 / -0
7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
21
turanian_552 21 points ago +21 / -0

But isn't the "B" (bisexual) in LGBTQ 'offensive' because it implies that there are only two genders?

9
NoTimeToBleed 9 points ago +9 / -0

And that you could choose women one day and men the next? Pro-choice does not extend to sexual preferences!

10
sun_wolf 10 points ago +10 / -0

Now the left is trying to divide people over the word “preference” vs. “orientation”.

These people are insane.

They hand us this terminology and they all demand we use it. Some use it, some resist. Eventually those who resist accept the new terminology. And as soon as the left has achieved total compliance, they deem their own words offensive and repeat the pattern all over again.

4
loveshock 4 points ago +4 / -0

Two sexes.

But yes. So offensive.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
Furaffinitydotnet 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, but the media's entire portrayal of the "LGBT" community is as fake as propping up Al Sharpton for the black community.

The goal for the dems and media is to apply the "self hating" label to anyone who disagrees with leftism by creating a false image of those two communities.

14
America_No_1 14 points ago +14 / -0

It wasn't until today.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
12
FuckRioters 12 points ago +12 / -0

What a bunch of boobs, the term "sexual preference" was not considered offensive yesterday, ass far ass I'm aware. The Politically Correct dicks seem to love inserting their junk in your face without your consent and you must submit, and if you complain they'll tell the world you're a filthy bigot.

5
PeterO 5 points ago +5 / -0

Don't worry, the dictionary will be updated to change the definition of preference.

The media will gas light you by acting like its always been that way.

And facebook and twitter will retroactively purge you for your transgressions in wrong-think.

4
sun_wolf 4 points ago +4 / -0

Sexual preference is the new Juneteenth.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
4
Steel357 4 points ago +4 / -0

TRIgGeRed!!!

7
Mexicola1976 7 points ago +7 / -0

HONK HONK HONK🤡🌎

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
1
sun_wolf 1 point ago +1 / -0

In New Leftist Utopia all preference is banned. Preference implies a hierarchical value. That is wrongthink, comrade. There are no preferences because everything is equal, by force of law. Food preferences are hate speech. Eat your bugs.

4
Dingus 4 points ago +4 / -0

Why is Business Insider using a white background? Are they literally Nazis or what?

3
TheUnknownMillennial 3 points ago +3 / -0

No, that's just Tim's video so YouTube doesn't shut his video down, he has certain words censored.

2
me-no-likely 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sexual preferences are bad bow. We must all enjoy taking it up the butt from now on, apparently

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
JeremiahKassin 2 points ago +2 / -0

They're claiming preference implies sexuality is a choice, which apparently isn't a tolerable opinion to have this week. They invented the term, because no one conservative on homosexuality is going to talk in terms as bland as "preference." They're just trying to invent a slur so they can claim she said it.

1
fjobb 1 point ago +1 / -0

Someone leftists are terrified of said it.

1
NotoriousCIC 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol. “Offensive” Says who?’Some activist idiots who believe everyone should bow down to them? Gimme a break.

1
ThisIsMethBeth 1 point ago +1 / -0

What about “preferred pronouns?” Is that offensive now too?? Gotta be consistent libs!!

1
GreatHumungous 1 point ago +1 / -0

Having a ‘sexual preference’ is NOT ok, unless you’re a kool aid hair and 2 dicks! Then it’s ok, if you’re some whacko female and you like men holy shit you need to be killed basically.

1
6-_-j 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do these publications not understand people respond to their nonsense with hysterical laughter? They are literally a joke.

1
Hillarysudders 1 point ago +1 / -0

And what are these “false” claims????

1
Bluestorm83 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, you're saying gay dudes DON'T prefer men to women, sexually?

'Cause I'm pretty sure that preference refers to what you prefer.

And not whatever fake bullshit they're making it out to mean.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Juzeza 1 point ago +1 / -0

delusional

1
Nadlers_Belt 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is “my sex junk” still acceptable?

1
HornyVan 1 point ago +1 / -0

While I agree the PC Police adding sexual preference to its list of banned words, I’m also a daily watcher of Tim Pool’s. He uses a browser extension that hides certain words in order to avoid YouTube’s demonization. So BI censoring the word is fake news pede.

1
ouvrez_les_yeux 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you think about it, sexual preference is actually a more inclusive term than sexual orientation, because it implies that sexuality may be fluid, kind of like how gender is alleged to be fluid. It also implies agency, that lovely progressive term, that people are empowered to have whatever kind of sex they want, or no sex at all, and that may change from day to day. In other words, people can and should have a say in their sexuality, not be biologically or psychologically enslaved to it.

Hirono is a bigot.

1
Headline_Correction 1 point ago +1 / -0

They do have one thing - control of the use and abuse of the language. This is a real problem. Marxists cannot be reasoned or negotiated with they have to be eliminated [, at least from the public conversation]. They have whipped themselves into an articficial but physical and deadly war on "nazis" ... that dont exist. They are forcing everyone else to fullfill their fake prophesy.

1
Hillary-Digs-a-Hole 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Cuties" ok, but sensor the word sexual just for the blasphemous optics. Fucking dirt bags.

1
JerryJerryJerry 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ah, so that's why Spartacus kept using the phrase "immutable sexual characteristics." So now sexual preferences are a no backsies situation? Sounds pretty genderfluidophobic to me! (I think?) I mean, I'll be the first to admit I got no game, but I've had a fling and a relationship with two gold star "lesbians." Am I in some kind of trouble, now?

1
milpede0306 1 point ago +1 / -0

shes clearly the smartest in the room and it's not even close. she doesnt even need to take notes.

1
Eatinglue 1 point ago +1 / -0

What...what are we supposed to say? I cant keep up. How do we announce ourselves now? “Hi, my name is Kamala Harris, I have an ‘x’, I prefer human-species with an ‘a, e, i,’ and sometimes a ‘y’, and i prefer it be put on my face, or sometimes in my ‘t’ or ‘k’.”

1
Bramble 1 point ago +1 / -0

BI is such a rampant pile of trash

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
SAW2TH 1 point ago +1 / -0

Orwell was so right.

1
latsbruh 1 point ago +1 / -0

Its outdated as of 4 years ago, therefore she HATES GAY PEOPLE

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
VoteCyborgTrump2040 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is just pathetic. How could someone look at that and decide to publish it? Embarrassing.

1
Deaduponaviral 1 point ago +1 / -0

The people that openly support gay fudge packing, want to lower the age of consent, believe a man can have a period, and use that same bathroom as your daughters, are pearl clutching over the term sexual preference. Lmao, high school newspapers have more credibility at this point.

1
OtherwiseSafe 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can't take a fucking nap without liberals declaring something offensive. When did sexual preference become an offensive term to them?

1
Fatboi 1 point ago +1 / -0

There is no such thing as slippery slopes!! Jk fuck you we lied enjoy the slide.

1
Covfefefefe19 1 point ago +1 / -0

I LOVE this. The more and more they cross out the things you can say, the more people will be red pilled. I always considered myself pro-LGBT until I heard that the word “HOMOSEXUAL” was homophobic because some homophobic people once used it. I used to give a shit, but now I say “retard,” “faggot,” and anything else I feel like saying (though never to refer to handicapped or gay people).

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
GeoG85 1 point ago +1 / -0

They're *coughtwoscoopscough grasping *coughcofevevecough for *coughtwohandstodrinkwatercough straws *coughhe'swearingawigcough now?

0
Palmertabs 0 points ago +1 / -1

That fucking headline, wow...

-1
assassinpk12 -1 points ago +1 / -2

It’s not a sexual preference though, it’s a genetic no choice... but yeah, they are grasping at straws, trying to feign outrage...

2
JeremiahKassin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Point out the gay gene, please.