I know you’re trying to be funny and get likes but what about this would someone from 2003 not know?
“ Everyone rallying around a club that’s run by a right wing weirdo who - - people is beyond gross.”
“right wing” “dox”
I guess you’re saying right wing was a phrase back then too
“right wing” “dox”
I guess you’re saying right wing was a phrase back then too
I forgot you were a f***ing moron
@DonutHole I’m seeing a lot of conflicting stuff but from what I can discern… the tweets in question from around the time that Sticks and Stones was released had 9 and 12 replies. Does that sound familiar?
Yeah from what I remember the Daphne tweets had little to no engagement
I’m so based all the people I thought I liked I don’t actually like hahaha
Do people like me for saying that now?
I forgot you were a f***ing moron
real intelligent niggas was watching bill o Reilly and rush limbaugh at elementary age
Celebrity idolizing is a disease
Tons of problems going on in the world that could leave us all dead and people are focusing on Ye's war with the fashion industry again
real intelligent niggas was watching bill o Reilly and rush limbaugh at elementary age
There's no way to interpret this other than you think all people in 2003 were the same age you were in 2003
I’m not familiar with the situation you’re referencing at all but imagine showing that last sentence to someone in like 2003 lmao
Lmao like these terms did not exist before 2016 and now they control the way people think and categorize
Do you think ‘right wing’ is a new phrase??? Left and right as phrase and those ideas of the broad wings of politics come from like the 18th century
Doxxing comes from the 90s with the rise of hacking and computers at home
real intelligent niggas was watching bill o Reilly and rush limbaugh at elementary age
Comedy in general is in the gutter right now but I do have to say Andrew Schulz is incredible.
Schulz is okay at best. He plays both sides and leeched off charlamagne / rogan. I do applaud him for his hard work and creating a niche audience between the two mentioned earlier
Schulz is okay at best. He plays both sides and leeched off charlamagne / rogan. I do applaud him for his hard work and creating a niche audience between the two mentioned earlier
He does not play both sides. He is firmly against far right extremism
Schulz is okay at best. He plays both sides and leeched off charlamagne / rogan. I do applaud him for his hard work and creating a niche audience between the two mentioned earlier
His crowd work is so good. I bet being in the room when he’s doing that s*** is electric. His written stuff is pretty hit or miss imo. Feels like the types of jokes you’d see in viral tweets
I’m not familiar with the situation you’re referencing at all but imagine showing that last sentence to someone in like 2003 lmao
Lmao like these terms did not exist before 2016 and now they control the way people think and categorize
Is that not how new words and terminology work? Imagine writing “lmao” in a letter to someone in 1994.
He does not play both sides. He is firmly against far right extremism
Who isn't against far right extremism?
Early BI days he was riding on Trump's meat hard
Yeah from what I remember the Daphne tweets had little to no engagement
Yeah. I found this very detailed article.
michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/dave-chappelles-some-of-my-best-friends
I love how they really broke s*** down.
The writer makes this point:
None of this means Dorman wasn’t criticized for her association with Chappelle. Other Twitter sleuths have found her debating the content of his special and whether their friendship meant that he accepted her. Maybe she felt attacked by these conversations. Maybe some abusive tweets have been deleted. Maybe she got nasty DMs or lost friends. We don’t know what being online looked or felt like to Dorman during those six weeks.
So I’m left with 3 options:
1. Dave was exaggerating and overstating how much backlash she was receiving to get his point across. No malice intent.
2. A lot of the tweets that attacked Daphne were deleted, it is Twitter after all. But I doubt that there wouldn’t be readily available screenshots to back at least some of these claims.
3. Dave lied to spread an agenda.
It feels so dirty researching this stuff but I needed to hold myself accountable. If I see something that changes my stance then I’m not just going to ignore it. What do you think the truth is?
Schulz is okay at best. He plays both sides and leeched off charlamagne / rogan. I do applaud him for his hard work and creating a niche audience between the two mentioned earlier
What’s wrong with playing both sides? Man will joke about anything and offend anyone he wants. I respect that hard