@ThinkingMunk @TheOmniLiberal One of my favorite arguments from D lol
English
BidenTheOverlord
796 posts
Sure, what happened with the Atheists for Liberty Debate?
And why did you guys back out of the one we had set-up outside TPUSA?
I'm pretty sure there were more, but I don't have them all off hand, I could go digging if you want.
Andrew Wilson@paleochristcon
1. Thats a lie show the evidence 2. We can do this right this second Who's dodging? felcher
English
me when I think of asmon's mom
bloom 𖧧@bloomjpg
Asmongold on Trump's reaction to Robert Mueller's death "That's my president.. Rest in pi$$ bitch you won't be missed.. He used his position to try and push a political agenda” “This is the way you should treat your enemies, I don't believe in any of that love your enemies BS.. Remember what they did to Charlie Kirk?"
English
@KarluskaP LOL if you watch the full video, they end up looking it up and Luke ends up totally vindicated while Tim is scrambling because he had no idea what he was talking about
English
Just because you want a story to be true, doesn’t make it true
English
@chainsorbet @Ryan_Arthur_xyz @ZeeToTheHill @ASU @TheOmniLiberal This☝️
Fact is, as of late conservatives have been terrified of genuine public discourse
English
@Ryan_Arthur_xyz @ZeeToTheHill @ASU @TheOmniLiberal Their stance would be pretty consistent with the actions stated above. If Ben or TPUSA felt their civil liberties were abridged then they should file lawsuits. Do you have any reason to believe it would be different?
English
Unfortunately @ASU cancelled our Unfuck America Tour event that we had scheduled on Monday with @TheOmniLiberal but we are still showing up on campus anyway. As a result we are filing a lawsuit against Arizona State University for violating our First Amendment rights.
The same day it was cancelled @MrsErikaKirk showed up at the campus and complained about Unfuck America — Ironically in that same meeting Erika scolded her chapter members for not countering our event, she told them to stop talking about Iran and just talk about freedom of speech.
Public universities don’t get to decide who can speak.
Every campus, same playbook. @TPUSA applying pressure behind the scenes to shut us down.
We know exactly how this works. And unfortunately for them, we’re not going away, we’re fully prepared to take them to court too.
English
@TaylorLorenz @TheOmniLiberal TAYLOR, YOU CAN LITERALLY QUOTE THE CONTRACT RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND AND YOU CHOOSE NOT TO. Coward behavior
English
"Creators can make unsubstantiated claims like that, but it's a fact that the contracts did prohibit disclosure" Then quote it. You said during our conversation that it was your editoral choice to remove the quotes/references.
- Yes, it was an editorial choice when to and when to not quote from the source materials. I'm sorry you are hung up on wanting to see source materials, but that's not how journalism works. If anything in our story was false, WIRED would correct the story.
"They're outlined in the article. Read it again." They're not. It's a really sparse and poorly put together article.
- It's in there, I am sure you can find it
"They were being paid by 1630 fund (see above answer on disclosure)" The 1630 fund is a fiscal sponsor, they don't contribute money directly. Do you have any proof of them paying creators in Chorus? Post it. "
- The proof is our story. We explain that the creators were paid by 1630, which is backed up our source material: interviews, contract copies, internal emails/messages, and more.
The whole reason several creators came to me/WIRED with the story was bc they wanted public disclosure about the program, which was prohibited by the contract." If multiple creators came to wired and said they wanted public disclosure, have them post their contract or publicly confirm your statements, then?
- They came to me/WIRED because they don't want to out themselves as sources publicly. Per our sources, Chorus was threatening to sue anyone who they discovered spoke to the media. This is why sources in many stories speak on the condition that they're not named.
English
"Creators can make unsubstantiated claims like that, but it's a fact that the contracts did prohibit disclosure"
Then quote it. You said during our conversation that it was your editoral choice to remove the quotes/references. Quote the part of the contract that says it now.
"They're outlined in the article. Read it again."
They're not. It's a really sparse and poorly put together article.
"- They were being paid by 1630 fund (see above answer on disclosure)"
The 1630 fund is a fiscal sponsor, they don't contribute money directly. Do you have any proof of them paying creators in Chorus? Post it.
"- The whole reason several creators came to me/WIRED with the story was bc they wanted public disclosure about the program, which was prohibited by the contract."
If multiple creators came to wired and said they wanted public disclosure, have them post their contract or publicly confirm your statements, then?
Taylor Lorenz@TaylorLorenz
Multiple creators have come out saying there was no "secrecy" about being paid, - Creators can make unsubstantiated claims like that, but it's a fact that the contracts did prohibit disclosure, and there's not a single example of any 1630 fund creators disclosing prior to our article. I've yet to see any "restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could produce." - They're outlined in the article. Read it again. Did you see language in any early contracts that said creators were not allowed to disclose they were being paid by Chorus? - They were being paid by 1630 fund (see above answer on disclosure) And did you see any language that gave them restrictions on what sort of political content they could produce? - These are outlined in the article. Were there any examples of creators being told no when asking either of these questions? - The whole reason several creators came to me/WIRED with the story was bc they wanted public disclosure about the program, which was prohibited by the contract. See first answer.
English
@TheOmniLiberal Hold on, Destiny. This is extremely unfair.
Taylor’s position and article are purely existent in fantasy. Yet you think it’s appropriate to argue in good faith through the lens of reality!?! MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
English
Sure, literally the second paragraph of your "article" seems to have a few.
Multiple creators have come out saying there was no "secrecy" about being paid, and I've yet to see any "restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could produce."
Here's a question - did you see language in any early contracts that said creators were not allowed to disclose they were being paid by Chorus? And did you see any language that gave them restrictions on what sort of political content they could produce? Were there any examples of creators being told no when asking either of these questions?
Taylor Lorenz@TaylorLorenz
@TheOmniLiberal You invited me publicly and you still have yet to disprove a single fact in our story.
English
@TheOmniLiberal @TaylorLorenz you should have the talk. After seeing some of the counters to your article it feels like you totally didn’t understand or lied on multiple points. It’d be great to see you clear these things up!
English
Taylor you don’t even understand what 230 is about, I listened to you stumble through that convo with Pisco and it was embarrassing.
Smart to avoid any critical conversations on your malicious reporting, though, following in the footsteps of all the other cancers plaguing alternative media right now.
Taylor Lorenz@TaylorLorenz
I’m sure you are because you don’t work. I am covering the senate’s big 230 hearing/discussion this week, something you have said absolutely nothing about. I know you want help producing drama slop, but you haven’t even been able to grasp the most basic definition of dark money.
English
Taylor Lorenz@TaylorLorenz
Elizabeth Booker Houston, a micro influencer who took part in Chorus’ undisclosed dark money influence scheme, is now implying that @KatAbughazaleh was ALSO involved with the dark money influence scheme. She cites Kat’s own filings, but that’s not what the filings show 1/
ZXX
Why does he hold it like that?
Aaron Rupar@atrupar
Trump's black hand adjusts the mic for a woman at his rally today in Kentucky (Andrew Harnik/Getty)
English
BidenTheOverlord retweetledi
I can understand the criticism, but I've done so many of these debates, and this fucker knew he was on a two hour timelimit, so if I don't interrupt and let him yap then I lose the ability to literally address anything.
I'd compare the first half of the convo to the second half, in the second half I didn't interrupt him much at all, and I think the first half was 10000x more valuable than the last half, which I think was almost entirely throw-away.
English
@Dylanobii @ShaoIRL Your dense, or intentionally obtuse. I don’t think you actually even understand the argument that’s being made against Taylor. Especially, because the picture you show here actually proves my point
English
Destiny CONFRONTS and QUESTIONS Taylor Lorenz on whether she is being FUNDED by DARK MONEY 👀🚨
"What was the thing that FUNDED you?... If you just said it's through an LLC then that means it's not directly funded by him. The LLC is what's CUTTING you the money"
"I was NICE to you in the past, these little strategies don't work on me"
English
@TaylorLorenz @TheOmniLiberal I don’t believe it is, I would like to see proof that it is. And it totally ignores the fact that you live in the same funding ecosystem that you criticize. Especially with the 45k revelation and the fact that Chorus was a sponsor, not simply “funded” by 1630
English
@TheOmniLiberal Lying in those disclosures would be financial fraud. Do u believe Pierre Omidyar is lying on the disclosures and committing financial fraud?
English
me on my way to every single thread on X about me to repost the same two debunked photos every single time
Taylor Lorenz@TaylorLorenz
@TheOmniLiberal Ok so when you’re proven wrong you just revert to posting copypasta. I guess anything to deflect and try to change the subject.
English
@TheOmniLiberal @TaylorLorenz Fight fire with fire? Nah, fight retarded parrot with not-retarded parrot LMAO I thought she was malicious before but I think she genuinely just doesn’t get it
English
This is the issue that @TaylorLorenz doesn't realize she can never win on because she doesn't have basic information on taxes/business structures. She can never prove anyone is a sole contributor to the LLC because the LLC isn't a non-profit that has to report anything publicly lol
Ben Shapiro's Biceps 💪🍋🔆@conro
@TheOmniLiberal @TaylorLorenz Taylor just provide proof that Omidyar is the sole contributor to the LLC and your name is clear
English
@HarunobuKanemor @ShaoIRL He has read it on stream more than once, actually.
English
@TheOmniLiberal @TaylorLorenz DGG: we can all agree, these people are actual fucking lying ghouls right? They’re not really this stupid? RIGHT???? RIGHT?
English
Hello @TaylorLorenz, I'm not sure why a Professional Journalist™ such as yourself is relying on uneducated TikTokers to do your research for you, but both of you seem to be confused. No sweat! Taxes are complicated, and since you've clearly never filed any yourself, let me help you both out here!
The creator is incorrectly saying that this is an "old document" that hasn't been "updated"(???). That's because we actually file different tax documents for different years! The numbers from one year to the next could change completely!
For example: Let's say I earned $500 in 2020, and then I earned $600 in 2021. That doesn't mean my 2020 form that says I earned $500 is incorrect, that's just what my tax return said for 2020 because that's what I earned for 2020!
Let me know if I can help you out anymore, otherwise I think investopedia has some really good articles on basic tax and finance that could really help you out!
Taylor Lorenz@TaylorLorenz
@TheOmniLiberal I really encourage people in the meantime to go watch the TikTokers who debunked this ridiculous claim A YEAR AGO.
English
English
Hey @TaylorLorenz, I know finance and business (and research in general) isn't your strongsuit, so let me help you out a little bit.
No one is claiming "financial fraud", just that your definition of "dark money" is arbitrary, and you seem to have no understanding for how any of these entities are structured. Let me give you an example of how silly your claim is:
You keep claiming that the Omidyar Network is solely funded by a single person, Pierre Omidyar. This is half-true, in that the the Omidyar Network Fund receives money from the Pierre Omidyar Trust. However, that Trust is, by your own (and any) definition, "dark money," because we have zero insight into who's money goes into it and what that Trust holds.
Here's an example of how silly this game is:
You claim (well, you make a variety of claims, mainly due to your ignorance about the structure of these businesses and your lack of familiarity with non-profits, but that's okay, they're confusing, and I wouldn't expect you to let any research get in the way of a good headline!) that Chorus was receiving dark money from the Sixteen Thirty Fund. However, the Sixteen Thirty Fund does not fund Chorus, it only works as a fiscal sponsor processing payments and administrative cost while giving them 501(c)(4) status until they register it on their own (which they now have).
For an extra bit of irony, though, you claim that your journalist program was funded solely via that Omidyar Network Fund, which is a 501(c)(3) and reports all of its contributors. However! I believe you claim you were compensated around $45k from their reporter program? Guess who donated about $45k to the Omidyar Network Services LLC, part of the Omidyar Network Fund, in 2022?
That's right, the Sixteen Thirty Fund!
Good luck on your future articles! You can email me if you ever need to research for your stories, since you can't seem to bring yourself to do any reading on your own.
Taylor Lorenz@TaylorLorenz
Faced w irrefutable info proving him wrong, DGG fans are now claiming that Omidyar is committing financial fraud & lying on this disclosure so that he, a billionaire known for funding journalism projects, can secretly accept outside $ to fund a non-partisan journalism fellowship
English
@olschoolbeat @jakerattlesnk Destiny has fought against more communists than any rightwing pundit you can name. Also “invaders” in your home ≠ legal immigrants.
Stop showing how retarded you are
English
@jakerattlesnk Why even debate that pos anymore. The only response to a communist is stfu you’re going in the train. Why don’t you just have a debate with the 4 armed home invaders in your downstairs living room?
English
Yeah, okay, we get it—your culture will be entirely erased within a few generations. But more importantly, what exactly do you mean by ‘culture,’ and what exactly do you mean by ‘unprecedented’?
English
@TheOmniLiberal I ain’t EVER listening to a bloke named “Benjamin” that’s fo damn sure
English
She doesn’t get paid out of that fund, though, she gets paid out of the LLC as a 1099 contractor. It’s okay that she takes dark money, I just wish she (and people like you) were honest about it. 😞
Benjamin Ryan@benryanwriter
The Taylor Lorenz Brouhaha Over "Dark Money" Is Pretty Stupid There’s been a lot of talk that internet-culture reporter and content creator Taylor Lorenz supposedly took “dark money” from a billionaire through the Omidyar journalism fellowship. (She received $50,000 for six months.) If you look at the IRS filings for the nonprofit involved, you can see that this claim is weak to say the least. The fellowship is funded by Omidyar Network Fund, a 501(c)(3) private foundation created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Its finances and grants are publicly disclosed in its IRS Form 990-PF. That means it’s transparent, the opposite of dark money. The foundation distributes tens of millions of dollars a year to nonprofits and policy groups working on things like: • tech accountability and digital rights • economic inequality and labor policy • democracy and civic participation • community and racial-equity initiatives • journalism fellowships and media nonprofits In other words, it’s part of the same philanthropic ecosystem that funds many journalism projects across the industry (think Ford, Gates, Knight, etc.). Some critics suggest @TaylorLorenz might be “captured” by the billionaire funding source. But considering the foundation’s grants and Omidyar’s business interests, that’s not an obvious fit. Omidyar made his fortune from eBay and early PayPal, not social media platforms. There’s no clear evidence he has major ownership stakes in companies like Meta or Google that would benefit from journalists arguing against social-media regulation, as Lorenz has. Actually, much of Omidyar’s philanthropy actually funds groups that push for more oversight of tech companies, not less. So the debate people can reasonably have is the broader one: whether billionaire philanthropy should fund journalism at all. But calling this “dark money,” or implying Lorenz is secretly working on behalf of a tech billionaire’s business interests, doesn’t seem supported by the available evidence.
English