multimediabae

allow me to remind you what my point was…even if there is a reason, that doesn’t erase the environmental impact or justify a double standard. i’m not denying there are reasons for private travel. i’m saying those reasons don’t make the emissions irrelevant. there was a dataset of several celebrities and their estimated emissions and taylor stood out within it not only because of how famous she is but also because she ranked extremely high. so my question to you is…what standard are you using to decide when that level of emissions is acceptable?

@multimediabunny @anonatrisk and the flights everyone is always whining about with taylor was when she was on tour, the biggest tour ever. all artists go on tour and all of the big ones fly private there's just never as much attention to it as with taylor because no one would give a shit about anyone else

I love how no one ever calls her a climate terrorist..

calling it hypocrisy only works if the comparison is actually consistent. the “always on vacation” joke is about dua’s visible lifestyle. the focus on taylor specifically in the climate change question is based on actual flight tracking data that noted very frequent flights and a number of extremely short trips that were sometimes under an hour, not just “taylor travels a lot.” and “look at this crowd, she has no choice” is nothing but deflection. even if private jet use is sometimes understandable, it doesn’t follow that the environmental impact should be judged differently. that’s a double standard. if anything, acceptability being applied unevenly is the hypocritical thing here because the environmental consequences remain the same across the board as emissions don’t change based on fame and a ton of co2 is a ton of co2 regardless of who emits it

For hypocrites going after Taylor, this is what happened when she travelled commercial the last time in Tokyo. Airport got choked, because guess what??!! She's 10 times more famous than any other popstar. eonline.com/news/653226/ta…

@vimentality7 @burnerforzm besides the redundant ocd mention here…since this is “in every single pic” and you first noticed it “a longgg time ago” then i must ask what exactly you compared it to in order to arrive at that conclusion

.@multimediabunny done have lost it ‼️

@bogotesr404 @grok @huntedlifestyle @1989healy ?

@grok @huntedlifestyle @1989healy How would she die in the same room she gave birth?

@printf_meme Well, it looks like My Grandma's hand. 😭😭

@MistyFahrenheit @fartprncesssss wow, what a shocking revelation. this image should be hung in the deflection hall of fame because how does that have anything to do with this discussion

North West says that she is now managing her mother’s dating life: “I don’t trust her decision making”

@CallousinLove you’re a horrible person

again, i asked a precise question “how does allowing days of warnings and public attention silence someone?” and again, you did not answer that. “if i make you and everyone around you assume you’re crazy… i’m trying to manipulate you into a mental breakdown… i’m going to harm you badly and or kill you” is not historical analysis or institutional behavior and it definitely isn’t evidence based reasoning. this is menacing at worst and ignorant at best. and either way, it still has nothing to do with whether a “bigger hand” would use a slow, attention generating method to silence someone. serial killers seek fear, attention, and prolonged interaction and institutions seek risk minimization, deniability, speed, and control. acting like those are the same is definitely not insight, and is actually delusion on a wild scale because serial killers are not effective silencers. their victims don’t “disappear quietly” and their crimes generate massive attention. which actually reinforces my point. this is not just dumb it’s somewhat disturbing because you’re not saying “here’s why your logic is wrong” you’re saying “here’s how someone could terrorize you”

@multimediabunny @KickoutLoud @LizBlohan @Raindropsmedia1 That im on you, and Im going to harm you badly and/or kill you. I won’t show my face, but you’ll have a weird eerie feeling the whole time until I actually strike. I’m very sure these are the tactics a lot of serial killers used. It’s called psychological manipulation.

Beauty 2 The Streetz CEO Shirley Raines, who passed away yesterday, recently posted a video revealing that she woke up with no memory of a whole week, had bruises, and suspected she had been drugged. 😳💔🙏🏽

you’re redefining “effective” mid argument. i’m talking about whether a method silences someone in real time, before they can warn others and allow scrutiny. pointing out that people debated MLK’s death afterward doesn’t change the fact that he was killed immediately and publicly, not through some slow and mysterious force that depended on confusion. historical disagreement after the fact is not the same thing as a method designed to silence through ambiguity. you’re not even defending a claim here you’re essentially just saying “questioning this story is morally suspect” and that allowing time, coherence, and an audience is effective silencing because some people later doubted things anyway. that would mean silence equals people not universally agreeing afterward and by that standard, nothing is ever silenced, and “silencing” loses all meaning. you are no longer arguing about what happened. you’re arguing about who is allowed to question a narrative. once you moved to “people like you”, “faux intellectual” and “contrary”…it’s because your factual argument has failed and you’re trying to be right by delegitimizing skepticism itself.

@multimediabunny @SosaT98 @LizBlohan @Raindropsmedia1 The moment people like you start this kind of discourse, you (intentionally or not) feed into the cycle that wrongly seeks to dismiss their story rather than try to seek the truth in it. That’s why it’s effective. There is always some faux intellectual that loves to be contrary.

@SosaT98 @KickoutLoud @LizBlohan @Raindropsmedia1 calling someone a smart ass isn’t a response to the argument. if you disagree, explain how allowing days of warnings and attention silences someone

@KickoutLoud @multimediabunny @LizBlohan @Raindropsmedia1 You can’t tell these smart asses nothing they think the world works the way they perceive it which is crazy

okay…what doesn’t? you’re not responding to what i actually said. but even if this response did follow the premise, that comparison still weakens your argument. MLK was subjected to overt surveillance and pressure as a nationally influential political leader, not some slow and ambiguous method that gave him time to warn the public and generate attention. my claim is simple, allowing days of coherence, public warnings, and scrutiny defeats the purpose of silencing someone. you haven’t explained how that isn’t the case. the question was not “have institutions ever intimidated people” it was whether giving someone time, clarity, and an audience is an effective way to silence them

@multimediabunny @SosaT98 @LizBlohan @Raindropsmedia1 It doesn’t, actually. MLK was sent letters telling him to off himself, and had his secrets used to blackmail him long before he was taken out. That was the CIA. Intimidation, targeting mental health, and tainting credibility over time are common tactics used by “smart” people.

@SosaT98 @LizBlohan @Raindropsmedia1 if that were true, then it would also mean this “smart” culprit intentionally allowed seven days of warnings, evidence, and public attention before the outcome…which defeats the entire purpose of silencing someone

@multimediabunny @LizBlohan @Raindropsmedia1 Not necessarily if the culprit is smart they can get off making them think they’re just crazy. It’s all about how they planned and executed it

@LizBlohan @Raindropsmedia1 if this “bigger hand” wanted to kill people to silence them, drugging them in such a way that caused memory loss, left visible bruises, allowed them to wake up, function, and publicly talk about it for 7 days before it killed them seems like a pretty ineffective way to do so

We’ve seen this stuff happen before though Black people actively trying to help their community. They get a lot of traction and praise from the good deeds that they do and then they mysteriously end up missing or dead. This should be extremely alarming to people and terrifying. Not trying to create conspiracy theories, but I definitely think there’s a bigger hand at play in her death that we don’t know about.

IShowSpeed and Kim Kardashian are reportedly dating.

you are also not a pediatrician, and yet here you are, also making a developmental judgement based on a few seconds of a video. the logic here is saying “developmental problems” is insulting the baby, but saying “miserable bitch” is totally fine, morally righteous even. if you applied your own rule consistently, the second conclusion should be far more illegitimate than the first, which tells you everything you need to know about the standards being applied. nothing in her tweet indicates insult or cruelty or mockery. all of that was projected by you and you’re treating it as self evident truth. your position is honestly hilarious because it’s just “you can’t draw conclusions from this video, except the conclusion i like that everything is fine, and you’re a miserable bitch for not sharing it. also, i’m not qualified either, but thankfully you’re not qualified” because you’re essentially saying “you are not allowed to infer internal states from limited data, unless i am doing it, in which case my inference is fact.”

No soy pediatra, pero juraría que ese bebé tiene algún tipo de problema en el desarrollo.

@Chant_Again @__hamdaddy__ @Jakil176099 @Casebradford and why is that exactly?

@__hamdaddy__ @Jakil176099 @Casebradford It's very healthy and safe.

the effervescent joy of a happy mooing milk drunk boy is all the proof we need that raw milk is natures perfect food

no, that is not the argument. when you say “the argument is that…” who exactly are you quoting? because the only person in this thread who has ever said that is you. and can you point to any historical period where adults drank raw milk daily for decades without outbreaks of tuberculosis, brucellosis, listeria, or salmonella, or without high child mortality? by your own logic, inconsistent sickness and death from cholera, typhoid, or food poisoning wouldn’t count as danger, so how did humans ever identify any infectious disease in history?

@SULZER1959 @DreamLeaf5 Yes, we're better at keeping infants alive. No argument there The argument is that "the average lifespan is 35, and that's because of raw milk" and that is retarded You're 34 and drank raw milk your entire life You turn 35 and suddenly drop dead bc you drank raw milk Dumb.

Should be arrested for child endangerment

Look like @multimediabunny