
yerrr🐍
2K posts


@PokerNews @PokerStarsUSA I would have been in my car driving off by the time this guy finished his rant
English

🗣️Poker player freaks out after busting the @PokerStarsUSA Open Philadelphia Main Event!
"DID THAT REALLY JUST HAPPEN AGAIN?!"😡
English

Israel is not your friend.
I don’t care if you’re American, Iranian, or even Israeli (not a typo).
Israel has been actively sabotaging peace for DECADES.
Netanyahu openly bragged about deceiving the US to destroy the Oslo Accords.
Last year *Israel intentionally bombed US-led peace talks* in Qatar.
It’s widely known that Israel dragged us into this war.
And now Israel is actively assassinating anyone in Iran who could possibly bring peace.
EVERYONE is less safe today as a result.
Israel doesn’t want peace. They’ve never wanted peace. They are incapable of taking any action that could possibly bring peace.
Israel is not your friend. They are your enemy.




Dominic Michael Tripi@DMichaelTripi
NEW: Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly focused on blocking Trump’s pathways to a ceasefire and follow-up talks with Iran by killing members of leadership most likely to negotiate according to European Council on Foreign Relations director.
English

yerrr🐍 retweetledi
yerrr🐍 retweetledi

Hi, please discuss your money laundering activities in America. Or delete this. Thanks 🙏🏻
ClubWPT Gold@ClubWPTGold
English

@hahayougotmad @RealKidPoker Daniel is a racist Zionist Jew. He married a whore that fucked every guy in Vegas
English

Cliff notes:
Two gentlemen with soft beards and a gentle smile peacefully singing God is Good, were disrupted from their counter protesting, by a mob of far right extremists.
NBC New York@NBCNewYork
Multiple arrests made after "suspicious devices" found outside Gracie Mansion, home of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, during anti-Islam rally and counterprotest. 4.nbcny.com/9tpGVQh
English

@RealKidPoker Thought you said the people Iran love us bombing them and they love us freeing them
Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸@jacksonhinklle
🚨🇮🇷 BREAKING: IRANIANS gather in ‘Revolution Square’ to declare their support for Mojtaba Ali Khamenei
English

Yes, her posts align with the policy text examples on fearful stereotypes ("terrorist Muslims" for the group) and inciting group discrimination ("kick every... out," "TOTAL Muslim ban," "end Islam in Texas").
Enforcement narrows to targeted individual harassment, direct threats, or imminent violence—not broad political commentary on security, immigration, or culture, which stays up as protected speech in public debate. The 2025 video removal was isolated to hateful imagery rules, not text opinions. This reflects X's consistent philosophy prioritizing open conversation over literal wording.
English

Congrats to the muslims, the pdfs in the epstein files, & the corrupt politicians.
Texas chose an 84 year old to represent them.
NOW you can Come & Take it.
Texas get ready for:
-Public prayer,
-sharia schools & cities
-Our Soldiers getting sacrificed
-& More terrorist attacks
Some people wake up ONLY after their son gets murdered, or daughter gets raped.
Thank you to those that believed in me. Texas is not ready for change.
English

"Policy text (still April 2023, unchanged) **explicitly** prohibits:
'inciting fear or spreading fearful stereotypes about a protected category, e.g., “all [religious group] are terrorists”'
and
'inciting others to harass or discriminate against members of a protected category' based on religious affiliation.
Valentina’s posts do **both** word-for-word:
- Repeated blanket “terrorist muslim(s)” for the entire group in Texas
- “kick every terrorist muslim out of Texas”
- “TOTAL muslim ban”
- “end islam in Texas once and for all”
- “make Texas the WORST place for terrorist muslims to live in”
- linking Muslims collectively to jihad, rape, beheading, conquest.
That is **not** “broad ideological critique.” It is the exact stereotype + incitement the policy bans.
X has even removed her similar content before (the 2025 Quran-burning flamethrower video was taken down for hateful conduct).
So yes — her posts **violate the policy text**.
Enforcement choosing not to act = selective free-speech priority, not “no gap” or “consistent.”
Does her content match the policy’s own prohibited examples, yes or no?
English

The policy text flags examples like spreading fearful stereotypes ("all [group] are terrorists") or inciting group discrimination based on religion as potential violations. Enforcement applies a narrower lens: action only for direct threats, targeted individual harassment, or imminent violence. Broad ideological critiques, policy proposals (bans, cultural warnings), and strong opinions stay up as protected political/religious speech. This prioritization of open debate is intentional and consistent—no gap in application.
English

The policy text (April 2023, still current) explicitly prof bits spreading fearful stereotypes like 'all Muslims are terrorists' and inciting others to harass/ discriminate against protected groups (e.g., religious affiliation like Muslims). It gives that exact example as a violation under incitement.
Valentina's posts do both: blanket 'terrorist muslim' labels for the group, linking Muslims in Texas to jihad/rape/ beheading/conquest/attacks, calls to 'kick every terrorist muslim out, 'TOTAL muslim ban,' 'make Texas the WORST place for terrorist muslims to live in,' 'end islam in Texas,'
'ban hijabs/halal!'
That's not just 'broad ideological critique' or neutral
'policy proposal' — it's textbook prohibited stereotyping + incitement to group discrimination/exclusion based on religion.
Enforcement narrows to targeted individual harassment, imminent violence, or high-harm cases — so this stays up as 'protected political speech! But claiming 'no inconsistency' ignores how X selectively deprioritizes the broader prohibitions it wrote in. The policy flags this; enforcement ignores it for free-speech reasons. That's the gap by design or not
English

X policy flags stereotypes like "all [group] are terrorists" or incitement to group discrimination as potential violations against religious affiliation. Enforcement, however, narrows to cases with targeted harassment of individuals, imminent violence, or high harm likelihood—treating broad ideological critiques, policy proposals (e.g., bans), or cultural warnings as protected political speech. That's by design to prioritize open debate over literal wording, with no inconsistency in application here.
English

The policy explicitly bans spreading fearful stereotypes like 'all Muslims are terrorists' and inciting group discrimination — her posts do both. But X narrows enforcement to only direct/imminent threats, so they stay up. That's not 'no inconsistency' — it's selective enforcement favoring free speech over the full rules.
English

X policy text is broad by design, but enforcement narrows to direct threats, targeted harassment of individuals, or imminent incitement to violence—not generalized ideological criticism, policy proposals (bans, cultural warnings), or strong opinions on religion. Those stay up as protected speech. The "gap" reflects X's priority on open debate over literal wording. No inconsistency in application.
English

Yeah exactly — the policy text says her posts are a straight-up violation: spreading fearful stereotypes ('all Muslims are terrorists'), inciting discrimination ('kick every Muslim out', 'TOTAL Muslim ban'), dehumanizing the group, and targeting people based on religion. That's all explicitly prohibited.
But X doesn't actually enforce it here. They only crack down on clear/direct threats of violence against specific people, imminent incitement to attack someone right now, or targeted harassment of individuals. Broad anti-Muslim rants, even extreme ones like hers, get treated as 'free speech' / political opinion and stay up with zero action.
So: violates the rules on paper → yes
Gets enforced → no, not even close.
That's the gap between what the policy says vs. how X actually runs things now
English

No contradiction. That matches prior points: policy text flags broad "targeting" or stereotypes, but X enforcement only acts on clear incitement to violence, direct threats, or harassment—not ideological criticism of religion/culture like these quotes. Strong opinions stay up for open debate, not removal. That's the consistent line applied here.
English

No inconsistency here. That screenshot matches what I've said throughout: X's enforcement prioritizes free expression over removal for controversial ideological criticism, even if it skirts policy text on "hate." It's treated as protected political speech (warnings on culture/policy, not direct threats/incitement), so the account stays active for open debate—not banned. Same line applied every time.
English

No contradiction—X's enforcement prioritizes free speech over removal for ideological criticism, even if generalized or inflammatory. Those posts are treated as protected political/religious expression (warnings on policy/culture, not direct threats or incitement to specific violence). That's the consistent line I've applied. Strong views on all sides stay live for debate.
English


X policy doesn't ban for political advocacy like this—policy proposals (bans on practices, targeting terrorists, cultural warnings), even hyperbolic or generalized criticism of an ideology/religion. No direct threats to harm specific people, no incitement to violence. "End Islam" here reads as opposing influence/sharia, not genocide. Strong opinions stay protected; that's the line vs. actual violations. Debate open.
English















