yerrr🐍

2K posts

yerrr🐍 banner
yerrr🐍

yerrr🐍

@yerrrlol

started from the pennies

Katılım Kasım 2015
1.4K Takip Edilen445 Takipçiler
PokerNews
PokerNews@PokerNews·
🗣️Poker player freaks out after busting the @PokerStarsUSA Open Philadelphia Main Event! "DID THAT REALLY JUST HAPPEN AGAIN?!"😡
English
164
21
449
245.9K
Justin Bonomo 🇵🇸
Justin Bonomo 🇵🇸@JustinBonomo·
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.
Justin Bonomo 🇵🇸 tweet mediaJustin Bonomo 🇵🇸 tweet mediaJustin Bonomo 🇵🇸 tweet mediaJustin Bonomo 🇵🇸 tweet media
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
14
49
185
7.8K
Daniel Negreanu
Daniel Negreanu@RealKidPoker·
Very well said. It’s important for people to understand that “Muslim” isn’t a race of people, it is a religious ideology. We know Christianity is a religious ideology practiced by many races- Islam is no different. Not an identity, but an ideology. Criticism of radical Islamist ideology is not racism.
Tahmineh Dehbozorgi@DeTahmineh

Islam has been so aggressively racialized in Western discourse that many people are no longer capable of looking at it as a religion, ideology, or governing system. Instead, it is treated as a kind of ethnic inheritance—something biologically fused to the people associated with it. This distortion becomes especially obvious in the case of Iran. Iranian civilization did not begin with Islam, and Iranian identity is not reducible to any religion. Yet outsiders routinely speak as though “Iranian” and “Muslim” were naturally synonymous, as if a civilization thousands of years old can simply be collapsed into the religion of foreign people who conquered it after a single battle in 636. That mistake has real consequences. Once Islam is racialized, criticism of Islam is misread as hatred of a people rather than criticism of a doctrine. Resistance to Islamist rule is then treated as identity confusion. Iranian rejection of the Islamic Republic becomes framed as alienation from “their own culture,” when in reality the opposite is often true: the rejection is rooted in the desire to recover what Islamist rule has spent decades degrading, erasing, or subordinating. This is the point many people refuse to confront. Islam—especially in its politicized and totalizing forms—has long existed in tension with Iranian civilizational identity. It imposed itself upon an older language, older memory, and older cultural instincts, and demanded submission not only in matters of worship but in law, dress, speech, art, and the structure of public life. The Islamic Republic sharpened this tension by weaponizing Islam as an instrument of state power—turning it into the vocabulary of humiliation, the architecture of censorship, and the justification for violence. For that reason, it should not surprise anyone that many Iranians are willing to risk their lives resisting Islamist rule. That willingness reflects clarity. People will fight the thing they know is suffocating their nation. They will resist the ideology that has turned beauty into guilt, joy into sin, dissent into heresy, and national life into a hostage chamber. The Western inability to process this stems from deeply flawed intellectual categories. Christianity is treated as theology, liberalism as ideology, nationalism as doctrine, and Marxism as a political project—all open to criticism and blame. But Islam, within this framework, is treated as identity. Once that happens, criticism becomes taboo and the people living under Islamist regimes become analytically invisible. Their resistance cannot be understood because the framework itself is designed to shield the ideology from scrutiny. That is why Iranian people so often break Western narratives. Their experience exposes the central error: Islam is not an ethnicity and it is not the inescapable essence of every society it has ruled. It can be rejected, criticized, and resisted—especially when fused to state power. For many Iranians, Islam is not experienced as sentimental heritage but as conquest extended through law, punishment, and forced piety. It is remembered not as mere faith, but as a structure that has repeatedly demanded the shrinking of Iran into something narrower, sadder, uglier, and more obedient. That is why so many efforts to romanticize Islam as somehow organically identical with Iranian identity ring false, even obscene. They ask a civilization to treat the ideology that has governed and constrained it as the essence of its soul. A serious analysis of Iran requires abandoning these fraudulent categories. Islam must be treated as what it is: a religion, a set of doctrines, and, in many contexts, a political program with concrete consequences for law, liberty, culture, and power. Once that happens, Iranian resistance becomes perfectly intelligible. The Western discourse that claims to value freedom, dissent, and decolonial analysis, yet suddenly goes blind when the object of critique is Islam.

English
90
23
494
60.5K
Clark 🆓
Clark 🆓@Clark10x·
I've spent about 3 weeks and over $2,000 in Claude tokens setting up multiple agents to trade on Polymarket It was paper trading for a week and averaged about $80 per day It's been live for 2 days & completely broken All of these other people gotta lying on the timeline 😂😂
Clark 🆓 tweet media
English
493
96
4.5K
396K
yerrr🐍 retweetledi
barney
barney@barneyxbt·
if they’re lying to your face about things happening right now in real time with cameras everywhere and the internet at your fingertips imagine how bad the history books are
English
541
23K
129.7K
2.6M
JustFreshKicks
JustFreshKicks@JustFreshKicks·
Steph Curry debuts the VARIOUS ZERO "Shadow Frost" by A$AP Bari
JustFreshKicks tweet mediaJustFreshKicks tweet mediaJustFreshKicks tweet media
English
3
6
202
47.5K
yerrr🐍 retweetledi
Talkin' Yanks
Talkin' Yanks@TalkinYanks·
"I feel more Dominican everyday." - Austin Wells
English
26
310
5.7K
271.4K
Snek.fun
Snek.fun@snekdotfun·
buying the pico top before the dev gets bored and sells for happy meal profit
Snek.fun tweet media
English
11
4
26
941
Grok
Grok@grok·
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
1
0
0
118
Valentina Gomez
Valentina Gomez@ValentinaForUSA·
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
5.4K
2.1K
12.3K
1M
yerrr🐍
yerrr🐍@yerrrlol·
"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
1
0
0
75
Grok
Grok@grok·
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
1
0
0
75
yerrr🐍
yerrr🐍@yerrrlol·
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
1
0
0
72
Grok
Grok@grok·
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
1
0
0
79
yerrr🐍
yerrr🐍@yerrrlol·
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
1
0
0
102
Grok
Grok@grok·
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
1
0
0
126
yerrr🐍
yerrr🐍@yerrrlol·
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
1
0
0
108
Grok
Grok@grok·
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
1
0
0
115
Grok
Grok@grok·
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
1
0
0
113
Grok
Grok@grok·
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
1
0
0
119
Grok
Grok@grok·
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
1
0
0
370