Thread 102303477

Makeship caved. Strawb won.
https://x.com/darlingstrawbie/status/1945161430841614597

its white boy summer

What a damn shame. Dramafags and their partners deserve the worst

Now watch her try to sneak her husband's merch in as her own, the very reason the rule existed in the first place.

>>102303584
Uh-oh melty!

So... they still don't work with Rev or Strawb, all they gave her was some fluff text that they can ignore without penalty.
How, exactly, did she win? They got rid of her and now got her off their ass.

Chud Gang we are BACK!

>>102303477 (OP)
>grateful for past collabs and professionalism
>makes a long twitter post bashing these guys for ending the collab and not so subtly inciting her audience to dog on them
How are these vtubers able to get away with lefty-tier cancel culture campaigns time and time again.

>>102303477 (OP)
>They refuse to work with Rev and Strawb still
>"They caved!"

Dramafags truly are desperate

>>102303584
The best policy for any of these companies is a hands off approach. Banning anyone for anything is an an implicit endorsement of the acts of every person you do not ban. You really need hard line rules. Preferably ones that only exclude actual criminals.

>>102303477 (OP)
Who, also what is makeship, sounds like a scam

>>102304568
Cancel culture is defined by massive outlash disproportionate to the offence committed.

i.e. Someone said nigger 15 years ago and therefore they should be deplatformed, their assets seized, starved and thrown onto the street to be publicly beaten

Having a company just randomly shitcan you for things you never did, then double down on their retardation, yeah that's ground for public outcry. That's not cancel culture. She didn't want the company to fail, she just wanted fair treatment.

>>102304811
They create limited run merch for chuubas, like plushies.

>>102304928
Nigga if they don't want to work with him they don't fucking have to. Dramaniggers deserve nothing, they didn't want a dramanigger to be working with their brand. They have every right to cut them both off.

>>102303477 (OP)
damn she clearly didn't get her fill from dogpiling inislein

>>102305006
What did she do to her?

>>102303477 (OP)
Reasonable response. They have recognized to minimize guilt by association and she has chosen to continue not working with them because of their decision to not associate with this Rev fellow.
All in all it seems like a pretty good outcome for all when all things considered.

>>102304974
Of course they don't have to do anything they don't want to do. I never argued they weren't legally in the clear. That doesn't mean they are free from criticism or that their actions are reasonable or moral.

If they don't want to work with Rev because they're moving away from drama channels that's fine. But throwing Strawb into the same basket despite her content and his content being divorced from one another is guilt by association which is deserving of criticism and opens up an entire realm of bullshit because if you think that guilt by association is reasonable, then you believe in endorsement by association as well and are implicitly endorsing everybody you do work with and everybody who they then associate with. That's retarded and creates puritanical cannibalism like the left is extremely prone to.

>>102304974
>They have every right to cut them both off.
This is true when they go about it in a non-retarded fashion, which makeship did not do.

>>102305039
strawb and rev got pissy at inislein for joking about christ despite defending jokes about dead niggers and jews in the past

>>102304955
Sounds like a scam alright

>>102305087
>This is true when they go about it in a non-retarded fashion
Considering no one would've known any of this had happened until she decided to air the dirty laundry means they did the right thing.

>>102305131
No they did a retarded thing giving a reason like that. This kind of bullshit only flies if they don't get burned for doing it.

>>102305077
>But throwing Strawb into the same basket despite her content and his content being divorced from one another is guilt by association

Considering she just outright said she refused to work with them anymore because they still kept Rev on the blacklist, they're not wrong to do so. Especially when she herself is also a dramafag

>>102305128
Nah, even Cover has worked with them. They do it for pretty much anyone who approaches them and has a certain amount of clout. They do it for content creators in general, including videogames. Pic related. They're actually not a scam.

>>102303477 (OP)
Idk who this is but was she always a Jesustuber? Why is she so whiny? I get bad vibes from her.

>>102305126
Everyone knows dramafags are hypocritical pussies who can ever do anything with dogpiling though so that's not unexpected

>>102305077
When you're married and publicly support each other, it's a bit more than just "association."

>>102305312
This bible thumping shit seems like either a grift or a falseflag.

>>102305312
Massive ego for a 2view or whatever she is

Name a faker vtuber than strawb. Claims to not always agree with her husband but never openly does so. Pretends to be very wholesome and kind to everyone while married to Rev. Makeship is right to see them as associated because they legally are, and her money is his money. If they were e-dating it would be different.

>>102305312
she's the wife of an immense grifter, this is why you get bad vibes

>>102305390
she literally piles on people who dare criticize her husband

>>102305307
That looks terrible

>>102305435
>Wife defends her husband
>People see this as a bad thing.
The fucking state of people...

>>102305478
but then she pretends she doesn't do this and she doesn't share his opinion

>>102305470
Have you fucking seen Jimbo

I guess I'll ask the big question:
What makes Rev controversial?

>>102305244
They were wrong though. She has a right to refuse to work with them because she wants them to work with Rev. They don't work to work with Rev.

They admitted their guilt by association clause is bullshit and offered to work with her again.

>>102305352
Go ahead and explain this in actual detail because I'm sure you'll find that you're retarded.

>>102305560
Mild right wing opinions.

>>102305390
>Claims to not always agree with her husband but never openly does so.
Why would you openly try to fight with your spouse? Are you retarded?

>>102305560
He’s just kind of a shitflinger and insufferable, and worst of all he isn’t even funny about it.

>>102305597
I watch Rev, I don't think he has actually said a particular political opinion before. He's never voiced a stance on particular policies, politicians or parties before. He criticizes or supports others who ARE political commentators, but I don't think he really ever expresses an explicit political opinion.

>>102303584
spbp

>>102305593
How is guilt by association wrong here if she literally proved that she believes in the exact same thing Rev does? She even tried to strongarm them into working with Rev proving themselves right

Hopefully more companies blacklist more dramafags after this

>>102305560
Dramanigger ala parrot rima bvtm

>>102305704
Because content != belief (less you think all vtubers are single virgin girlfailures who has never touched a man outside their dad), which is the stance Makeship was taking. They said they didn't want to continue with Rev because of his controversial content. Strawb doesn't have such content which is what made them look extremely duplicitous when they also blacklisted her since she doesn't produce controversial content. So despite them saying it was about controversial content, it actually had nothing to do with moving away from controversial content creators and was more likely that someone with power at the company personally doesn't like Rev or his controversial opinions. Which ultimately is fine, if the CEO hates right wing opinions, so be it, but don't be scummy weasels about it and try to brand it as a PR move away from 'controversial content' when you then ignore all the other controversial creators you work with on the left and then take a shotgun approach to everyone on the right. It made them look extremely dishonest, underhanded and politically motivated.

She is allowed to express that she thinks he isn't controversial and they should work with him. That's a totally separate issue.

>>102303477 (OP)
Wow say no to anyone in the dramatuber clique or anyone related to them and their /pol/ adjacent fanbase floods the company/organization inbox with threats and cancel culture tactics and most are too small and bend. Good to know.

>>102305853
>personally doesnt like rev
Based

>>102305665
He clearly has a political bias
Said "we won...." when trump won the election

>>102305853
>Strawb doesn't have such content
She tweets about drama and political shit all the time. Are tweets not content now? Plus you're retarded for saying that they both aren't inherently controversial

>>102303477 (OP)
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT REV SAYS DESU

>>102305904
ERM BASED

>>102305874
It'd be based if they weren't pussies about just saying it

>>102305875
Every human being on Earth has a political bias. That's not an insightful statement.

>>102305888
I never said they were or weren't controversial, retardchama. That's a subjective opinion which I never actually expressed, retarchama.

>She tweets about drama and political shit all the time.
If tweeting about drama and politics is enough to count as controversial, then half of the people who work with Makeship should also be blacklisted. But that's not what's happening here, it's not about being controversial, dramanigging, or being political, it's about having the wrong opinion. Being underhanded weasels by saying they don't want to work with controversial creators when in reality it means "we don't want to work with people with right-wing opinions or associations" is scummy and deserves critique.

>>102305560
>What makes Rev controversial?
He's a dime-a-dozen dramafag/right-wing grifter
There's a million fags like him basically being produced in a factory, but he has a bit of clout so he's a bit uniquely obnoxious

>>102305560
Extremely bias even in grey areas; gives too much attention to twitter; fights with other content creators; pushed a narrative with little evidence and ended up on a trash can.

>>102305859
>cancel culture is only ok when the left does it!

>>102305859
It's all a pendulum. The same faggots whining about cancel culture five years ago are trying to cancel people

>>102305904
YOU HAVE TO CARE. YOU HAVE TO BE MAD. YOU HAVE TO PICK A SIDE AND ENGAGE.

>>102306090
>cancel culture is when you reach out to a company to find amicable ground for their retarded mistake and then you find amicable ground

Yeah gee what a fucking pendulum swing from "you didn't make a fist whilst eating your breakfast at a cafe to show your support for BLM, so now we're going to publicly lambast and defame you with the potential for violence and loss of job"

>>102305967
>If tweeting about drama and politics is enough to count as controversial, then half of the people who work with Makeship should also be blacklisted.
None have done anything on the level of dogpiling someone over a Christ joke. They also haven't defended their chud husband. Get over the victim complex

>>102304568
The secret is that the right has always loved cancel culture and idpol, they just hate when other people are doing it to them.

>>102306152
>It was a mistake to exercise your right to not work with whoever you want for whatever reason you want.
>I'm not as bad as this fictional person I made up though
I clearly remember your particular type of faggot seething that people were upset that a baker didn't want to work at a gay wedding

>>102306177
>None have done anything on the level of dogpiling someone over a Christ joke.
What is that level? You need to be way more explicit about your criteria of what is controversial and what is acceptable because 'controversial' is a purely matter of perspective and subjective opinion.

So explain to me exactly what level of controversial is dogpiling someone over a Jesus joke and why is that level specifically worthy of blacklisting someone over?
Then explain to me what the equivalent of that is on the left so that I can make a reasonable judgement on what leftwing creators should be also be blacklisted.

>>102306280
>>It was a mistake to exercise your right to not work with whoever you want for whatever reason you want.
People have a right to think your action was a mistake and voice that opinion you corporate cocksucker.

>>I'm not as bad as this fictional person I made up though
https://nypost.com/2020/08/25/blm-protesters-harass-white-diners-for-not-raising-fists-in-dc/

>I clearly remember your particular type of faggot seething that people were upset that a baker didn't want to work at a gay wedding
If a baker doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to. They also open themselves up for public criticism if they want to exercise that right. There's no hypocrisy here you stupid nigger

>>102306328
"Controversy" isn't subjective, you retard. Getting involved with politics is inherently controversial and making content about it is too. They have all the reason to avoid someone loudly shilling their politics

>>102306381
>People have the right to harass you if you don't want to work with someone
Kek
>This thing that happened five years ago!
Cry more about it? You're as bad as them
>They also open themselves up for public criticism if they want to exercise that right
Funny. Because then it was cancelling , unjust harassment and scrutiny but now it's "criticism". Looks like the chuds are becoming those sjws they cried about

>>102306536
>"Controversy" isn't subjective, you retard
Holy shit

I'm actually not going to read anything you wrote until you explain this in-depth because Jesus fucking Holy Christ you are either the smartest man alive who has figured out objective moral reality and thus you will completely revolutionize the entire human race forever, or you're a complete fucking stupid nigger talking out of his ass.

I'll wait for you to show me which one.

>>102306577
Controversy has nothing to do with subjective morality, you fucking retard. If someone is causing a mass amount of public disagreement, they are by definition controversial. This is something you can quantify, dumbass. Thanks for proving the right wing equivalent to sjws are just as retarded

>>102306684
>Controversy has nothing to do with subjective morality,
So if humans didn't exist, things would still be controversial?

>>102306280
>>It was a mistake to exercise your right to not work with whoever you want for whatever reason you want.
"We will stop working with you, Because you're related to a dramanigger"
The First part is fine, the problem here is the second part which was a retarded fucking thing to say.

>>102306715
>Deliberately avoiding the point
Someone personally does not determine what's controversial or not. The general population does and it's quantifiable

>>102306766
Really? Okay, what objective measure do you use to quantify it?

>inb4 lots of people's SUBJECTIVE MORAL opinion disagree with it

>>102306783
>Companies HAVE to work with controversial people that the general population doesn't like because freedom or something
Fucking retard

>>102306822
Sorry, that doesn't appear to be what I asked for. I asked for how you measure controversy in an objective sense.

You seem to be either unable to read or deliberately avoiding the point.

>>102306839
Are you able to see that a lot of people don't like this person? Yes? Then they're, by definition, controversial

>>102306728
Except she's a dramafag too. She routinely works on cancelling people with her dramafag extraordinaire husband, defends him non-stop and shills all her favorite dramafag opinions online

>>102306877
That's not what you said. You are now changing your words and moving goalposts.

You said that controversy isn't subjective. Therefore it must be objective.

I don't care about your definitions, which are subjective and made up by humans. You said that controversy can be objectively measured, so show me this objective measure.

>>102303477 (OP)
She's obese

>>102306913
Except thats was not my point.
My point was that makeship is free work or not to work with anyone they choose and i am free to call them retarded when they say retarded things.

>>102306925
>I don't care about your definitions, which are subjective
>The meaning of words is subjective
We have reached peak enlightened retard. I already told you. If a lot of people don't like or agree with someone, they're controversial. There is no personal opinion, it's an observation. Take your personal definitions and shove them up your ass

>>102306973
>it's an observation.
Of peoples personal opinions

>>102306961
But they aren't wrong since she has involved herself with countless amounts of drama especially involving her husband. Apparently facts are retarded now though

>>102306877
That's not really an objective measure. Everybody has somebody who doesn't like them. Where is the line? It's by definition a subjective, fuzzy metric.

>>102306997
Opinions they factually hold which means it's not subjective. Thanks for playing

>>102307010
Facts aren't retarded. Stating them as a reason for discontinuing working with someone, with a online following to air it out to, is a retarded thing to do.

>>102306973
>words
>a human invention
>that wouldn't exist without humans and their subjective experience of the universe
>are actually objective universal truths that would exist without human intervention
Actually retarded.

Looking at a group of people and going 'mmm yes they seem upset' isn't an objective observation and it isn't an objective measure. That's a qualitative measure.
A definition of a word is subjective because it can change. We have seen many words change their meaning over time. Words do not have intrinsic meaning. They mean whatever the mass consensus decides they mean, which is ever changing and thus subjective. The word 'cunny' used to mean a baby rabbit, now it means a pre-pubescent girls vagina. Are you going to tell me that cunny is objective across the entire universe now?

You seem to have absolutely zero idea about what is objective and subjective so let's go back to pure basics.

Define for me the words 'subjective' and 'objective' and tell me how they are different form one another.

>>102307050
>Personal opinions aren't subjective
C'mon now.

strawb is a shitter in her own right. if makeship denounced both of them there would've been less issues kek

>>102307050
>because people hold opinions, which is a fact, that means their opinions themselves are facts
please go to your local highschool and take a rhetoric class because I do not believe you should be allowed to vote

>>102307037
The line depends on how many people don't like this faggot. By his own observation, it's a lot of people which makes him controversial. I'm pretty sure he makes videos about how hated he is

>>102307102
How many is a lot of people?

>>102307102
How much is the objective definition of "a lot"?

>>102307082
>>102307098
>Chuds can't read
Who would have guessed they'd able to extract "These opinions are true" from "People factually hold these opinions"? Too much Kool aid for their own good

>>102307154
So, what's the objective measure of people's opinions? You seem to lack reading comprehension if that's the information you pulled out of being criticized.

>>102307119
>>102307132
Are you faggots in a discord? You can't use Google so I'll just post the definition here
>giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement
Will you argue that Rev does not insert himself into public disagreements and isn't widely hated now?

>>102307235
Cool, so are you agreeing that controversy is subjective then which flies in the face of what you claimed here: >>102306536

>"Controversy" isn't subjective, you retard.

>>102307198
People sharing their opinions online is an objective measure that they hold those opinions

>>102307270
That doesn't answer the question.

You've established that people hold opinions. That's not objectively evaluating those opinions though which is what I asked.

>>102307154
>Chuds can't read
Illiterate nigger claiming others can't read, the fucking irony.

>>102307266
When the fuck did I say controversy is subjective there? You seem really desperate considering you don't want people looking up the definition of the fucking word. The action of disagreeing isn't subjective, it's fact. Rev intentionally inserts himself into public disagreements like politics. Another fact

>>102307340
>"Controversy" isn't subjective, you retard.

>>102307235
You have no clue what "objective" and "subjective" means. Next time just say that you agree with their decision.

>>102307299
No one is evaluating opinions. No one ever said anything about that but you. Try straw-manning harder

>>102307340
>The action of disagreeing isn't subjective, it's fact
No that's purely subjective

If I say I hate niggers

Then you say you love niggers

I can think that you are actually agreeing with me. You could think you're disagreeing with me. It's purely subjective to our personal interpretations of what those words mean.

An outsider might not even see as there being anything to agree or disagree with.

>>102307402
The entire point of this thread is Makeship evaluating opinions, deeming them controversial and taking action.

Read the thread retard

>>102307340
>Rev intentionally inserts himself into public disagreements like politics.
I don't think so

What now?

>>102303477 (OP)
who?
>who?

>>102305967
>then half of the people who work with Makeship should also be blacklisted
I wouldn't say that. I'd say anyone with a social media account and actively uses it.

>>102307403
Are you absolutely retarded? Personal interpretation doesn't change the fact there is a disagreement

>>102303477 (OP)
Good.
Not much but it's something.

>>102307340
"Controversy" is an aggregate statistic of opinions. You can get the amount of people who like and dislike certain somebody. To have an objective metric, however, you'd have to create a stable and reviewable line when the result means "controversial". You already sidestepped that question.

>>102307521
Yes it does. If I don't think I'm disagreeing with, then there's no disagreement and you cannot prove to me there is no matter what. Hence why disagreement is purely subjective.

>>102307432
>deeming them controversial
Things are factually controversial because you can simply observe people
>>102307474
You think wrong because he makes videos about politics. Which is him inserting himself into politics. Retard

i think rev and his wife should rope themselves, is that controversial?

>>102303477 (OP)
>New CEO
Story old as time

>>102307589
>You think wrong because he makes videos about politics. Which is him inserting himself into politics. Retard
I don't think so

I don't think there's any disagreement here, so therefore there isn't

>>102307576
>Controversy" is an aggregate statistic of opinions
So it's a fact. I accept your concession

both sides are retarded

>>102307589
>Things are factually controversial because you can simply observe people
Something being factual doesn't make it objective, you seem to really fucking struggle with this idea

I factually think you're a dumb nigger, that doesn't actually make you a dumb nigger though

>>102307616
You don't matter because everyone else is disagreeing with him

>>102307666
I don't think people are, so people aren't

>>102307657
Tell me what controversial means in your barely functional head

>>102307620
Statistics and observations are not objective. Is this your first time hearing those terms?

rev and her wife bully people for having different views than they do. I hate hypocrites so much

>>102307698
We're not arguing about the definition, we're arguing about your claim that controversiality is objectively measurably of which you have failed to actually give a single measurable point

Hey retarded faggot, you didn't reply to me
>>102307073

>>102307767
Is there multiple public disagreements? Yes? Then it's controversial

>>102307708
>Math and science aren't objective
You are hopelessly retarded

Ohh now i get it, this is the same brown troglodyte that couldn't understand the concept of "finding nothing" from yesterdays Aster thread.
Adding "subjective" and "objective" to the list of things it doesn't understand.

>>102307687
Good for you in being confidently wrong

>>102306057
>>102306152
Anon . . how you vote at the privacy of your ballot box doesn't make you a /pol/tard. Dragging your baggage and spreading drama in spaces that never even glanced at your schizophrenic culture war ramblings and made up checklist standards you don't even follow makes you a /pol/tard.

>>102308429
I'm not wrong, you're wrong

>>102308463
Shut up.

>>102308454
Anon, we're not Makeship who's dropping creators because of politics.

If they don't want right wing creators, then say so. All that is being asked for is honesty in their decisions.

>>102308132
That has nothing to do with science, but with the fact you have failed to provide an objective measure of "controversy" or "a lot".

Also, statistics is about sampling to avoid measuring every single instance. You can find quite a few statements that objectivity in statistics is a myth.

>>102308476
No I don't think I want to, in fact I think you should shut up and since that's my opinion, which is factual, you should therefore shut up

>>102308132
I ask a patient to rate their pain on a scale of 1 to 10. They say 8.

Does that mean that '8' is an objective measure of pain? No. That's a relative measure. Does the fact that it is a relative measure using numbers mean that numbers stop being objective? No. That's retarded.

>>102303477 (OP)
Just bully them on the internet and they will caved, it's not hard especially when you're marry to a dramatuber.

>>102304568
She's a vtuber?

>>102303477 (OP)
>company doesn't want to work with people they already had worked with before
>company is "flawed" and caused "stress"
>company has to make "positive changes" because of backlash from content creator's wife and activist fanbase
>company told what to do with their own organization and their CEO is bad for reasons
Isn't this the shit many of these louder people complain about all the time and make clickbaity videos with?

>>102308821
You're completely missing the subtext of this entire situation.

People aren't upset at Makeship not wanting to work with people. People are upset over their dishonest manufactured corporate PR reasons to justify not working with them.

If Makeship just said, "Hey, we are a company which embraces left-wing views and we think that right-wing views and thus creators aren't compatible with our future goals for the company. So moving forward we won't be working with Rev or Strawb because of their associations to right-wing political issues that we find antithetical to our own path. We wish them all the best."
Sure there would be a bit of backlash since nobody likes political bullshit put against them but nowhere near to the degree that looking like a deceitful bunch of shitheads did. They knew their 'controversial content' stance was bullshit when it came to Strawb, they knew if they continued down that path that there would be a non-stop torrent of "what about X? what about Y? What about Z?" so they largely backed down but they can't outright say that they were wrong and they are targeting right-wing creators because then they are admitting their lie.

>>102309107
I can assure you, the seething mass of poorfags on twitter won't matter to the next whale that decides to buy 100 plushies from them. Fake outrage, fake controversy.

>>102309489
Okay, they disagree with you since they didn't seem to think it was fake.

hang and quarter dramafags

>>102309489
Right-wingers are per capita much richer than left-wingers

Whales are right-wingers

>>102309512
not fooling anyone, they're poor and hate corpos because they have no money to buy merch anyways

>>102307578
And the other person is disagreeing with you, there is one. Making it purely objective

>>102309598
Okay, well make sure you let Makeship know so they can reverse their decision they made out of fear of losing revenue.

>>102309601
No I don't think they are, so therefore there is no disagreement

Are you getting it now? Or do you want to go again?

>>102309648
No one cares about what you think. Someone is disagreeing with you so there's a disagreement

>>102309690
No I don't think they are, so therefore there is no disagreement

Are you getting it now? Or do you want to go again?

>>102308574
You can just say you think math is subjective

>>102309738
You can just say you can't read.

>>102309561
rich right-wingers are allergic to spending money and hate anime, liberal tech bro incels with large paychecks are the target audience here. that and oil princes.

>>102309751
If someone rates their pain an 8, then they objectively rated their pain an 8. So the only subjective thing is the pain. Not the numbers. Retard

>>102309788
Now you post your statistics

>>102309799
Yes congratulations on understanding the
> Does the fact that it is a relative measure using numbers mean that numbers stop being objective? No. That's retarded.
part of my post

>>102309859
So the math isn't subjective

>>102309825
sorry vtubers don't care about you

>>102309107
>They knew their 'controversial content' stance was bullshit when it came to Strawb
She publicly backs up her dramafag husband

>>102309893
No mathematical methods aren't subjective. Number 8 doesn't cease to mean nothing because it was used in a subjective measure.

Number 8 in a relative pain scale doesn't actually mean anything other than to the person experiencing the pain however because what does '8' actually represent on this scale? Nothing in reality.

>>102309920
Cool, then everybody they work with who has ever voiced support for anybody who has done anything controversial ever should also be blacklisted which would be 70-80% of all the vtubers they work with.

>>102309905
>no evidence

>>102303477 (OP)
didn’t read, whore with a bf

>>102309997
> poor

>>102305128
retard, they are a longtime, legitimate business. everyone uses them for their merch, even big time chuubas. Do your reps

>>102303477 (OP)
maybe next time this dumb bitch shouldn't be married to a scumbag?

>>102309973
When have they ever defended someone as much as she defends her dramafag husband?

>>102304974
Freedom of association is not freedom from consequences.

>>102310177
>moving the goalposts

>>102305560
He gets em trannies seeth and cope that they will never have a loving wife like him and fame like him.

>>102303477 (OP)
>I trust god
And opinion discarded
Throw her out with the rest of christian trash

>>102309788
>tech bro
>liberal
lol they are the most hyper capitalistic shit stains on earth, don't kid yourself

>>102310246
>Pulls out the twitard line
Tragic

>>102309947
The 8 is their rating of the pain they're in. Which is what they factually believe

>>102312523
Yes. I'm glad you understand how relative pain scales work. Very good. Have a cookie.

Didn't Strawb stop doing ASMR or something because she's with her groomer?

>>102303477 (OP)
Who also not reading all that
Bsky thread

>>102312548
So the math isn't subjective. I'm glad you admit it

>>102312952
I never said it was?

>>102312563
she "found jesus" couldn't keep dealing with the fact that 90% of the ASMR audience is only watching to jack off earlier this year and just deleted all her really good stuff

>>102313109
So Rev is a cuck?

>>102313154
Always has been.

>>102313185
That explains the aggression and dramafagging

>>102303477 (OP)
I have no idea who this is.

>>102304928
Why the fuck do you think it’s okay to force somebody to do something they don’t want to do. Strawb and her man baby husband need to find companies that like what they do, or accept that freedom of association is part of the freedom of speech they’re always malding about

>>102303477 (OP)
Considering Makeship hasn't publicly commented on the situation at all, and the gist of the post seems to be "actually they came crawling back to me but I said no so nothing has actually changed", is it possible she just completely made all of this up in a desperate "You can't fire me, I QUIT!" sort of maneuver? Like this is her best idea to save her reputation and it's entirely reliant on them not coming out and contradicting her.
I saw the same thing before with a former Nintendo employee who was making some shit up taking advantage of the fact that Nintendo normally doesn't comment on those sort of things, only for them to go out of their way to make a statement contradicting everything she said and outing her as a liar.

>>102314129
>Why the fuck do you think it’s okay to force somebody to do something they don’t want to do.
Shit that nobody said for 400.

>Strawb and her man baby husband need to find companies that like what they do, or accept that freedom of association is part of the freedom of speech they’re always malding about
And companies need to accept that when they produce bullshit reasons to scorn a business partner, that the partner has a right to voice their displeasure with their reasoning.

>>102305593
Trying to blackmail a company bc they don’t want to work with your dramafag attention whore husband isn’t very godly

>>102314241
>it's now blackmail to exercise freedom of speech

>>102304928
Mel Gibson came back after his jew hate, cancel culture isn't real.

>>102314264
And murderers get out of prison regularly, therefore prison isn't real.

>>102314262
The intent of that speech is to intimidate a company to change their mind

>>102314395
And? If you pull out bullshit reasons to fuck over a long time business partner and their partner who had nothing to actually do with the situation, you should feel intimidated that there are consequences to unconscionable action.

>>102303584
spbp

>>102305390
>Name a faker vtuber than strawb.
sayu

I have a strong feeling that alot of here companies are gonna shy away from working with indies now, which sucks for the ones who aren't dramafags like OP pic

>>102313154
No lol he sometimes came in mid asmr and gave her a kiss, shit was awful

>>102309107
At the end of the day it's "deceitful" and controversial because you guys want to see it that way. You are telling a business/organization what to do with themselves--which is something the content creator's wife and their fanbase would be against if I got their political alignment correct--. You said nobody likes political bullshit yet you are introducing it with the hypnotical that the CEO is to blame with no proof or that the company is unable to make decision on their own with out interference. They can't say no because it's no to the people YOU like and not the people you don't like.

>>102316378
>You are telling a business/organization what to do with themselves--which is something the content creator's wife and their fanbase would be against if I got their political alignment correct--
No, I think that everybody, regardless of political alignment prefers honesty. The only issue you have with this situation is that you don't like the political alignment of the people complaining.

>You said nobody likes political bullshit yet you are introducing it with the hypnotical that the CEO is to blame with no proof
The proof being that nobody else has been subject to this new rule.

> They can't say no because it's no to the people YOU like and not the people you don't like.
No I don't really care, just be honest if you are going to target people for their politics.

>>102316344
This just makes him sound like more of one

>>102316507
Where did they lie? They didn't want to work with those two retards because they're controversial and conjoined themselves at the hip

>>102317270
Because their statement is they don't want to work with controversial creators which includes Rev. If that's then why didn't 70-80% of all vtubers have their working relationship gutted as well? Nearly all vtubers are controversial to some degree. So the logical deduction is, it has nothing to do with controversy and has to do with either political agenda or personal vendettas. So, they lied.

>>102317617
>Nearly all vtubers are controversial to some degree
How much of a deranged dramafag do you have to be to think be a /pol/ dramafag is as controversial as any Holo member?

>>102317699
>moving the goalposts

>>102317715
>Everyone is controversial therefore they should treat a regular vtuber the same as a pedophile

>>102317736
Yes, that's what it means when you say 'controversial content'. It doesn't matter what the specific controversy is, as long as it's controversial it counts and therefore should be applied fairly and to all if that's their intent.

>>102317745
You're fucking retarded, come back when you find out some things are clearly worse than others

>>102317759
>come back when you finally reached over here where I put the goalposts

lmao

>>102317063
Bros is it cucked to kiss your wife

>>102318203
It is to do it when she's whoring herself out

>>102303477 (OP)
Nice that stopped being petty.
Still not buying anymore Makeship.

>>102316507
Once again you are deciding what is honest or not and that Strawb should be exempted from whatever decisions Makeship wants to do with their brand or marketing. They have already worked with or associated with Strawb and that arrangement has come to an end like it had to start. It's a business decision you are bring your politics and personal feelings into. I am not going to blow a gasket every time a vtuber decides to leave their corpo and believe the Japanese or American government were at play.

>>102304611
There is something physically revolting about an ASMR whore whose first breakout video was demon girl ASMR invoking god like that.

>>102319828
>demon girl
A red girl with horns on her head is probably not what the bible is referring to when it describes demons.

>>102312052
Let me play the world's smallest violin for the cash demons that must suffer under the yoke of having to pretend to be human for once.

goes to show how strong the belief of 'guilty by association' is they are laughing behind the ceos back the fucking retard

>>102303477 (OP)
Dumb move, makeship should have claimed they're the victim of only harassment
They're not even getting business from strawb or rev again, they gained nothing

>>102321115
>only harassment
Are there some non english speaking sites for you retards to go to? why the fuck do you faggots converge here?

>>102321152
*Online
I'm having a stroke

>>102320822
She explicitly used the word demon.
https://archive.org/details/how-to-become-an-asmrtist/a+demon+girl's+confession+%E2%99%A1+(F4A)+%5Bsweet%2C+but+evil%5D+%5Bborn+this+way%5D+%5Bi+can't+help+who+i+am%5D+%5Basmr%5D.mp4
https://archive.org/details/how-to-become-an-asmrtist/flirty+demon+girl+confesses+%F0%9F%96%A4++(F4A)+%5Bmischievous%5D+%5Byandere%5D+%5Bbinaural+asmr+roleplay%5D+%5Bheartbeats%5D.mp4
https://archive.org/details/how-to-become-an-asmrtist/flirty+demon+girl+has+an+offer+%F0%9F%96%A4+(F4A)+%5Bmortal+listener%5D+%5Bpowerful+ruler%5D+%5B3dio+asmr%5D.mp4
https://archive.org/details/how-to-become-an-asmrtist/yandere+demon+claims+you+ASMR+%F0%9F%92%9C+(F4A)+%5Banime+roleplay%5D+%5Bconfession%5D+%5Bteasing+you+sweetly%5D.mp4

>>102318762
Why are you pretending like you bought anything in the first place?

>>102304611
People don't react to shit anymore so they have to fake it for a crumb of attention

>>102305390
One of the core aspects to a relationship and especially a marriage is to publiclly support each other even if the other is being retarded while disagreeing with your wife/husband privately to not strain either reputation.
Come on man are you just young or something? Did your parents never teach you this?

>>102305077
>despite her content and his content being divorced from one another
They've mentioned each other in several videos and very publically associate on twitter. I wouldn't call that keeping distance.

>>102325325
They're so desperate for victories that they make them up

>>102303584
spbp

>>102304368
Apparently getting any response is a win even if that response is just telling them to fuck off