and now you're re-writing history to fit your hoglandia narrative, lmao. SAD and PATHETIC!

He was a lefty you little oinker. BBC was his personal escort.

BBC used him because he was great for their ratings, nothing more. he's always done whats best for him financially and now hes on the right wing grift full time

demonetized = deplatformed, the distinction is moot. content creators post videos to make money, if they cant make money they cant post videos really.

as to latter, it's fairly simple. i know a LOT of people in life that aren't great to women, but rape isn't the same. if u see a guy who's not nice to his wife you dont think instantly "yup, rapist", unless you're an idiot. you dont just assume people are rapists, unless ur a women's studies professor.

being demonetized is NOT being de-platformed, the distinction is everything. he is not banned; no ban = no de-platform. he still very much as a voice on Youtube


as for his behavior, he has been a womanizing, promiscuous, lothario for well over 20 years. I dont have to assume anything, what he's done and said has been out in the open for everyone to see. there were public claims that he was a rapist back in 2006. 2006 !

why are you working so hard to defend someone whos most likely a rapist?

You're playing with semantics and it's pointless. his claim is that large platforms are preventing him from making a living, the only important factor here is money. the MUH FREE SPEECH stuff is just fluff that people like him use to rile up idiots, for them its only about the money.

yes he was promiscuous to a level i personally consider immoral, no where did i argue otherwise. i simply stated that going from known promiscuity to assumed rapist is a leap of logic, imo. i didnt know about his 2006 accusation because, shockingly enough i know, i am now a Russel Brand scholar. i'm not even a fan of his. i dont personally disagree with him being demonetized until we know more about the accusations, and if they prove likely true even without a conviction id support his continued demonetization.

now after reading that you can chose to be civil, or u can call me a rape defender again at which point i'll just disconnect and assume you dont have an IQ high enough to be bothered with. really on you.

its not semantics just because you dont agree with it lol. words and their definitions matter, wouldnt you agree?

again, im not making assumptions. he's been public with his womanizing and people have accused him of shitty behavior before, this isnt news to anyone except his newfound right-wing audience
whats interesting is seeing all these "moral majority" right-wing donkeys coming to his defense...it makes no sense

the definition for "deplatforming" is like a few years old, its not based in ancient Aramaic. and at the time it was tailor made for Alex Jones, when he was in truth entirely removed from platforms, you couldnt find him at all. this caused severe backlash, and so the platforms shifted gears and rather than removing them they started to demonetize instead. knowing that creators couldnt openly bitch about it because the core message they use is that they're "truth tellers who arent in it for the money", which was always hogwash because its entirely about the money. in context the distinction is moot, because in this context the truth remains that it's about money. they could go onto Rumble and "truth tell" for 1/10th the money they make on youtube, yet they dont. they talk about it, but they dont. because reality is its about money, not free speech.

as to the rest you're still making assumptions, there's no proof that he was a rapist until recently other than a 2006 accusation that he was that resulted in nothing. there's evidence, his promiscuity is mild evidence, his previous accusation is somewhat stronger evidence, but without proof or a conviction its still an assumption. remember, words and their definitions matter, wouldn't you agree?