Your video, I Played Chess Hustlers in Union Square Park, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

i understand and agree that he is unamerican in the sense of the "american ideal" but outside looking in, he is a completely typical product of american culture. he's reality TV, fame for fame's sake, wealthy without working, a hustler, the ideal jerry springer guest, the ideal wrestling guest, the son of racist nepotism, performative altruism (and then defrauds his own charities), he pathologically cannot accept being wrong/defers all fault to anyone else ("whatever, i do what i want"), he's weaponized ignorance, he's "hilariously" rapey, he's illiterate, a proud philistine, he's vapid pageantry, he's a christian who know nothing of religion/spirituality, he's 4chan, he's 8chan, he's tacky style with complete lack of substance, he's the personification of "fake it 'till you make it". these are all lessons i've seen repeated ad nauseam from american TV, films, music, podcasts, youtube stars, etc. to the point where they're past cliché that they're now entrenched americana.

i know that isn't the typical american but that is the most typical american america has sold to itself and the rest of the world.

Yeah, I feel like Bernie's campaign isn't as strong due to people letting the mainstream media tell them that he isn't going to win. Then people start looking at the fact that they don't want a racist, misogynist, arrogant, homophobe, reality-TV celebrity who is also just a straight up 1 percenting rich prick as their president, so they vote for Capitol Hillcake Clinton.

People also forget that Bill Clinton helped deregulate Wall Street (which helped cause the market crash in 2008) and you better bet that Hillcakes is sharing that same bed with Wall Street while Bill takes his Wall Street allowance and sneaks off for a 2am blowjob from a fancy $3k/hr escort.

All of these people are straight up hustler/villains except for good old Bernie.

How would I know what the video was about if I didn't watch it. After the first one, that was nothing but a waste of my time, juxtaposing comments and (faked? Likely considering it's made my McIntosh who makes a living faking videos) web page screenshots, I ignored the other 4 assuming you put your best foot first.

So wait, you're saying the anti Sarkeesian "faked" video you linked was made by her 'partner'?!? WTF?!? Now that is odd.

Yes, we know she's a bad example of a 'feminist' trying to change gaming. I'm not a fan, as I've said repeatedly.

You contend she's also vocally anti-sex worker (waiting for the quoted proof)...which begs the question, if she IS a well known anti-sex worker activist, why would said sex workers go to her for support?! That means this entire video is based on a fraud, by the sex workers, pretending they thought she would 'support' a sex worker rape victim when they really were just trying to troll her because they don't like her stance...allegedly.

I'm still waiting for non-faked clear evidence of what you say about her to convince me....if you care. I simply don't, I haven't thought about her since gamer gate was in the daily news. Maybe she is totally anti-sex worker, fraud, liar, trixter, hustler...but you have not provided a whit of evidence to that effect beyond her use of the words "prostituted women", which carries the connotation you bring with you so is not proof of her distain.

I'm mid 40's, white, and lived (among many other places) in the murder capital of the world (East Palo Alto) when it was just that, the murder capital of the world (more murders per capita than anywhere on the planet in the late 80's) so sheltered is not a word I would use to describe myself. Untrusting of people who have an obvious bias, yes, I am certainly that, but I am always willing to examine new information with a critical eye (but not propaganda like the first set of videos you linked, or non sequiturs like the third article you linked) and I'm always willing change my viewpoint if it seems it's wrong in light of new evidence. I'm waiting for that evidence. The 3 articles you linked were 2/3 on topic, but amounted to only commentaries lambasting her for saying two words, that's not evidence of her tone/meaning when saying them, the third was completely off topic, as was the first video (the only one I wasted my time with) and I don't take the word of someone who obviously hates her with a passion as evidence, sorry.

I was with Ana until the "But you're a man" nonsense.

She's not wrong that someone could remove the disclaimer and just post it out there. But then that's not on Hustler. Hustler did their due dilligence to put that disclaimer on there.

The internet cannot be policed like that.

Besides, S.E. Cupp cannot complain too much, she uses sex to advance her career, I've seen the clips of her with her legs on the desk showing off her assets. Very professional Ms. Cupp. If she was not a very attractive woman, I doubt she would be in the position she is.

7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^siftbot:

Video declared a dupe but original video URL is invalid - ignoring dupeof request by kulpims.


Kick-ass, move ya lose!

>> ^Trancecoach:

This is the [censored] version of the image, as printed in Hustler, replete with a Disclaimer. (SFW)
(My personal view is that this is totally within the bounds of satire, especially with the accompanying disclaimer printed beside it and thus, should not be made illegal.)


I am actually in agreement here.

Hell, they could go ahead and 'Shop her face onto some naked woman's body, for all I care. It isn't illegal. I mean, sure, it is in bad taste... but it's HUSTLER. What did anyone expect?

They even put in the disclaimer (in Extremely Obvious Yellow!) to maintain a little 'journalistic' integrity. I would not have expected that.

Hustler has been doing this for years.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Cee Cupp, Hustler' to 'TYT, Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, SE Cupp, Hustler' - edited by Trancecoach

This is the [censored] version of the image, as printed in Hustler, replete with a Disclaimer. (SFW)

(My personal view is that this is totally within the bounds of satire, especially with the accompanying disclaimer printed beside it and thus, should not be made illegal.)

"The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved."

- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in a unanimous Supreme Court decision of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell - 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

Given the disclaimer, “No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality, and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose," it's hard to imagine how anyone could reasonably interpret it as "stating actual fact". Even outside the context of Hustler magazine without the disclaimer (which probably should have been part of the image itself), photoshopped images like this are usually pretty obvious. I haven't been able to find an uncensored version of it, though, so I can't really say, but assuming the editing is obvious, the above argument still holds.

Cenk's point about the image being circulated without their permission is a good one. Clearly you couldn't hold Hustler Magazine accountable for unlicensed distribution, any more than you can hold an ammunition manufacturer accountable for a murder committed with one of their products.

I think one could make a valid legal argument against Hustler if, for instance, an image of her being gang-raped was created and published. In that case, there would be a further issue of promoting violence in general, and upon her in particular. I don't know if it would work, but I think the argument could be made.

All that said, this is really slimy, even for Larry. I certainly don't have a problem with anyone denouncing the image and the actions of the creator/publisher.

And to answer your question @bobknight33, "if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy [sic], Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok[?]," - for the first three, legally yes, but also just as slimy, laughable, and worthy of ridicule/shaming. A mom who isn't a public figure is red herring in this context, but nice try at the emotional jab.

i like how you assume i look up to michelle obama, nancy polosi, or hillary clinton or that my sentiment comes from the fact that S E cupp is women.

if you say vapid, dangerous shit, especially if you say vapid, dangerous shit professionally, you probably need a cock in the mouth. left or right, male or female, straight or gay.

i'm consistent in my distaste for people.

>> ^bobknight33:

So if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy, Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok. After all, using your words there all bitches, right?

Just because you don't like a person or a persons point of view there are still limits of what should and should not be allowed.

>> ^kir_mokum:
sounds totally appropriate to me. that bitch totally needs a dick in the mouth.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Never heard of this person before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._E._Cupp


Oh, she's a peach.
http://videosift.com/video/S-E-Cupp-Women-Should-Marry-Rich-TYT

So if it were a picture of Michelle Obama, Nancy Policy, Hillary Clinton, or your mom it would be ok. After all, using your words there all bitches, right?


Just because you don't like a person or a persons point of view there are still limits of what should and should not be allowed.


>> ^kir_mokum:

sounds totally appropriate to me. that bitch totally needs a dick in the mouth.