top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 167 points 2 months ago (20 children)

He doesn't get enough hate because the majority of people who aren't terminally online have no idea who he is. People like him feed on hate so it's best to just bury him.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I am.pretty terminally onlime but I have no idea who this is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    you being terminally "onlime" doesn't make you part of the terminally online group. You just sit on limes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -27 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    why hate on someone when they mostly aren't hurting anyone but themselves?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    This guy encourages impressionable young men to smash their faces with hammers to sculpt their bones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    if some people chose to hit their heads with hammers because an influencer told them to they were already a lost cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    off topic, but why don't you upvote your own comments? For me it automatically does it when I comment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    I'd never heard of this person before, except last night at a party someone mentioned them. No one else had heard of him. I'm okay not knowing who online people are.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I pray this reaches you so I’m not the only old person burdened with this knowledge. I’m sorry, it’s the only way to rid myself of the curse.

    Clavicular is an online “looks maxer” who preaches that the only thing that matters in life is your physical appearance, which should be improved at all cost. He suggests methods such as “bone smashing”, methamphetamine, and plastic surgery to achieve a facial structure that is as close as possible to some arbitrary ratios that they consider to be ideal. He is extremely famous with the youth, some of whom have followed in his footsteps to disastrous effect.

    He also ran a man over with a car, pulled a gun on someone who came to his door, and injected erection medication into his dick with Adam22 (as bro’s do).

    Now you know. I’m sorry. Pass it on to someone else as quick as you can, or else Clavicular will start chasing you! /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Okay, wow, thanks for the summary. How the hell do these folks get popular in the first place?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    for clav, he suddenly started blanketing social media no thanks tho Peter thiel, who seems to pushing him as the new "gen-z manosphere dude", thiel likely is also into him too(his last BF was defenestrated in 24)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Yeah, this will be a generational divide I have no problem crossing. If someone names a person to me and they have only one name and it sounds stupid, I'll just assume they're an online personality and that I don't care who they are.

    And one step further, it's just staggering to me that these people who are YouTube/tiktok/Instagram famous are considered by younger generations in the same way a millennial like myself would consider actors, people who actually did stuff, versus people who got popular doing shitty pranks or stealing other "content creators'" works and slapping a watermark on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

    It is a generational divide to not consider streaming as "doing stuff," but that's a divide I'm ok crossing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah the hate is weird. I'm not the biggest stream watcher, but I can respect the medium. Streamers are just doing the modern version of what AM talk radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh did. Not in terms of content or politics, but in terms of format. Limbaugh ran multi-hour long shows reacting to news and headlines. His listeners primarily listened passively, letting the radio run in the background of daily life. He would take calls and engage with his audience directly. Streaming is just modern talk radio.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    He would take calls and engage with his audience directly.

    Lol very rarely did he do this. His show (which I unfortunately had to listen to a lot because of various right-wing bosses I worked for) was 99% just him talking and talking and talking. Taking calls led to the very slight possibility of his having to argue against people who disagreed with him, something he was terrible at. On his TV show, in fact, he once famously had the entire audience cleared out because a small number of people had shown up to heckle him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    A single caller turned me away from Rush and got me started thinking about the content I was consuming.

    Dude calls in to say he looked into getting a wind turbine and the math didn't work out. When he brought up the cost to hook it to the grid, Limbaugh was laughing his ass off.

    "Wait! Wait! It requires POWER to run! HAR HAR HAR!"

    The man tried to explain that the connection would pay him when he generated more than he used. Limbaugh was an intelligent man, he knew where the conversation was going and kept cutting off the man's explanation.

    Despite the caller's math as to why wind wouldn't work for him, Limbaugh wouldn't allow the man to make one positive point. That turned me off so hard I started seeking other viewpoints. 15-years later and I'm into Fully Automated Luxury Communism.

    Enjoy my screenshot from the day that vile man died:

    https://www.photo-pick.com/online/LODXBNhT.link

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    To a certain extent, a lot of streamers do a lot more stuff than actors.

    Actors book a job, so some acting, maybe do a promo tour for their movie, that's it.

    Most "influencers" or streamers at least start out doing everything themselves. They need to understand the streaming tech, know how to configure OBS studio, how to edit video, understand the camera, the lighting, if they're using make up they're doing it themselves, they need to know how to do their own marketing, etc. And, if they're live-streaming they need to develop the skill of interacting with their audience while they're doing something else. Without that parasocial relationship with the audience, they don't get big, so they need to stay on top of what their chat is saying. Sometimes that's on top of doing something else like playing a demanding video game.

    So, I think streamers / influencers are often doing a more impressive job than actors. For many streamers / influencers I'm much less interested in them. I often have less respect for the way they make money, since it's so vapid and consumerist. On the other hand, I do admit that it can be a lot of work to master all those domains.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Millennials had our share of people that were famous just for being famous. Paris Hilton anyone? We've always had influencers, people famous for no particular accomplishments or creative works. I actually prefer the modern version. The past versions were mostly folks from very wealthy backgrounds who came into the limelight due to family connections. If you're already around a bunch of celebrities and media types because your family is incredibly wealthy, it's easy for someone to translate that access into fame of their own.

    In contrast, at least modern influencers have a decent shot at being from humble backgrounds. They're still vapid and famous just for being famous, but at least they had to hustle to earn any amount of fame in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    To be fair to Paris Hilton, she has managed to close down a company through litigation, whose business is to instill "tough love" on delinquent children in a boot camp but only caused trauma. I wasn't quite expecting that from her.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 89 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I'm tired of seeing people talk about the worst people all day long. I see people I really don't give a fuck about all damn day long, and upon learning even a little bit about them, wonder why the fuck anybody even cares to keep bringing them up. Even the jokes are a hate ritual.

    He doesn't matter. He never mattered. Whatever he does with his life is none of my business and I really don't give a fuck what happens to him. So why do I have to see him against my will on a regular basis?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago

    Thank you. I don't give a shit about this weirdo and nobody I know even knows who he is. I'm here because I'm trying to get away from tabloids and TV and media that talk about irrelevant nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    In a society where everyday, people are trampled on by a corporate first policy... they feel a need to try and strike back. So they do. Sadly it actually gives many of these horrible people joy to be mentioned at all. And it actually enables them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 111 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    "Gender affirming care" means gender affirming for everyone. The same people who hate on trans people getting it are the ones who constantly get breast enlargments, fat reductions, plastic surgery, etc. When they call gender affirming care unnatural and ban it, that magically always only applies to trans and poor people

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    Never forget to point out the most common* form of gender affirming care is chest/breast reduction for men/young boys.

    *maybe a factoid, but I've seen it in several places I wouldn't expect a falsehood to hold up

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    It’s just a different focal length

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago (21 children)

    Y'know I see it. All love to my trans homies, but fuck man, I see it.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 2 months ago (21 children)
  • [+] 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    That's the stupidest shit (what clav said about transition being beauty care).

    Nobody can see that you've had bottom surgery when your clothes are on, if you want to wear something revealing you can tuck or pack.

    Clavicular, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes etc are self-loathing gay dudes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (16 children)

    Saying that someone "looks trans" is big oof.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    Cis women who are not "traditionally feminine" are often the ones who are on the other side of the "looks trans" comments, meaning once again a veiled attempt at "protecting" women (TERFs) victimizes them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    That may be true but it doesn't impact whether or not such a "look" exists. The intent of the person pointing something out is not relevant to the existence of the thing being described.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

    And my point is that it doesn't exist. Many people that "transvestigators" think "look trans" are actually cis women. Or in the case of this post, a cis man. Saying someone "looks trans" is transphobic and not based on anything of value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    You are welcome to your own interpretation of the world but I think most people would agree that there is a common set of characteristics associated with any kind of surgical or hormonal body modification. You are right when you say that some trans people exhibit those characteristics more than others but they definitely exist. You don't have to ignore that reality to avoid being bigoted towards trans people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    there is a common set of characteristics associated with any kind of surgical or hormonal body modification

    So do you not see any irony that we're talking about a cis man who has had surgical modifications and people are saying he "looks trans"? Do you not see how that undercuts your point at all?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    The statement you quoted is the most general statement I made. It was worded that way precisely because this phenomenon is not exclusive to trans people. That's just how the topic came up.

    So no, it makes no difference that this guy isn't trans because that's only one subset of visible characteristics brought on by body modification that we're talking about. There are many other kinds, some of which definitely apply to him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    this phenomenon is not exclusive to trans people.

    We agree on this. Now, can you see why framing something that is not exclusive to trans people as "looking trans" is transphobic? Can you see how people would use things described as "looking trans", even when they are in no way exclusive to trans people, purely because they were described that way? And how that can be problematic? Such as "transvestigators" (like TERFs) incorrectly identifying and targeting cis women with hatred.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    You're crossing wires a bit here. The first one doesn't matter too much but it's that I never actually said this person looks trans. Someone else did and I confirmed that it is a thing, although not necessarily in this particular case.

    The main confusion seems to be that you don't think trans people can have distinctive features brought on by surgery or hormone therapy. Some of them definitely do. There are other kinds of tells that apply to people who get other types of work done. MAGA face is one example. Different groups of people tend to get different types of work done and groups of similar people tend to have similar work done. It's certainly not universal but it's enough to notice a pattern with specific types of people. This applies to all groups of people who get work done, but it does present differently for each group.

    It shouldn't be controversial to say that surgery oftentimes leaves clues that it was performed or that lots of trans people have had surgery. Those are just two facts about the world that have nothing to do with any kind of moral judgement on trans people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    It shouldn’t be controversial to say that surgery oftentimes leaves clues that it was performed or that lots of trans people have had surgery.

    Would you assert that the majority of people who have had cosmetic surgery are trans?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Then why would it be something that you would associate with "looking trans"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    You're either being intentionally obtuse or are actually just dumb. Either way I've spent more time explaining this simple concept to you than it should take so I'm done with this. Feel free to call me transphobic since that's clearly the only answer you were ever going to accept

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Well, up until right now I thought we were having a conversation in good faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    It was until it became clear that you either can't or won't comprehend the obvious fact that you can tell some people are trans. What your reasoning for that is doesn't matter. I'm no longer interested in debating self evident statements with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    The core topic of this conversation was our very disagreement about that assertion. You say you can tell (and that it's obvious), and I say you cannot. Then we discussed the merits of each position. I thought that was clear much earlier on, so it seems strange to me that you're only now realizing that we have that disagreement.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 18 points 2 months ago
    [+] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    How long until I don't have to hear about or see them again? We've already gotten rid of (mostly) other toxic influencers.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    They are sticking experimental grey market peptides into their veins, eating Adderall like tic tacs and are prone to take part in a whole list of other dangerous activities.

    So, probably not too long.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    It's okay to have fun on Lemmy, Christ, this is legit funny.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    "IT PUTS THE FUCKING LOTION IN THE BASKET!!!!!!!!!"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    I have no clue about the looksmaxxing scene, so forgive me for asking: Which one is supposed to be before and which one is after?

    Edit: Goddamit, it's a simple question and I honestly don't see it. Just answer me instead of downvoting if you know better than me. The left one looks more masculine somehow and my first instinct was that this has to be the "after" photo, but usually these comparisons go from left to right. I'm not going to google the person because I have a feeling this isn't worth my attention.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›