---
title: 'Video ltT7W_KSS4Y'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=ltT7W_KSS4Y'
video_id: 'ltT7W_KSS4Y'
date: 2026-06-14
duration_sec: 0
---

# Video ltT7W_KSS4Y

> Source: [Video ltT7W_KSS4Y](https://youtube.com/watch?v=ltT7W_KSS4Y)

## Summary

The creator reflects on the backlash from covering the H3 vs. Idubbbz defamation lawsuit, defending their good-faith analysis and addressing accusations of bias and ignorance. They emphasize the toxic nature of online discourse and the difficulty of engaging with audiences who form opinions without watching the full video.

### Key Points

- **Expecting backlash** [0:00] — The creator anticipated the H3 vs. Idubbbz lawsuit topic would be poisonous, but decided to cover it anyway.
- **Research process** [0:50] — They researched the lawsuit thoroughly, watched both Idubbbz's and H3's streams, and spoke to both parties to get a complete picture.
- **Negative online reaction** [2:06] — Checking Reddit and Twitter for discussion revealed many people hadn't watched the video but still attacked the creator based on assumptions.
- **Accusations of avoiding other lawsuits** [3:58] — The creator mentioned Ethan has other active lawsuits but didn't dive into them due to lack of knowledge, leading to accusations of intentionally avoiding them.
- **Lose-lose situation** [5:48] — Covering a topic quickly is seen as front-running for virality, while being slow is seen as avoiding it; there's no Goldilocks zone.
- **Stance on litigation** [9:50] — The creator has always opposed excessive lawsuits in online discourse and does not agree with Ethan's defamation lawsuit or his other fair use lawsuits.
- **Denims case** [14:24] — The judge in the Denims case cited Ethan's previous fair use victory against him, suggesting the lawsuits may be more about revenge than genuine fair use enforcement.
- **Legitimate lawsuit** [15:43] — The creator acknowledges that suing the snark community for sending fraudulent CPS checks and human skulls is justified.
- **Idubbbz's stream** [20:04] — Idubbbz displayed a disgusting comment about Ethan's family to make a point about selective enforcement, but never endorsed it as true. The creator finds the defamation case weak.
- **Broader implications** [25:06] — Normalizing litigation could stifle commentary on controversial topics, as seen with the Mr. Beast/Dogpack situation where many channels promoted false allegations.

### Conclusion

The creator reiterates their opposition to excessive litigation in online spaces and laments the lack of good-faith engagement, where people form opinions based on clips rather than watching the full video.

## Transcript

Yeah, I had a feeling it was going to be
a pretty poisonous topic where the only
winning move is not to play in regards
to covering the H3 vers IDs lawsuit, but
sometimes you put your hand on the stove
to see if it's still hot. And boy howdy
is it ever. Like I've always said, I
treat this channel like a diary. I just
blabber about things that I feel like
talking on. just sitting in my chair
kicking my little 5'6 petite leggies
around and just giving my thoughts from
the old steel trap up here on it. And
one topic I've always covered is creator
lawsuits. So when I heard about the H3
vers Idubbbz defamation case, I wanted
to take a peek into it, sink my teeth in
there, and see what's going on because
that is a pretty wild thing to learn
about. And learn about it I did like a
little scholar. It was a new lawsuit. It
was only public knowledge for like 24
hours. So, I did as much research on it
as I could and watched the Idubbbz
stream that started that is like the
main catalyst of it. I watched uh the H3
stream where he explains his lawsuit and
I talked to both parties, Idubbbz and
Ethan, to try and get the clearest, most
complete picture of everything going on
here. And then I just gave you my view
on it from the old Fidian homunculus
eyes. And I think I've always made it
abundantly clear. You're always welcome
to disagree with me. I've always kept
that door wide open because I actually
value differencing differences of
opinion. I hate echo chambers. I spit on
that constantly. I'm I actively shut
down the idea that you have to agree
with everything I say or else I hate
you. you're tacky and I hate you.
Throughout all my content, from the womb
to the tomb, I have always welcomed
discussion and people having a
difference of opinion because, as I've
always said, I think when you surround
yourself with sick offense and you only
lock yourself into one way of viewing
things, you do yourself a disservice. I
think it is a bad thing to just be
constantly locked in a bubble. Now, the
reason I mention that is because
I made the mistake. I committed the old
sin of taking a peek at what the
discussion was around this video on like
Reddit and Twitter, which something I
haven't done in in quite a few moons
now. I was expecting like actual
discussion because I'm new to this topic
and I wanted to see, okay, well, what
are some things that I didn't know
about? What can I learn about here and
dive deeper on? And there was some very
valid critiques and some information
that I could get my hands on and learn
more about. But boy howdy, there was a
lot of hoopla that I couldn't have even
imagined would be like a like a
controversial thing. And there were
people that were probably stating they
didn't watch the video and then getting
angry at things they assumed I might
have said in it or attacking me for
things that I never said that aren't in
the video because they didn't watch it.
or they're replying to someone who's
just actually making [ __ ] up that
they're pulling out of their ass that I
never said. So, it just feels [ __ ]
useless to even engage in the topic in
that case. Like, that's it's so odd.
Like, one that I didn't expect was just
me mentioning that I'm not online as
much as I used to be was apparently like
a highly debated topic. The guy whose
entire career is front running whatever
is going viral is saying that he doesn't
know what's going on the internet. All
right. I mean obviously we got to take a
we got to take his word for it, right?
Let's see what videos he's been making.
Lego watch Mojo got even more pathetic.
Degenerate cringe. Lego vigilantes. Lego
scandal keeps getting messy but responds
to the Lego scandal. Lego scandal is
getting extremely dangerous and scary.
cringe officer embarrasses himself. Lego
scandal keeps getting crazier.
>> The gist of it is when I was talking
about the defamation lawsuit, I also
mentioned that Ethan has other active
lawsuits against other creators. And I
called him the Nintendo of YouTubers
because he's become extremely latigious.
But I didn't dive into those other
lawsuits because I didn't know much
about them. And that claim is apparently
extremely hard to believe because
everyone thinks and assumes that I am
terminally online like I used to be two
or three years ago. But when I said
that's not the case, there are quite a
few people that just don't believe me.
Unfathomable moment. So it must be a
lie. So, here's a streamer debunking by
going through my channel and noticing
I've posted a lot of videos on Lego, for
example, because of the big Lego
scandal, which I think is a very
interesting example to use off the point
he's making about me frontr running
every viral story. Because with the
reckless bin verse bricks and mini figs
Lego scandal, I actually was getting
called out for avoiding that and
ignoring it because I was late to
covering it. Reckless Bin dropped part
one on May 21st and I heard about it
from Stream Chat and then a friend sent
it to me as well and I made my video
covering it on May 26th, 5 days later.
But in that interim, people were saying
I was avoiding the topic. I just find it
fascinating how if I cover something
quickly or extensively like in the case
of the Lego scandal, that's a problem.
I'm just front running [ __ ] to
capitalize off the virality of it. But
if I am late to covering something,
well, that means that I was avoiding it
and I must have known about it the whole
time and had ulterior motives to avoid
the topic out of cowardice. And I only
talk about it when pressed. Feels like a
lose lose. If I'm too quick to something
or too interested in something, so I
make a lot of content on it, well then
I'm just there to frontr run it and
capitalize off it being popular. But if
I'm too slow to it, well, it means I was
actually avoiding it the whole time. And
when I do cover it, well, it's only
because people pressured me.
So where's the Goldilock zone? I can't
be too quick to something or too
interested in it because that's frowned
upon. But I also can't be too slow to it
or not cover it at all because then that
must mean that I knew about it the whole
time. I'm damn near omnisient. I guess I
I see everything and thus if I am slow
to it or don't talk about it then there
was an ulterior motive and a deeper
reason that's nefarious. So where is the
Goldilock zone? I personally don't see
why it's so hard to believe that
considering in a lot of the stories I
cover, they have already been covered by
others. Like Dolan Darcis, for example,
Slop Live has beaten me to like every
topic for the last year basically. And
the way I find out about a lot of the
things I cover is through, like I said,
friends sending it to me or when I do
stream, which isn't daily. I'm a
semi-retired streamer, but when I do
stream stream chat, putting things on my
radar, and naturally, what people are
probably going to be sending are the
popular things cuz that's what they've
seen. So, that's usually what I get
sent, but it's not all the time either.
Like on his stream, as he was scrolling
around talking about how it's only like,
you know, the big popular stuff, he
passed multiple things that weren't like
that video about um not enough people
think about this. That's about sand.
It's literally just about sand and sand
related crimes like the sand mafia. And
he also even called out another one
about ranking every item on Panda
Express's menu. He used that to like
belittle me about like, you know, it's
not good is the
thing he was insinuating there. But it's
not like a viral story. It's not like
Panda Express is a huge topic you got to
strike while the iron's hot. My channel
has always just been things that I'm
interested in at the time. And yeah,
there are a lot of stories I get sent
that I do find interesting and do yap
about, like the Lego scandal. But I
really do miss a lot more these days
than I did when I was very online all
the time, like two or three years ago. I
I I don't I don't know like how else to
prove it to you. I mean, I guess like
you can look at my Twitter page and see
that I have two tweets in like the last
two years or on Instagram I make like a
post every month and a half and a lot of
them are just me hanging out with my
farm animals. Like you can check my my
streaming history and see that I'm not
an active stream. like I'm an active
streamer, but I'm not streaming with the
same frequency I used to. And I'm not
putting in really long hours aside from
when I did Destiny 2, uh, Salvation's Ed
Salvation's Edge Blind recently, which
is [ __ ] exciting. But I I don't
really know how else to say it. I I just
don't see everything that happens
online. And I can't believe that's
something that's
uh apparently like a big issue or so
unbelievable. Like, in fact, it's
embarrassing for me that people can't
imagine that I'm not online all the
time.
>> All the lazy ass [ __ ] thumbnails.
Also, he has the Asmin Goldian outfit
where he only wears a dirty white
t-shirt in every [ __ ] thumbnail. God,
every single video is like, "Guys, we
got to he's got to stay offline to make
his Panda Express tier list."
>> Well, now you gone way too far. How
[ __ ] dare you. I have been wearing
white t-shirts. Not dirty white
t-shirts, by the way. Pristine gym mint
white t-shirts since high school. Since
Asmin Gold was in diapers.
It's like me saying that you have a
moist critian hair and beard combo. But
anyway, now let's talk about the other
lawsuits here because that was a big
point that people were very upset with
that I didn't extensively cover those as
well when talking about the defamation
lawsuit. And since I didn't do so, and
people didn't believe that it was
because I didn't know about it, they are
accusing me of uh knowingly avoiding it
or even silently championing for those
lawsuits, which I find befuddling
because throughout my entire time on
YouTube, the 18 or 19 years on YouTube,
I think I have made it beyond crystal
clear how much I dislike this latigious
approach. approach to online discourse
and really just this excessive use of
the legal system for strongarming or
silencing like I have made I don't know
how many videos covering cases even
outside of like the internet scope of
like you know sometimes the legal toilet
paper flying back and forth but like
just in general like the willy-nilly
lawsuits that fly around from like
corporations attempting to bully people
too like I don't know why anyone would
think for a second that I would be
avoiding talking about that or uh
agreeing with it. Why would I? I never
have in the past. So why would I start
now? You just don't like me, which is
totally fine. I get it. Not everyone
likes the old Florida peach. But you're
just viewing it in bad faith and making
that assumption. And it's incorrect
because the truth is, and this shouldn't
come as a shock to anyone, after
learning more about those other lawsuits
that Ethan is engaged in, like the fair
use lawsuits and such, guess what? I
don't agree with those either. Now,
obviously, I don't know all the
nitty-gritty around every single
lawsuit. I've only just begun learning
about all of these, but from everything
I've seen from the lawsuits that he has
actively going on, there's nothing in
there that makes me think that this is
like the right way of doing things or
that this is different from other times
in the past where creators have sued
each other over uh disputes. Now,
clearly, I don't know all the nuance and
intricacies of fair use law. Ethan would
certainly know that better than I and
many others would. So maybe he has some
strong cases here. And in one of the
instances with one of these streamers,
it did seem like they were just
uninterrupted playing the video without
even an attempt to transform it. So
maybe that could be like a easy fair use
win for Ethan. But I just don't think
that's a win overall. Like for as long
as I've been on the internet, that kind
of behavior is been frowned upon. And I
really think if the targets were
different, if it wasn't streamers that a
lot of people don't like, the response
would be very different to these
lawsuits. Right now, a lot of people
celebrate them because they just hate
the people that Ethan is suing. So, they
go yee-haw for it. But these individuals
like the streamers in particular for
fair use, they are a fraction of the
size of Ethan. So, it's a to me a hard
case to make that he was genuinely like
losing eyeballs because of them
streaming it on their Twitch channel.
And yeah, that is like a big [ __ ]
thing for them to do. But let's be real,
it's not hurting you. It's just you
don't like them and they don't like you.
So, this was a way of being able to get
a big jab in there. And since a lot of
the internet doesn't like them, they get
to rally behind you as well as opposed
to start asking the question, why even
bother? You already won again against
that kind of behavior. the internet.
From what I can tell, this is kind of
post-mortem now since I'm super late to
it, but from what I can tell, no one was
really on the side of the streamers that
were just blatantly streaming it without
any kind of transformation or anything
like that. So, you already won. What's
the point in continuing this further,
paying big bucks to the lawyer just so
you could also financially hurt them to
further,
you know, get them? It just it it seems
like it's less about, you know, fighting
a just cause for fair use and more about
like here's here's some more ammunition.
The big one that I've spent the most
time looking into is the Denim's case
because it's the most recent and is
being touted as a tentative loss for
Ethan, which I don't know what a
tentative loss really means because it's
not an official loss. It's still an
ongoing uh lawsuit here, but the judge
had like a very seemingly stern view on
it that even cited Ethan Klein's
previous fair use victory against him in
his suit against Denims. Ethan Klein a
while back had a landmark achievement in
the fight for fair use against good old
bold guy Matt Hos and that ruling was
cited here against him in this fair use
lawsuit. So to me that illustrates that
maybe these lawsuits aren't coming from
a genuine place of trying to enforce
real fair use and are potentially just
coming from a place of revenge.
Now, I don't know the intricacies of
everyone that's being sued and their
relationship to Ethan and the Snark
community. I don't know. I don't know.
But from everything I've seen in these
lawsuits, I just don't agree with going
this extremely latigious path. There are
very few lawsuits in this space that I
think make sense. And like I said
yesterday, the one that does is him
going after the snarking community that
allegedly did send a fraudulent CPS
check to his house and human skulls,
which apparently is taboo to even
mention now for some reason. I got
[ __ ] dogpiled for bringing that up,
but from everything I've seen that that
did happen, right? Like I didn't
hallucinate that or anything. I So like
that's a pretty [ __ ] big deal. That's
a pretty traumatizing thing. That is
psychopath behavior. So, if the snarking
community is responsible for that, then
yeah, it makes sense to go that path
because that is extremely unhinged and
that is something that should be pursued
legally to stop that from ever happening
again. But yeah, I honestly am very
surprised how many people were so quick
to jump to the conclusion that I was
avoiding this and lying about not
knowing about it and secretly
championing for those lawsuits and that
kind of thing. It's so upsetting because
good faith is something that's just
gone. It's completely flushed down the
[ __ ] Anyone who would watch the
video in good faith would be able to
recognize, okay, maybe he is telling the
truth and doesn't know about those
lawsuits, which is why he hasn't
included them there. I feel like that
would be a normal thing to do, a
courtesy to extend considering I have
always vocally advocated against this
kind of extremely latigious path in
online discourse and online communities.
So why now is that no longer afforded
the courtesy of oh nope, he definitely
he definitely fell back on his
principles. He doesn't believe in that
anymore here. But I guess to be honest,
good faith is kind of viewed as weakness
online. People are far more interested
in scalp, far more interested in the
spectacle and as much shits slinging as
possible. So if it's trying to approach
things with a level head, you kind of
get attacked by everybody because no one
really wants that anymore. So like
yesterday, I feel like I did a very good
faith uh look at everything and I spent
three hours going through like the
essentials of what was going on,
learning about it from the ground up.
And once I did that, then I dove into
watching Idubbbz's stream where the
lawsuit spawned from. I watched H3
stream and I talked to them and
continued to look deeper into it across
the span of most of that day.
And I approached it, I believe, in very
good faith across the board. And in
doing so, you will always earn that
prestigious title of fencitter. If
you're not extreme on either side of the
drama, you are fencesitting it, which I
think is a term that's really lost all
its luster because in that video, I
think it's a pretty strong stance. I
don't agree with Ethan's defamation
lawsuit. And I spend 36 minutes yapping
about all of my reasons why. And boy
howdy, I repeated myself multiple times.
I watched it back and I literally made
the same point like three times by
accident. Like I said, I do most of
these in only a handful of takes. So
sometimes I lose track of what I've
already said. So like I really did make
it very clear what my stance is that
this is not something that gives it gets
too big thumbs up for me. But because I
also mentioned that Idubbbz stream was a
very poorly handled one that I think
used a disgusting comment to try and
illustrate his point and that it was a
very painful stream to sit through
because I mentioned that people are
accusing me of both sides it. You were
[ __ ] on Idubbbz for most of the
video actually which I don't know how
you walk away with that impression.
Idubbbz himself will also tell you that
that was a bad stream and he is
regretful of it. he has publicly come
out, apologized for it, and said that
that was bad and that it was too far.
But me giving my perspective that, yeah,
it was pretty torturous to sit through
is apparently, you know, a big no no.
Now, I'm going to go ahead and repeat
myself again before getting into the
next stuff I want to talk about because
again, a lot of the drama from this
isn't even about my take on it. It's
about clips of my take on it without
even giving why I think that. So, I want
it really front and center that there
can be no confusion. Why I disagree with
this defamation lawsuit? So, to do that,
let's take it from the top, from the
start. What started this defamation
lawsuit? It's okay. So, I do want to say
I don't agree with what's being said in
this um comment here. Uh, but I I'm
putting it on screen because I think it
should be addressed because it's a big
bold accusation that's very [ __ ] up.
>> That comment he is showing was not made
by him. He then goes on to explain what
he's actually trying to accomplish by
having that comment on his stream for so
long as a watermark.
>> Also, I do I will say that I think Ethan
Klein is uh terrified of this guy. So,
it's just kind of like legit. It's it is
To me, it's super funny
uh that uh he he has so much smoke for
everyone that he thinks he can bully,
but the person that he's [ __ ]
terrified, he just keeps very overtly
running from. And it's like, yeah,
>> I think he made this point pretty dog
shittily and used a very gross comment
for it, which is what I said yesterday
and I still stand by that and I said it
to Idubbbz as well. The point that he is
making by showing this comment on his
stream is look at what Destiny can say
and get away with without Ethan's wrath.
Yet, he has smoke for so many other
people. Destiny has said something
unthinkably heinous and Ethan isn't
going after him. He's going after other
people. He must be afraid of him. That
is his point with showing that Ethan has
gone on to say that this is
significantly more malicious from
Idubbbz than Destiny cuz Destiny said it
in passing and you know he was just
being a [ __ ] and disavowed it. But
Idubbbz isn't saying it. And he even
openly states without any guesswork,
without any riddles, and without any
sarcasm that he doesn't agree with it,
that he doesn't believe it. He is not
presenting it as true. But Ethan is
saying it's more malicious cuz Ian
Idubbbz did meet his family, meet his
kids, and now he has that comment on his
stream. And I agree that is filthy and
it is very low, which is why I'm saying
it wasn't a good stream from Idubbbz. It
just wasn't. And it's something he
admits as well. But at no point in that
stream that I sat through did Idubbbz
ever try and make the argument that
Destiny's comment reflects the truth or
is real in any way. He openly says he
doesn't agree with it. He is using it to
make a point and he doesn't do a great
job of expressing that point super
clearly. But what he does express
clearly and there's no ifands or buts
about it is that he doesn't agree with
the comment. So, it just doesn't make
sense to me why Ethan is super willing
to say like that didn't mean anything
coming from Destiny, but Idubbbz having
it on his stream means malicious intent
and that it's lending an air of
credibility to it. I just disagree
because he's never putting credib
credibility into it. Him sarcastically
saying that this is a serious allegation
that he should really look at is him
making the point that why are you
ignoring something this gross from
Destiny but going so hard on others for
much less. And in Ethan's statement,
like I pointed out, he does outright say
that he had a much better chance of
winning against Idubbbz in Canada
because of their laws there being very
different than the laws here in the US.
So, he didn't believe he could actually
win against Destiny in the US, but felt
he could against Idubbbz in Canada. So
to me that feels like trying to
capitalize off Lax's free speech laws in
Canada to get revenge and using this as
a convenient excuse of exacting that
revenge and punishing him further for
associating with snarkers as opposed to
actually pursuing a real defamation
case. Because if it's a if it's a
defamation case you're only willing to
pursue in Canada and not here in the
States, then to me it doesn't feel like
a defamation case worth pursuing. And
people were upset at me for saying that,
but I just truly believe that free
speech laws around speech in general
should be very protected. And I feel
like the US does a pretty strong job
compared to other countries. And I think
that should be extended to every country
on the planet to have laws that are
strong to protect real free speech. And
like I said, if Idubbbz was going around
saying that the Destiny comment was
accurate, it was true, and promoting it
as a legitimate claim that he believed
in and used his previous friendship with
Ethan as this place of credibility to
try and convince his argument that this
is a claim that is really got some merit
to it, some real oomph, then I would
completely agree that wouldn't be free
speech and that wouldn't be protected in
the US either, by the way. So, in that
case, I would get that if he was going
around knowingly spreading this
fraudulent, disgusting uh allegation and
promoting it as though it were true,
then yeah, that would be a defamation
case that I would understand. But that's
just not the truth of what happened in
that stream. I am still just not a fan
of extremely latigious uh avenues for
handling the online space. I don't think
there's ever any winners in it at all,
except for, of course, the [ __ ]
lawyers that are salivating. And yes, I
do believe this sets a bad example that
can open a big can of worms in the
online space. Not just with commentary
YouTubers, by the way, just in general.
People were upset about stifling voices,
but didn't bother to hear the entire
take. The reason why I think something
like this could stifle voices is because
if this does become commonplace where
people learn from this example that
going through litigation to handle
issues is the proper channel, people
will be less willing to cover
controversial stories. Like for example,
when you make a video calling out like a
potential scam, you are taking a very
real risk. And in the case of this,
who's to say that company that may or
may not be scamming sees that and just
immediately goes this path, shutting it
down. You are showing this customer's
perspective and it's hurting our brand.
It's defamatory. We are coming after you
with litigation. It would be, I believe,
an issue that could be wide reaching.
and other YouTubers that are, you know,
in a beef with each other, maybe they do
the same thing, like, uh, you said this
about me or you posted a screenshot of a
tweet that was slanderous about me, so
now I'm coming after you legally and
then it just becomes a big problem.
Like, take for like I'll I'll use a
commentary uh example because I think
that's the one people are very focused
on. You remember the whole Mr. Beast and
Dog Pack thing? Well, that was perhaps
the biggest payday for tons of
commentary channels that latched onto
that bosom hard. Tons and tons and tons
of videos were being turned out daily
covering that situation there. And fast
forward a length of time, turns out a
lot of the allegations were either
misleading or just outright false and
incorrect. So, should Mr. Beast then
turn around and issue a lawsuit to every
commentary channel that was covering
that saga and siding with Dogpack and
promoting the Dog Pack allegations as
truth and putting them forward as
legitimate and real. I don't think so. I
don't think that would be a good thing.
But he realistically probably does have
a pretty strongish case he could build
for defamation lawsuits against a lot of
channels that were actively preaching
dog packs allegations as gospel. uh
titles and thumbnails talking about how
he's a fraud and a scammer based on the
dog pack allegations, many of which
turned out to be incorrect, but they
were still promoting them as the truth.
So, should Mr. Beast issue defamation
lawsuits to all those commentary
channels? And should this end in a
victory here and have a favorable ruling
in the books for this defamation case,
well, then Mr. Beast could point to look
at that. He won here already. We can we
can use that.
Not saying that would happen, but maybe
it could. It's again probably just not
best to just have that ammunition as a
possibility. Now, at the end of the day,
that's just one Crow Magnum's
perspective on it. And it is completely
fine to disagree with it, even healthy.
You know what's not healthy is this
trend where people don't even watch the
video and only engage through select
Twitter clips in order to get outraged
at and form their whole opinion around
the video they didn't watch from. Now, I
don't want to just dive into some
unhinged takes, but this one actually
tilted me. And for some reason, I saw
this quite a bit. He spoke with Ethan
Klein, but not Idubbbz. Pathetic. Like
Maximleian Pegasus here. Pathetic. Yugi,
if only they watched the video because I
didn't just speak to Ethan Klein. I also
spoke with Idubbbz and it's right there
in the very beginning of the video.
Like, it's early in the video. Now, I
did also have a brief conversation with
Idubbbz about this as well, letting it I
mean, what can you do? I did say I
talked with both of them about it, and
yet people are still saying I only heard
one side of the story.
I mean, really, what can you do? Like,
actually, what can you do? It's just
it's incorrect, but you're making a
whole argument around this dream you had
that didn't actually happen because you
didn't watch the video. You just already
had a preconceived image of me that you
want to ensure stays intact so that way
you can continue to not like me. And
that's fine. You can not like me. You
don't. Not everyone likes the fun-sized
Florida man over here. That's completely
fine. Absolutely.
But can you at least be right about
something that you're not liking me for?
Just watch the video first. I just
realized I have been yapping for almost
30 minutes and I already know without
even a semblance, not even an iota of
doubt that almost nobody is watching to
this point. They've already formed their
opinion even before clicking the video
or within the first couple of minutes to
start fighting on different points.
There's there's no reason to keep going
down there. Like it does feel useless to
even like engage with a lot of online
discourse. It it does just feel useless
because it doesn't even matter what the
take is. People don't even really care
about the take per se. It's just they
already have an opinion of you and no
matter what it's not changing. Sometimes
they don't even bother to watch the
video to try and [ __ ] on you for
something that they think you might have
said in the video or they saw like a
tweet that references the video and
that's good enough for them to [ __ ] on
you for that even if it's entirely
wrong. So like it it does it it is not
not very productive. Anyway though, just
just wanted to yap. It's about it.