While Nick wasn't threatening to murder Lucas, saying "he needs to go against the wall" is 100% referring to execution via a firing squad, and anyone saying different is disingenuous.
This got very interesting to me in his discussion with the Highlander guy. On one hand, I entirely agree: he'd long said "MAPs go on the wall, that's where they belong" and a hundred variations of that, and everyone gets the very simple double entendre.
Sticking with his "I wasn't saying that, you're saying that" argument against Duncan: he's doing his lawspeak flawlessly. We can start to say "he's disingenuous", which seems obvious, but then consider: what
exactly are we claiming he's saying when we say that? Are we claiming he's advocating for someone murdering them? No. So what are we claiming? Are we claiming he's trying to be edgy with regards to pedos etc? Yeah. What we're really doing when we say "he's being disingenuous" is that he's using his brand of edgy humor.
But carrying that on, legally speaking, no one can ever claim he's advocating violence. "On the wall" was
never a variation of "against the wall = execution". It just brings that immediately to mind. If he sticks with "I'm not saying that,
you're saying that", he's simply always correct.
Of course when it comes to these companies and their stupid protections while censoring speech, the legal argument means nothing other than that Nick was refusing to cede any ground whatsoever to the troonsquad. It means jack fucking shit to the staff of YT who would love to destroy him for wrongthink.
Ofc this really will just be edging another group of people further away from giving YT money.
I don't think his YT channel is coming back, because they don't care who's right, they're just certain Rekieta is evil that must be defeated. It's how this always works.
edit: he used the phrase last night "borrowed time", "I knew it was always on borrowed time". yup.